eoe- I am very much afraid that you are jumping to conclusions. You must not conflate my individual critiques into a global denouncement.
I have the greatest respect for the prodigious intellect displayed by the Secretary of State, Condi Rice, and have always placed the divine and, to my mind, incomparable late Ella Fitzgerald at the top of the female singers in the USA.
I gave my opinion on Angelou and Morrison. That is an opinion not based on their sex but on the quality and substance of their writing. It is called literary criticism and my views on their writing are not isolated.
I would suggest that you regard them as writers and not as women. Their sex is not the pre-eminent value in their writings and should not be.
You are absolutely correct. I only hope that the sincerity of your words are felt in your heart as well as your intellect. Of course, dredging up Condaleeza Rice is no proof. At least, not in my house.
I hope you are not denigrating Condi Rice because of her race! If you disagree with her politics, say so. But no one can say she is not a brilliant talented woman.
I would suggest you stay focused on substance. If you disagree with Condi Rice, tell why. I think Morrison and Angelou are third rate writers. I have explained why I think so. Others may be able to change my mind if they present evidence.
Stay focused on the substance, not the peripherals.
How does dragging Condi Rice into the discussion add to its substance, Bernard?
Have you read the exchange? eoe indicated that I may have issues with Black Females. My reference to Dr. Rice was to indicate that I do not have issues with black females only with fourth rate writers who merely happen to be black females.
BernardR wrote:I would suggest you stay focused on substance.
I will stay focused on the substance of this thread. That does not include your girl Condi. She's not on the list. Neither is Maya Angelou, come to think of it. How did she end up in this discussion anyway? hmmm...
I'd vote for Dr. Rice anyday, for President. Wouldn't you?
No! in thunder (as Mr. Melville once wrote to Mr. Hawthorne).
(Just trying to keep on topic here...)
Condi Rice: Mistress of bad prose and excuses; the short skirt bush hides behind.
BTW, Bernard, Why do you want the opinion of a critic on Harold Bloom? I've been trained as a critic and have as many degrees as Bloom. But why should degrees matter? Adults ought to know what is good writing.
I haven't read Beloved but I enjoyed The Bluest Eyes.
Perhaps Richard Wright's association to Simone de Beauvoir elevates him in your eyes.
eoe wrote:Sounds like you have some real issues with Black females...
waiting for you to confess that you ARE a Black female...
EOE:
How does having "some real issues with black females" lead one to the conclusion, that BernardR is black? Do you know any females (white or black) who go by the name "Bernard"?
Than you Mr. Miller- and just for the record, I am not a black female.
plain old me, I am happy that you have been trained as a critic and have as many degrees as Dr.Harold Bloom. May I respectfully inquire, is any of your criticism published? If you are indeed, as you seem to suggest as highly talented and accepted by the other luminaries in the literary area, I think you are wasting your time if you do not produce a piece of work like "The Western Canon"---You owe it to the world.
In the meantime, it is my considered opinion, after having read 2 or 3 hundred works of fiction, almost all of them considered fine works by the literary world, that after Richard Wright did his fine work in "Native Son" followed by Ralph Ellison in "The Invisible Man" one would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know of the evils of Slavery and what it did to the souls of people--both black and white.
Then , Toni Morrison followed with a lachrymose over the top ghost story which would do well serialized as a soap opera. To compare Morrison with Wright and Ellison is like comparing Andy Warhol to Michaelangelo.
Quote:To compare Morrison with Wright and Ellison is like comparing Andy Warhol to Michaelangelo.
And... ?
Mister BernardRrr, are you implying that Warhol is not as much an artistic master as Michaelangelo(sic)?
Joe(just how stiff are those sensibilities?)Nation
Best American Fiction of the Last 25 Years?
Kurt Vonnegut ?
Yes< I am implying that. And, since I am not an artist, the only proof I could submit is the testimony of experts in Art. Would you like to see some of the comments made by those experts?
First of all, and one needs not to be an art expert to make this claim. Michaelanglo is considered to be one of the greatest sculptors the world has ever known. Since Warhol was not a sculptor, he is left behind at the gate immediately. He is already 50 miles behind Michaelangelo. Then, and one needs not to be an art expert to make this next claim either, the work of Michaelangelo, in the Sistine Chapel, by itself, dwarfs all of the work done by Warhol. H. W. Janson in his "History of Art" says:
"He( Michaelangelo) produced a masterpiece of truly epochal importance" i It is unmatched in the World's Artistic History.
Slaughter Five (the Children's Crusade), his best, came out in 1969, he wrote and I've read, most of the rest of his works including his latest, Man without a Country, but Kurt Vonnegut has another problem. Critics seem to accept ghost stories as legitimate but still eschew science fiction as less acceptable. Of course, Vonnegut isn't really a science fiction writer, but his time shifts throw the critics into tizzies.
I like him because he is funny as he drives home a serious truth.
Joe(If I am lucky and on 5th Ave, I may see him at the newsstand or walking towards the park. Homeland Security did not list him as one of New York's icons, I do.)Nation
Quote:Yes< I am implying that. And, since I am not an artist, the only proof I could submit is the testimony of experts in Art. Would you like to see some of the comments made by those experts?
No. Your opinion is the only one I need to read to know the depth of your knowledge and the discretions of your mind.
Joe(note to self: buy clay)Nation
Joe Nation wrote:Slaughter Five (the Children's Crusade), his best, came out in 1969, he wrote and I've read, most of the rest of his works including his latest, Man without a Country, but Kurt Vonnegut has another problem. Critics seem to accept ghost stories as legitimate but still eschew science fiction as less acceptable. Of course, Vonnegut isn't really a science fiction writer, but his time shifts throw the critics into tizzies.
I like him because he is funny as he drives home a serious truth.
Joe(If I am lucky and on 5th Ave, I may see him at the newsstand or walking towards the park. Homeland Security did not list him as one of New York's icons, I do.)Nation
The critics are whacked (not that I really have a right to sat so). Who doesn't know that Vonnegut is social commentery? I think he is one of those writters that might have to die to get any credit and even then he will never really be fully recognized for what he is (what is he?).
I like Mother night? and i'm waiting for his new book to come out in paperback.
Vonnegut, Look for him in the 'social sience-fiction' section
I made that up right now! Thats mine.
I think you are right about the critics being wack and Vonnegut having to die to get any real notice. (sigh).
Man without a Country is a tiny book, I could retype it here for you except that there are some drawings in it that you have to see. Maybe you could go to the bookstore and just stand by the New Fiction stand and read it though. It is tiny.
Joe( It's thick though.)Nation
