Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 5 Dec 1992 09:54:03 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Gus,
You're right. After reading the postings by J.D. Stahl and Daven (sorry,
there was no last name posted), I now realize that *Huck Finn* cannot
be defended on purely artistic grounds from this kind of attack. Please
consider me duly chastised.
To the two aforementioned individuals: I had considered composing a
carefully reasoned response to your positions, but I don't have the
energy at the moment; maybe later. All I am going to say is that I
disagree utterly with everything both of you said about the novel, and
that the implicit ideology in both postings is antithetical to everything
I stand for as an artist; moreover, the characterization of Jim is
really an outrageaous distortion (as was that of Bill Cosby).
Of course, as I said in my first posting, I'm just a mere lover of Twain,
and not a professional in the field, so what do I know?
Leslie Kinton
Royal Conservatory of Music,
Toronto, Ontario.
P.S. The reason I am responding at all, incidentally, is because J.D.
Stahl's posting was partly a response to my initial posting. I am not
arrogant enough to think my opinion is really of any consequence; i.e.,
I don't have an urge to hold forth on a subject in which I am an amateur.
|
|
|