message 51:
by
Rebecca
(new)
Feb 25, 2015 08:40AM

reply
|
flag





He believed Winsberg ohio,by Sherwood Anderson is a very bad story and T.S.Elliot is a bad poet.He said Wasteland is meaningless and Wrote a famous poem called WASTEPAPERS in which he mocked Elliot for wasteland
Rebecca and Rob, I am actually in a tough spot and am in a great state of doubt

You missed my point entirely. Once we start 'selecting' the types of books we read based on an author's perceived views / lifestyle / beliefs -- that is high-minded, because by what criteria does that make you the moral / aesthetic high majority?

Please do. The road to evil is paved with good intentions, as many a sage has pointed out. We cannot exclude books based on an author's lifestyle or perceived views. The work has to be separate.

Subtle?


I am thinking more and more about this everyday

He really is.A great one of course.

Sadly, it does happen: from The Satanic Verses to The Girls of Riyadh. Check out www.bannedbooks.org and www.ala.org.
The below is quite interesting:
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/02/25/...


And for ferrets.


Rob have you seen it?
He is really pissed
http://stjoshi.org/news.html

Does make sense; sometimes difficult to modulate tone online. Book I'm reading now the guy has a pet turtle called Deckard (after Harrison Ford's character in Blade Runner) to which he feeds live earthworms. Yech.

Rob have you seen it?
He is really pissed
http://stjoshi.org/news.html"
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot with a bazooka:
Well, as a matter of fact, my own judgment (derived from reading a fair amount of the great literature in English, Latin, Greek, French, German, and other languages) is that this is not merely good prose; it is superb prose. I am getting to the point of thinking that anyone who doesn’t think Lovecraft a fine prose writer is simply an ignoramus — someone who simply doesn’t know anything about prose. It is as if you’ve put a dunce cap on your head and said to the world, “I don’t know the first thing about good writing.”

This is what I meant about bashing.

LOL....

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/11/its_o...
"Perhaps the most egregious response to the WFA petition has come from the prominent scholar and Lovecraft biographer S.T. Joshi, who posted several responses to Older’s campaign on his blog. A remarkable combination of the pompous and the grotesquely arch, these salvos have the unconvincing hauteur of someone who wishes to appear wittily above the fray when in fact he is angry and not about to drop it any time soon. (“I suppose the poor fellow is unaccustomed to intellectual debate. It is true that my response may have been the equivalent of swatting a fly with a sledgehammer — but it was the principle of the thing, you see,” etc.)"


Rob have you seen it?
He is really pissed
http://stjoshi.org/news.html"
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot with a bazooka:
Well, as a matter of ..."
what do you mean,man?



Are you an atheist??






True. The Big Man has – as they say – a dog in this fight. “Dunbar must think he’s a better writer than Lovecraft.” Seriously? He needs to take the discussion down to that level right away? And to heap on the personal abuse so pompously? Such bombast seems intended to silence dissenting voices, and it’s likely it has accomplished this goal for many decades. But does his tone of frustrated malice suggest that it might not be working quite so well these days?
I find this encouraging.

I have not been monitoring these comments (as I think I made my points in the actual blog), but I would like to suggest we speak to each other a bit more courteously. "Wilum" is the respected author W.H. Pugmire, author of THE FUNGAL STAIN, whose work is often described as Lovecraftian. By criticizing HPL, I expect I seemed to be attacking his religion. Sorry to have given offense. Please visit the site below for information about his work.
http://sesqua.net/


Choosing not to limit one's reading to just those you agree with is not the same as choosing not to read those you disagree with. As you say, life is short and there is plenty of reading material out there that doesn't fall into either category.

You are more of a gentleman than I am, Robert. Anyone who makes a blanket statement such as "anyone who doesn’t think Lovecraft a fine prose writer is simply an ignoramus" and then proceeds to present all sorts of logical fallacies in his very personal attack on you will get no love from me.
To be honest, I wouldn't make a very good judge of HPL's writing skill as each time I have started to read the example presented by both you and Mr. Joshi my eyes tended to roll up in my head and I ended up jumping to the next paragraph. Personally, I am of the opinion that any 20th century author who uses the word whilst is probably too enamored with the sight of his own words than is good for him. In his defense, while I have always struggled to stay engaged while reading his prose, I am fascinated with the fantastical worlds that he created. I honestly think that if it wasn't for his imagination, he would have long ago sunken into the chasm along with his unholy creation and even unholier opinions.


That's a pretty sweeping, and damning, statement.
The sort of thing that Mr. Joshi himself would spout.
Whatever his faults, as a man and a prose stylist, Lovecraft was very much the product of a social context, both cultural and political.
Please note I am not condoning the man's racist views, or his writing, which is probably as execrable as that of Hugo Gernsback, the 'founder' of SF, but simply pointing out that hindsight, after all, is a luxury.
And Lovecraft does have literary significance, despite modern reassessment of that status. (Which is a totally separate issue from his technical competence).
How will we be judged by future generations, I wonder?

No. But I am happy to confer that Mr Joshi is indeed an idiot, in the considered opinion of this ignoramus.