At 10:26 AM 11/28/2001 , Mary S. wrote:
>As the former privateer, I concede you may be right. (though I actually said
>"that man's writing," which =covers= the CSL book)
I've read comments you've made previously about other writings of Wilson,
and they also struck me as continuing a grudge against his Lewis biography
in the same way.
>But would you wish to
>drink from a cup containing (by your own appraisal) half cr*p?
I wouldn't want to drink from a cup containing even .01% crap. Even Tom
Shippey nods on occasion, but I wouldn't disrecommend him for that reason.
So I don't think cup-drinking is a good analogy. One can take or discard
from an article at will; it is much harder with a cup.
>In singling out what you didn't like, you missed (except by implication) the
>one which raised =my= eyebrows - the "derivation" of the talking Trees from
>Dante and more egregiously, from the WIZARD OF OZ film - do we even know that
>Tolkien saw the film?
There's no reference to it, or Baum, in Tolkien's letters. Possibly
Wilson, who was born in 1950, thinks the film was much more ubiquitous in
its early years than it was.
I didn't mention that specifically, because there were a couple other
instances of the "post hoc" fallacy in the article.
>It's not just that the trees talk, anyway! There's
>so much more =to= the concept of the Ents.
Very true, and Ents are not just talking trees.