Subject
Re: Thank you, Brian Boyd (fwd)
From
Date
Body
From: TENTENDER <TENTENDER@aol.com>
Did I miss the take-that-P.-Kartsev note? I certainly would like to see it.
(And if it was in response to the recent P.K. flame, it somehow did not hit my
mailbox.) [**Just to clarify things: Christopher Berg was referring, as
far as I know, to Brian Boyd's posting two days ago which, I suspect,
everyone received. GD**]
On the other hand, I do find less than on-the-level and unnecessary all of
the personal attacks which seem to proliferate in the midst of our more
controversial exchanges. After all, we are dealing with IDEAS and not
personalities (but perhaps this is a common failing among academicians -- of
which I am not one). And perhaps I should simply have said that Joseph
Sobran's particular work on the de Vere question is a rather sophomoric and
mediocre effort.
Thinking back on the last group of Shakespeare postings, it strikes me that
the issue of "class" in this discussion is quite hilarious, as funny as the
Freudian approach. In a recent meeting of psychoanalysts, convened to discuss
MASTER CLASS, a play about Maria Callas, these learned gentlemen not only
tried to "explain" her genius by referring to her "unhappy childhood", but
actually made no distinction between the fictional "Maria" of the play and the
human being known for a time as Maria Callas! Perhaps it should be
acknowledged that any author (not just Nabokov, who is not only conscious of
it, but shares this consciousness with the reader) is a construct who should
not be equated with the entire human being through whom the authorship is
channeled (in New Age or other senses).
Did I miss the take-that-P.-Kartsev note? I certainly would like to see it.
(And if it was in response to the recent P.K. flame, it somehow did not hit my
mailbox.) [**Just to clarify things: Christopher Berg was referring, as
far as I know, to Brian Boyd's posting two days ago which, I suspect,
everyone received. GD**]
On the other hand, I do find less than on-the-level and unnecessary all of
the personal attacks which seem to proliferate in the midst of our more
controversial exchanges. After all, we are dealing with IDEAS and not
personalities (but perhaps this is a common failing among academicians -- of
which I am not one). And perhaps I should simply have said that Joseph
Sobran's particular work on the de Vere question is a rather sophomoric and
mediocre effort.
Thinking back on the last group of Shakespeare postings, it strikes me that
the issue of "class" in this discussion is quite hilarious, as funny as the
Freudian approach. In a recent meeting of psychoanalysts, convened to discuss
MASTER CLASS, a play about Maria Callas, these learned gentlemen not only
tried to "explain" her genius by referring to her "unhappy childhood", but
actually made no distinction between the fictional "Maria" of the play and the
human being known for a time as Maria Callas! Perhaps it should be
acknowledged that any author (not just Nabokov, who is not only conscious of
it, but shares this consciousness with the reader) is a construct who should
not be equated with the entire human being through whom the authorship is
channeled (in New Age or other senses).