London Review of Books

I'd definitely be interested if nobody else is but I would be obliged to send you a couple of books in return.

That's awfully kind, but I'm in Australia and it might bankrupt you!

Rats! Well if you'd like a book token or something. I was just about to take out a subscription so I'd be very happy to compensate you.

my friend gave me his gift subscrip for the second year in a row so i'm good. pretty great read

I let my subscription lapse about a year ago but I'd be up for another six months of it. Let me know and I'll send my address.

Cool. ShariVari and xyzzzz, if you want to send your names and postal addresses to me at my email (click my name below) I'll put you in for the subs.

James - email sent, let me know if you haven't got it and I'll try again.

Just got it--cheers!

I've also sent my details. Thank you so much.

No worries--I'll put in my sub today with both your details.

Subscribed a year back since it seemed a great magazine and I wanted to try to engage a bit with international literary criticism instead of only reading Danish literary reviews. Unsubscribing now since I can't make through these articles - not totally unlike when I first stumbled upon ilx, I find it very difficult to understand the position of the "sender". I recognize names of famous writers/philosophers/journalists, some of them I know well enough to get where they're coming from, but most of the writers I don't know, and I feel there's a lot of irony and implicit assumptions that are lost on me.

Maybe if I kept reading, I'd become a genius on every subject imaginable, maybe I'd have to be a genius to read it in the first place.

The subscription was very cheap, could easily afford another year, but it's hard on my literary conscience when unread magazines stack up, and when I skim a ten page article on Isis.

Uhm, so, any experience, advice?

I think you'd eventually get their position after a few years..its not about becoming an expert.

I let that subscription I gained from James lapse. I was fine with it and read almost all of the issues however I just want to read more novels + poetry. The free stuff they have on their site tends to cover a big piece on Syria/ISIS/Eurozone/ and further on or further in (LOL Labour leadership). Plus I find v little in the LRB's take on fiction as I have different tastes (although Jenny Dinski's stuff on Lessing is p/good).

I'll ocasionally buy it. Amd Funnily enough I have bought the last two issues to specifically read one piece each, altogether 20K+ words, on Dmitri Furman. LOL me.

my friend gave me free subscrips for a few years but i let it lapse as well

i know what you mean niels, i sometimes felt like it was pitched at an unreasonably high level of familiarity with the subject matter

read some great stuff in the lrb though. keeping abreast of new books was great for my reading list, too

I'm a lifer w/ it, I'd say. I usually run about 2-3 issues behind and catch up in bursts.

ime there's a 'I definitely should read this important-looking article' thing to overcome - I stall on issues when I fall into that. Skim and skip when you want - you can usually decide whether you're in or out after 2-3 columns of an article, and when you get to know its patterns and regulars it gets easier.

Cool, maybe I'll have at it again at some point - or I'll pick it up in airports when travelling, a lot of disposable quality reading material for the price.

I'd never read it till last christmas when I got a subscription, was immediately smitten with the naked political bias, the petty infighting of the letters page, and the 'reviews' where the reviewer spends the majority of the time demonstrating their superiority in the subject, barely mentioning the book in question. I'm a born dilettante so will happily read scholarly pieces on subjects I could never sustain interest in for a whole book. I don't kid myself that I'm learning anything, it's purely a transitory pleasure. Diski's stuff - on her cancer as well as on Lessing - is worth the entry price alone imo.

haha, that's a p great take, maybe I should revel more in the fun of it instead of being offended at not "getting it".

Just got round to Diski's last piece (vol 37/ no.24), she's finally revealed with a dramatic flourish the end game of her grand scheme - singlehandedly demolishing Doris Lessing's entire reputation.

Is that why non-subscribers can't read that installment? ;-)

(can you paste it somewhere?)

For a limited time only:
http://pastebin.com/EWaNJ3bL

tx!

xd

I had, and I think she had, a sense that she knew it all. She had been pals with R.D. Laing and lived some crazed years with Clancy Sigal. She had read a bunch of Pelican books on the sociology and psychology of behaviour. We all did then, they sat on bookshop shelves like a university course: Laing, David Stafford-Clark, Erving Goffman, Vance Packard, Michael Argyle, C.J. Adcock, Viktor Frankl. And more and more. They were all over the house, on tables, on the floor. She bought them, I bought them, Peter and his friends bought them. Somehow they were cheap enough for the smallest allowance. All these were read and taken in. How could you not cope with a difficult adolescent with all that under your belt?

A++

This was so good - and makes me want to read more Lessing next year. I must be attracted to people with shitty reputations.

I've only read The Grass is Singing, about which I have little to say, and Shikasta, which I found unpleasant and gave me a picture of its author (personal interpretation obv) which has correlated remarkably strongly with the one built up slowly and carefully by Diski.

i don't know much about lessing and haven't read any of her stuff, but i love when LRB gets scurrilous. one of the best and strangest stories i ever read was Andrew O'Hagan on abandoning a job ghostwriting an autobiography of Julian Assange

Weirdly that article is being made into a movie

siiick

Diski:

Sufism lasted, as far as I can tell, for the rest of Doris’s conscious life. In later years she never spoke to me about ‘the work’, as it was called. I wasn’t sure whether this was from disappointment about the teaching or from her understanding that I was a failure and therefore to be kept in the dark. She told me when Shah died of heart failure in 1996, but only for my information. No questions allowed. No weeping, no distress. After all, we were all here on borrowed time, waiting for the penny to drop. Shah set up groups and organisations and Roger, our small daughter and I often spent a Saturday or Sunday first in his house in a leafy village not too far from London and then at Langton House near Tunbridge Wells, another suburb of perfect respectability. The house was, I suppose, formerly the old landowner’s house, large and walled, with outbuildings and a huge garden. Things were various. People in groups went at weekends to manicure the gardens and on Saturday night to have a group meal and listen to Shah’s table talk, which was, if you listened properly, Doris said, his real teaching. There were public lectures, generally on historical or philosophical topics. The lecturers were academics or highly regarded journalists and writers, who, as far as I know, had nothing to do with the Sufis, or even knew that they were speaking under their aegis, but were paid to lecture by the Institute for Cultural Research, set up by Shah.

Thomas M. Disch reviewing a book by Peter Washington:

Shah managed to connect with one of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky's most devoted disciples, Captain J. G. Bennett. Now an old man and a spiritual orphan, Bennett was persuaded in the 1960s to turn over a valuable English estate at Coombe Springs, which had served for many years as a Gurdjieff-style Prieure. When the other trustees of the estate balked, Shah was adamant: there must be an outright gift or nothing at all. Bennett tried to negotiate, but the more conciliatory his behavior, the more outrageous Shah's demands became. The new teacher wanted to know how Bennett could have the nerve to negotiate with the Absolute. Once the Absolute had got his way, "Shah's first act was to eject Bennett and the old pupils from their own house, banning them from the place except by his specific permission. His second act was to sell the property to developers for £100,000 in the following year, buying a manor house at Langton Green near Tunbridge Wells in Kent with the proceeds."

Real estate -- secret key to the Universe

27 June. Shortly after the East Coast franchise has been sold off to a tie-up between Virgin and Stagecoach I am sitting at Leeds station when a notice is flashed up on the Sky screen: 'Hello Leeds. Meet Virgin trains. We've just arrived and we can't wait to get to know you.'

And take you for every penny we can.

You couldn't make it up.

It strikes me these days how much the LRB carries about the classical world. Can feel like 1-2 articles about Ancient Rome per issue.

I don't read Diski but did you notice that the short cuts piece on the Piers Gaveston Society was taken down from the website? Possibly for legal reasons. (I hated the article.)

Still there for me:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n19/nick-richardson/short-cuts

Basically written by hedonismbot, demystifying to the point of mundanity.

I'm ambivalent about Lessing but I can recommend the Golden Notebook. I also liked her short essayistic collection Prisons We Choose to Live Inside.

I don't know how many people remember, but Lessing went to Afghanistan in the 80s and wrote a book celebrating he Mujahideen. I remember seeing it on remainder tables (late 80s or early 90s) and I wish I had bought a copy. I would like to read that some day. I'd be surprised if she didn't have some contact with the CIA.

I think I was reading LRB a lot about ten years back. I appreciated their coverage of Israel's aggression against Lebanon in 2006. I do feel a bit lost at times, in LRB. It all seems terribly British, though I guess I find the flavor a little more palatable than TLS. (I like that end of the year issue of TLS though, where lots of writers talk about what they have been reading in the past year.) I still glance at it from time to time and I think I like its reviews of philosophy, history and social science works best. Often it's choice of what literature to cover bores me, but then I hardly do any literary reading, so my opinion is pretty useless on that.

(Since I haven't read her Mujahideen book I probably shouldn't be saying it was a celebration of them, but that's the impression I remember getting from glancing at it.)

i can recommend the golden notebook (incidentally my wife was less complementary, enigmatically remarking while reading it that "you might as well be reading something written by a man", whatever she meant by that) but the overall oeuvre of lessing im not so sure about. some clunkers for sure. there's a book of hers called the fifth child which is basically "we need to talk about kevin" ten years earlier and without the massacre dénouement. it's just as poor as the shriver book.

we started to read it in high school - it was part of the syllabus - but the book was so universally disliked, including by the teacher that we changed to a different book. I had already finished it by that stage, unfortunately.

Every female friend I've ever mentioned Lessing to has either had no opinion or a negative opinion. On the other hand, my mother was a Lessing enthusiast though, at least up to the science fiction phase, though I think at that point she still respected her for doing what she wanted with her work.

I had a professor in college who said that Lessing could not "write an English sentence" (if I remember the phrase correctly).

Another thing about LRB: a lot of times the article titles are as obscure to me as a goon crew or lex thread title on ILM.

"What Lord Essington Didn't Find in the Forest"

And I am left wondering if I should be interested in this or not.

When I worked in a bookshop Lessing was highly thought of by a lot of women who would have thought of themselves as 2nd-gen feminists. Not that they bought anything new by her, but they looked back fondly on her heyday.

I've liked a few of her books, and some of her stories, but she's very hit and miss for me.

(I like that end of the year issue of TLS though, where lots of writers talk about what they have been reading in the past year.)

I like that as well. TLS' coverage of translated literature is far, far better than the LRB.

As for Lessing The Golden Notebook is all-time and that piece of Diski's points to The Children of Violence series so that's where I'll go next.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016/04/28/the-editors/jenny-diski/

Diski died this morning, sadly. Ominously, no pieces by her had appeared recently.

Nifty thing of 100 de-paywalled 'diary' articles from various places/events around the world: http://www.lrb.co.uk/archive/100-diaries

definitely one of those times when i regret not having a subscription to the lrb: vaneigem on bosch

word can someone pastebin that

http://pastebin.com/FBWLnhUu

may the almighty lord's blessing rain on you vigorously

^seconded :-D

thirded!

I'm looking for a magazine focusing on new fiction (preferably global, genre-inclusive) for inspiration - great as LRB and NYRB are, I'm more interested in reviews and interviews than in-depth analysis. Any recommendations?

Regarding this issue, we never discussed 'Adam Phillips on Misogyny'.

Probably a good thing. I finally attempted it again yesterday and gave up. It didn't really seem to be talking about anything I could recognize as misogyny.

Well it's a review of a book about misogyny understood as a structural/political phenomenon - or so I understand from the review, which admittedly does go on in typical LRB fashion for six paragraphs about his own experiences as a psychotherapist before informing us the book is "usefully and tellingly sceptical of all such ‘psychological’ explanations".

yes i saw a *lot* of eyerolling on twitter when ppl there saw who was writing the misogyny review

Some writers bring a personal energy that is a relief from the house style: Ian Penman, Terry Castle off the top of my head, neither appears very often (altho TC used to). Lockwood maybe too much so.

Ledge: yes, precisely, the review seemed to spend most of the time at cross purposes to the book. I gave up. It didn't make me feel positive about Freudian thought.

A fairly distinctive and also entertaining writer who used to be in the LRB a lot, now isn't: Ian Sansom.

The current LRB, in terms of number of named contributors, appears to be 50/50 male / female. I wonder if this is the first time that has happened.

To add a little to the Ammons and Sextus discussion: in both cases — I think this is also more or less what PF is saying — I think the issue is that the topic at issue is potentially interesting, but that neither reviewer really makes the case well. But in both cases, I don’t quite agree with pf’s diagnosis.

I had heard off Ammons, and even read a little — though I’d forgotten this. I’m no kind of an expert in recent US poetry — but I have read several of Harold Bloom’s tracts on poetry as whole, in particular his wild-style psychokabbalistic trilogy, The Anxiety of Influence, A Map of Misreading, and Agon. Ammons features in all three, as the most recent in the specific line of strong poets that Bloom is establishing, a figure (he proposes in the early 70s) who will still being read, and still be inspiring and troubling poets in 20 or 40 or 100 years, casting the kind of spell that these future poets will be fighting their way out of, their first the poetry they are then making. A fragment from ‘The City Limits’ (“the guiltiest / swervings of the weaving heart”) form the epigraph to Anxiety of Influence, in fact, which is surely an indication what high regard Bloom holds him in.

And Matthew Bevis mentions this regard — and remarks on how astonishing Bloom’s essays on him are — but then says nothing more about them. And he starts his review (fatally, really, in terms of contentful critique) with a justification that amounts to “Ammons is important because important people say he’s important”, before veering off into a readable but (in terms of justification) irrelevant column of backstory. Biography may well illuminate the poems, but it isn’t what makes them any good.

Then Bevis quotes Helen Vendler, saying Ammons is “the first American poet to whom the discourse of the basic sciences was entirely natural” — which seems a promising enough line of potential justification, except it’s instantly abandoned and never returned to. And by column three we’re off into a welter of ways to associate the poetry with uncertainty, indifference, reserve, a mannerist will to a seeming ordinariness. And we speed past Bloom’s claims to arrive at the long reaches of makeweight stuff that apparently fill this Complete Poems. Which I guess as a reviewer he does have to tackle, except he (a) wants to place them at the centre and (b) doesn’t then seem to want to counterpose them with or work them into Bloom’s arguments about strong poets and strong poetry (or Vendler’s about science). To me, better editing would dig right into this apparent clash, because I think it’s the core of this review — Ammons’ own swerve away from the strong poetry of Bloom’s strong claims for Ammons as strong poet. As it is, all this is just skated over.

So when PF says aimlessness, I don’t quite agree: indeed the quoted line he used to exemplify this specifically contains an aim: writing just to be writing is an aim. Just not one that readers will necessarily have any patience with, if the work produced isn’t good (which Bevis seems to think — at this point — it isn’t). And yet when he gets down the the work of close-reading actual poems (three limpidly close observations of nature on the move: two about snails, a longer one about eagles and — I guess, given its title, ‘Easter Morning’ and final lines — Christian faith), the review does finally clarify into something that isn’t one writer’s pathless evasion passing under and around another’s ditto. It takes way too long to get there: the snail stuff should open the piece, with the tunnelling into Bloom right and wrong next.

__________

The Sextus review too suffers a bit from inadequate editing — though more from the writer’s style. Which I think is a problem even when he isn’t writing about sex: I was already sighing in para 2, when he says “where both the literal and cultural wonga was”. A couple of columns on he totally bludges the jokey reference and transition pun to asterisks, obelisks, Asterix and Dogmatix (which depends on the notion that no book is more full of asterisks or obelisks than Asterix the Gaul… which isn’t even true of comic books when he’s referring to grawlices and the like). And he gets Housman wrong also, I think, for the sake of a formalist gag about his sexuality: “so aware of the follies of mankind that he didn’t much like men either”…

I mean there’s something genuinely interesting to me about a classical poet so veiled in poorly transmitted versions of actual real and deliberate masked games-play that a genuinely high-end and world-class classical scholar like Housman chooses to lollop over out of his comfort zone towards straight-up Botticellian invention, to fill in some lost lines (if that’s what Burrows is actually claiming, which isn’t altogether clear). This is where this piece should start — except if it did, I think the glibness count would be way worse.

Anyway, what I’d like to see more of in this essay is the connections between contested translations of corrupted manuscripts, projection from the present into ambiguous classical texts, and transformative moments in poetry and culture (Petrarch and Renaissance humanism; Pound and literary modernism). And also (in re these same issues) the question of poets who change with the political wind, as Propertius and Pound both did. The pun we want centred is “corruption”, not asterisk — and the ways corruptions at either end pull towards one another, for ill or good.

lol speaking of editing: "I think the issue is that the topic at issue"

oh ffs: "their first the poetry they are then making" = "their fight the poetry they are then making" sorry i am tired from book launching and etc

I like Mark S's post. It's generous of him to refer to me and not to be too unfavourable, in such a substantial contribution of his own.

One obvious feature of his post is that it comes across as an editor's comments, writing about what contributors should do. I don't really know whether Mark S's past work as an editor has involved this kind of work with people's writing, but his post gives the impression that it has.

Some time, maybe the next ILB FAP, I would like to hear about the Cambridge HIDDEN LANDSCAPE tour.

I had indeed forgotten how much the Ammons review talks about Harold Bloom. I found this very odd. I didn't know the details of Bloom's treatment of Ammons as Mark did.

I'd also forgotten about Vendler's comment, but actually it was one that annoyed me in the review. It doesn't feel true enough to be worth saying as such a big declaration, as lots of US poets had surely been interested in science in its different forms. William Carlos Williams would seem the most obvious as he was a kind of scientist in his practical way. Eliot uses scientific language in his most famous works (a patient etherized, a catalyst ...). Pound liked to invoke science too, and I have a feeling (from a 2nd-hand recollection) that Marianne Moore was quite big on science. I suspect you could go back through the 19th century and find earlier versions. My listing these obvious names isn't impressive, others could list other names, but I think it hints that Vendler may have been misleading. And I don't recall most of the Ammons quoted in the review being very scientific anyway!

one thing i can say about my booktour to cambridge (and nowhere else yet) is that i realised it was the first time i had set foot in the town for FORTY YEARS*

*or possibly 39 but 40 sounds better and i actually genuinely can't remember or calculate

It's slightly odd that Mark S says he doesn't agree with me about Burrow on Propertius, as he seems to have very much the same kind of problem with it as me: the reviewer, who must be a middle-aged Oxford don, comes across like a guffawing public schoolboy. The lines Mark quotes show this painfully. I didn't like or trust this, but I do feel that such a problem becomes even worse when the same writer addresses sex - which happens to be a major topic of this review.

Though, again, the basic history of missing and fragmented texts, unreliable translations, etc, remains a substantial one, and Burrow knows enough about it to show us something despite his misjudgments as a writer.

I had forgotten that Cambridge was a return for you.

re burrow: you said "joshing sexual innuendo", but i think the problem is larger than that and doesn't in fact just apply to sex -- so it's only a minor disagreement, of precision of focus really

re vendler: she says discourse rather than language, which i assume is a difference with a significance, and of course she's a world-class authority on poetry so i imagine she isn't just making a silly blunder about priority here, but has a genuine point in mind, right or wrong -- however as bevis fails to expand or her explain argument, and no subsequent quotes seem to exemplify it, who knows? this is indeed something a good editor should be saying: "explain this better or leave it out"

here's a long piece by vendler on ammons: https://harpers.org/archive/2017/08/american-expansion/

it's where the vendler line is from ("Nonetheless, he was the first American poet for whom the discourse of the basic sciences was entirely natural", on p.3) and it beds the point in much better with examples. it's just much better generally, really -- and looks to me (on a v quick read) like the source of a bit too much of the (non-critical) shaping of this LRB piece :( :(

New email advert:

Spring is here, but the LRB, like cypress, pine, fir, cedar, spruce, hemlock, juniper, eucalyptus and magnolia trees, is evergreen. Which is to say that pieces and issues from a month, or a year, or a decade ago can be as riveting and unmissable as last week’s. Now you can buy back issues online and test this notion. So if you’ve misplaced an issue you wanted to read the second half of, or your dog or your husband ate pages 17-22 of the last Perry Anderson, or you’ve just realised the collection contained in your brand new LRB binders has got a couple of infuriating gaps, rejoice!

This is the only time I have ever seen the LRB joke about the fact that Perry Anderson writes for it at unusual length.

It was a short article (by LRB standards) and perhaps that's why it flew under the radar, but I'm pretty shocked by Edward Luttwak's thing on Japan.

I do appreciate his stance of trying to go beyond lazy political equivalences with the West, but he treats Japan's disarmament with such contempt - seeing it as purely US imperialism or Japan deciding to be lead as opposed to leading, with no reference to how much it reflected a genuine pacifist feeling amongst the population in the post-war era. He then complains that its critics, who actually belong in three distinct groups - fascists, gangsters, tories - get lumped into the same category (within the context of defending Shinzo Abe); surely in 2019 it's not hard to see how tories strenghten fascists?

He then goes on to chide South Korea for not forgiving Japan "like France forgave Germany". Seems to me you have to apologise before being forgiven - something which Germany, for all its faults, has done quite comprehensively, and something which it has been pointed out again and again Japan has never done. Even pacifist/leftist narratives about the war tend to centre on the lives lost in Japan, not the countries invaded (cf: US movies on Vietnam, natch). Instead he suggests the reason is South Korea wanting to distract from the fact that most people collaborated (as if ppl in France didn't?).

China gets in for similar treatment, with "scaremongering" tactics being used to prevent "mass tourism to Japan", which could interfere with ideological conditioning. Seems a pretty shaky statement to me, considering Chinese tourism around the world, but anyway how can you go into Sino-Japanese relations and not even mention Nanjing?

Like I'm not averse to the idea that South Korea and China might be using anti-Japanese sentiment for their own purposes, but to write an article in a Western paper that doesn't even namecheck the very real historical reasons for these sentiments is pretty galling.

Yeah, the way japanese leaders keep celebrating the lives and graves of horrendous war criminals is pretty orovocative for Koreans, Manchurians, etc.

Just noticed it's the same guy who keeps insisting Reagan would have never pushed the button in the letters section so I guess there's not much to expect.

The Colm Toibin cancer piece is genuinely terrifying and starts with the wonderfully memorable sentence: “It all started with my balls.”

Terrifying indeed, and written beautifully.

For a few days I comforted myself by pretending that, because of my abiding interest in the mysteries and niceties of Being, I had to see an ontologist. Nobody except one of my fellow Irish novelists thought this was funny.

Yeah, I loved that piece. Am planning to ask people if there was a big crowd there whenever they tell me they went to something now.

london review of LOL

Our event with Terry Eagleton on HUMOUR on 10 June is nearly sold out - last few tickets available here: https://t.co/xwReBVT2JC pic.twitter.com/L7YbWi7QqA

— LRB Bookshop (@LRBbookshop) May 19, 2019

Thanks for the link - going to this with my partner now

I also go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1cVl7KHsGA

what's the deal with theory *slapbass flourish*

you-know-who is blogging GoT: i am reaching for a lanchester/lannister joke but luckily someone just rolled me out of the moon door

he has also watched some other TV shows

Do you go to TE's Humour bash Mark S ?

I dug "you know nothing, john lanchester" from a while back

what language is the pinefox now posting in before he reaches for babelfish?

(i'm out of town that day i think, in hastings with my sister)

To be fair, that Lanchester piece seemed fine. I have never seen GoT, so I may well not know what I'm talking about.

Mark S I learned it from my friend R J G

The GOT piece is fine. I liked the "Tony Blair or Ladyhitler" line. But even when he's OTM, he's a bit muddy. It's not so much "John, you took the words out of mouth" as "John, you took the words out of my mouth, added some syllables, and made them a tiny bit less clear"

Crosspost to the a "a box of ___ every month" thread?

www.londonreviewbookbox.co.uk

Letter commissioned for the first issue:

SIR: The London Review doesn’t have, or intend to seek, an Arts Council subsidy. This means that the envious, the indolent, the mischievous must, if they wish to be damaging, take issue with the journal itself, and not with the way it is financed. Most writers believe that they are (or, given the chance, could be) terrific editors, and they are particularly contemptuous of the skills that go into producing journals from which their own works are excluded. Arts Council grants, I’ve come to see, make it all too easy for the whimper of neglect to masquerade as public-spirited dismay. The London Review won’t have to get annoyed about this kind of thing.

It will have other things to get annoyed about, but many of these can be seen as pretty well routine: the publishers will be cagey, the librarians won’t want to know, the backbiters will go on about élitism, metropolitan cliquishness, lack of compassion for the avant-garde, the sycophants will wait and see. The appalling thing about our ‘literary culture’ at the moment is that a large section of its representatives seem to get more of a kick out of seeing things collapse than they do out of seeing them survive. Sooner or later (and I would like to think that this might be the moment) they must ask themselves if they really do want another serious reviewing journal; or if, in their heart of hearts, they prefer to sit around complaining that they haven’t got one.

Ian Hamilton

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v01/n01/letters

they shd commission a letter from ilx for the whateverth issue

Thank you for your service Ian. We're gonna nationalise it now and lock all the white literary London boys now.

Astonishing letters-page controversy:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v10/n03/christopher-norris/paul-de-mans-past

yeah i remember all that de man stuff very clearly :(

Salad days

just finally finished reading empson's seven types of ambiguity properly for the first time (only ever skipped thru bits of it before): not always crystal clear but good not bad

was a bit startled to discover it had an index, something i was convinced i had claimed that it did not here in this very thread: rereading i discover it was the pinefox who said this (his copy had an editor;s note saying not) and that i then posted a link to an on-line version which did

anyway i came to post the following line on proust as i felt it was funny and apposite, only to find i already posted it three years ago lol: "Parodies are appreciative criticisms in this sense, and much of Proust reads like the work of a superb appreciative critic upon a novel which has unfortunately not survived" -- thats right william

(i can only think that three years ago i couldn't locate my physical copy, not at all an unusual situation in my house)

the unsurviving novel is proust

given where the sentence comes in the book it's in, empson is kind of saying "it me, i'm proust"

je suis etc

CALL ME MADELEINE

Some days the novel reads you.