AlexKrislov wrote:I reject that. I reject it firmly, absolutely, completely. I think it's addlepated.
You're entitled to that opinion. I think yours is facile and lacks insight. So we're even.
It's like reading Oliver Twist and shrieking at Dickens for the anti-semitism implied by Fagin.
No, it's not, because we're talking about the culture of 100 years ago. Are you saying the culture of the 1970s was such that it warrants a vastly different reading from the one that many of us hold?
Can we look back at Fagin and note that the portrayal is questionable? Sure. Do we condemn Dickens as a writer for that? No.
I did not condemn Harlan as a writer. How many times do I have to say that before it gets through to you? Did you read my comments in the other threads about how much I love Harlan's stuff? And my esteem for him as a person of integrity and talent? Why must you and Harlan see this as an attack on him instead of an attack on the piece? I also attacked the choice of whomever decided to put it in the Essential Ellisons. That choice baffles me.
And, with that as my bedrock, I still say that you're condemning Valerie not for what it is, but for what it isn't.
Yes, I am. I'm attacking it because it isn't reflective or insightful. I think those are valid criticisms.Like Valerie or hate it, it's a work of its time. Its appearance in an anthology 30 years later no more changes its original context than the new edition of the Complete Dickens changes the context in which Dickens created Fagin.
I think this is a specious comparison and it doesn't warrant much more debunking than I've already given it.