To imply, as he does, that the critique of American Christianity is motivated by envy or some kind of Jewish anti-Christian prejudice is ridiculous. And he completely misread the passage he quoted about Arnold, Rossetti, and Hopkins. Plus personal anecdotal evidence is just, and only, that. It does not an argument or a refutation make.
I was actually less offended by the Bloom hatchet-job because he clearly doesn't understand him (perhaps deliberately, there's a whiff of patricidal rage there). The Cormac McCarthy one was just gross, though. This man seems to read looking for what might be wrong with a book, and that isn't reading.
Yeah, that one. He accuses McCarthy of pretentiousness, among other things. This from someone whose every word, every ill-dropped name, every outlandish metaphor is pitched to convey smug omniscience and superiority to his reviewees.
Not that it's a stance he invented, that or the singsong Euphuistic "here's what may be a fault, here's what may be a virtue, here's the fault recapped but moderated and this time I'm sure of it" Time magazine paragraph logic he never deviates from. But people have a choice of becoming telemarketers, car salespeople, things like that. And nice ones don't.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-05-01 06:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 01:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 04:05 am (UTC)You mean the review from the summer, of NCFOM, right?
no subject
Date: 2006-05-02 10:18 am (UTC)Not that it's a stance he invented, that or the singsong Euphuistic "here's what may be a fault, here's what may be a virtue, here's the fault recapped but moderated and this time I'm sure of it" Time magazine paragraph logic he never deviates from. But people have a choice of becoming telemarketers, car salespeople, things like that. And nice ones don't.