[ewrgall]

Originally posted by Tom:
OH, let them bang their heads around. Every once in awhile something comes out of it.
"Now that is both ridiculous and insulting. Helen Vendler's book is nothing but incoherent nonsense. It is just so much brainless graffiti." Ha, ha! I read her book on Heaney and had no idea what it meant.

And I can also state that her book about George Herbert's poetry is equally brainless. This woman holds an endowed chair at Harvard---the academic community in this country is really sick.

[Alder Ellis]

Nigel >>I do not say Ewrgall is right, but he has the right to make points which I believe may have some merit - especially as it seems none of the posters who have replied negatively seem to possess the same dictionary as he does. This dismissal of those who are not professional academics is tasteless and ill-informed. <<

No quarrel from me. We agree in principle. I guess the devil is in the application of principles.

I say Ewrgall is wrong, though not denying him the right to be wrong. Of course, I could be wrong. But I have the right to be wrong too. So let's feast on our rights, and feed our wrongs to the dogs.

Seriously, I really do think Ewrgall is dead wrong but I respect his passion for the subject and I like his posts, otherwise I wouldn't have responded. I have no wish to dismiss him or deny him the opportunity to express his ideas.

As for that dictionary, "Cotgrave's early French English" dictionary, I'm sure I have a copy around here somewhere, but the place is such a mess....

[Clive Watkins]

I want - very strongly - to support Robert Mezey’s comment that this is "is no way to conduct an intellectual discussion or dispute." There is indeed is a "difference between being passionate and being nasty".

Earlier this year, as an eager newcomer to Eratosphere (though not a newcomer to scholarly debate), I innocently reawakened an earlier thread of this type. I think I see the same unpleasant pattern of provocation and response emerging again.

Over Shakespeare’s sonnets and some other matters, ewrgall clearly wants to confront what he sees as received literary opinion, not in itself and unworthy aim, of course. In my previous contribution to this current thread, I asked what the purpose of this board was and wondered whether such a posting really belonged here. With the directness allowed a senior moderatrix, Alicia has since suggested that "This is the stuff of academic journals, and not…the informal conversation of a community of poets." I entirely agree. Perhaps ewrgall should submit the material he has apparently accumulated on these matters to a suitable scholarly journal. His own scholarship could then be subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of those who have made a careful study of the kinds of issues he wants to raise. In short, if ewrgall wants to challenge "the academic community" in the USA, which he regards as "sick", that is where he should take his fight.

Of course, his assertion that "Helen Vendler's book [on the sonnets] is nothing but incoherent nonsense...just so much brainless graffiti" is itself nonsense, wild sloganeering, the substitution of insult for argument.

Clive Watkins

[A. E. Stallings]

I think everyone has had their say on this matter, or has had sufficient chance to, anyway. I am taking the liberty of closing what has turned out to be a divisive thread, so no more hurt feelings or dudgeon can be gleaned from it. It looks like you all may want to continue a discussion of Helen Vendler's merits, or lack thereof, but that should take place at "The Discerning Eye."

Thanks.