Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!columbia!topaz!Boebert.SCOMP From: Boebert.SCOMP@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Good Critics Message-ID: <3791@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Thu, 26-Sep-85 03:46:38 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.3791 Posted: Thu Sep 26 03:46:38 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 09:21:16 EDT Sender: daemon@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 8 From: Boebert@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA Rather than get bogged down in an abstract definition of good vs. bad criticism, I would just like to note that Ian Watt's _Conrad in the 19th Century_ is, to my mind, an exemplar of informed, sensible commentary on an author's work. I think that people on both sides of the debate on criticism could benefit by reading it; and if it gets you to read Conrad, so much the better. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com