White and Ciardi thus suggest that all criticism is atomistic, that holistic or gestalt criticism is impossible. True, criticism usually begins with taxonomy and with developing a vocabulary that identifies features. And, true, most individual acts of criticism privilege one aspect or another of a work of art. But each critique is part of a larger conversation, one in which the individual contributions add up to a richer understanding and appreciation of the art under examination. Criticism in a community of critics yields an informed, rather than a naive, and thus much fuller response to art. That said, I acknowledge that critics often compete to have the last word, not seeing themselves as contributing to conversation so much as forclosing it. It's the difference between Calvin's _Institutes_ and Midrash in Biblical exegesis. It's the difference between joining a "camp" of critics who listen only to one another and a fully plural approach to criticism. Thus, the injection of Ciardi and White into the conversation seems stunningly pertinent to the other exchange about e-mail manners. . . Gregg