I'm intrigued by Barbara's observation here, and Michael Kiskis's remarks a
while back -- and now I'm wondering what these two rather comparable
reviews, both in top notch NYC publications, tell us about this as a
publishing and/or cultural phenomenon.

In other words, what is the "kernel of truth" that both these writers is
picking up on here?  is it completely about their sense of being
hornswaggled?  or is this symptomatic of something even bigger-- and if so,
anyone care to take a stab at identifying the real issues at stake, the
prognosis as it were?

for example:  one might read this as symptomatic of a widespread resentment
-- if not paranoia -- against institutionalized, "academic" type treatments
of the great authors.  Or:  as the incommensurability of these two disparate
worlds:  i.e. that the hornswaggle is not by MT per se, but rather is a hoax
perpetrated by the likes of eggheads like the ones populating this LIST.
(me included, I suppose).

Any other thoughts?

just wondering, --hb




On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Barbara Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> The two reviewers
> call the book a "Royal Nonesuch" because they are not able to
> comprehend the larger picture and they think they have been
> hornswaggled by publicity.
>


-- 
Harold K. Bush, Ph.D
Professor of English
Saint Louis University
St. Louis, MO  63108
314-977-3616 (w); 314-771-6795 (h)
<www.slu.edu/x23809.xml>