Received: from mgmt.utoronto.ca (fmgmt.mgmt.utoronto.ca [128.100.43.253]) by news.giganews.com (8.8.8/2.4) with SMTP id RAA03171 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 17:03:07 -0600 (CST) Received: by mgmt.utoronto.ca (5.65v4.0/1.1.10.7/26Jan98-0432AM) id AA16623; Sat, 28 Mar 1998 17:59:07 -0500 From: LouisFors Message-Id: <5ae152c1.351d80b5@aol.com> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 17:58:59 EST To: emweb@fmgmt.mgmt.utoronto.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: ED: Universally admired today? Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 49 Sender: owner-emweb@fmgmt.mgmt.utoronto.ca Precedence: bulk Reply-To: emweb@fmgmt.mgmt.utoronto.ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: 0c6098c50d3e49b11e36ba8e4af8d061 In a message dated 98-03-28 17:05:47 EST, Fred wrote: > ....Yes, sadly, there are many > intelligent critics who don't see Dickinson as 'great', whatever that > may ultimately mean. What I'd like to know from them are the bases of > their estimation, and whether politics appears high amongst them. > > FF, who likes Alan Sokal more every day > Thanks Fred. I know that the term "great" carries a lot of problems with it, but I've been reading my head off about ED--beginning late, but hurrying--and I'm still filled with curiosity. You've just helped me. My question came up while reading Klaus Lubbers' _Emily Dickinson: The Critical Evolution_. (Following criticsm of ED from the beginning to the late 1960's.) While reading it, my mind shot off in the direction underlying my question. My mind sometimes works like a wounded jack rabbit, flailing around. Looking straight at something sometimes leads me to the periphery. I always encouraged that in my students. Louis Forsdale