Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Feliks wrote: "You didn't display any analysis of the criticism you consumed. You didn't place these writings in context, refer us to their reception by other critics; you didn't dissect their method or even state what methodology they used. "

Heh, heh..., I'm saving the best for last. That's my "secret" topic that's coming eventually. It's an analysis of an essay from one Booom's books. One with which I wholly agree. Someone must have sneaked it in under Boom's nose.

Stay tuned, frogsters.

(It was three books, not four.)

Top Ten Reasons For The City of Chicago's Repeated Mention in 'Great Gatsby'

10. Scott Fitzgerald grew up near Chicago
9. Had the best steak of his life there
8. Maxwell Perkins suggested it (bond-scam phone calls were originally from Intercourse, PA)
7. Personal favor to Chicago Chamber of Commerce
6. Scott needed good word alliteration with the 'cha-cha' (dance)
5. Zelda Fitzgerald suggested it, (bond-scam phone calls were originally from Folsom, CA)
4. Good, clean, midwestern values
3. Couldn't remember name of town bond-scam phone calls really ought to have been from
2. Scott was a Cubs fan
1. Chicago is a 'sister city' to Corinth, Greece (even have same number of letters)

Feliks wrote: "
Top Ten Reasons For The City of Chicago's Repeated Mention in 'Great Gatsby'


10. Scott Fitzgerald grew up near Chicago
9. Had the best steak of his life there
8. Maxwell Perkins suggested it ..."

Zzzzz. You're putting me to sleep.

I thought everyone knew the fame of my groups

Monty J wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Zzzzz. You're putting me to sleep..."

one good turn deserves another...

Feliks wrote: "Maxwell Perkins suggested it (bond-scam phone calls were originally from Intercourse, PA) "

Did you know that nearby Intercourse are the towns of Blue Ball and Paradise? And the quickest way to get from Blue Ball to Paradise is through Intercourse?

James wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Maxwell Perkins suggested it (bond-scam phone calls were originally from Intercourse, PA) "

Did you know that nearby Intercourse are the towns of Blue Ball and Paradise? And the qui..."

ROTFLOL !!!!!!!! OMG, Is there a video that exists of someone giving directions?

Feliks wrote: "I thought everyone knew the fame of my groups"
Well no, since your page is private there's no information there!

Karen wrote: "s there a video that exists of someone giving directions?"

Not that I'm aware of. It would make a good youtube video though. :D

"Petergiaquinta wrote: "Monty has begun with his conclusion..."

Peter's correct. Apt as hell. Bravo, Pete.

Monty, you're enveloped in a blind spot as big as the spot on the planet Jupiter. It's been something I've been meaning to broach to you, myself.

You started your Gatsby-quest with an 'a priori' idea. That idea was? "The sagging morality of the American citizen". You set out to find some choir to join with your harp. It's painfully obvious. From a mile away. This is absolutely what happened to you.

Monty J wrote:
Nope. I began with an open mind, deductively taking in the evidence on the page and arriving at conclusions only after extensive analysis and reading a great deal of literary criticism..."

Codswallop. Preposterous. I see your 'nope' and up you two 'yups'. Your statement is really just adorable in its self-coddling. 'Big Wry Grin' spread all over my face when I read what you wrote there.

My next few comments should make you 'hug the ropes' a little, but because you're Monty I know you'll bounce back.

You actually think you were free from bias when you started this? You actually pretend to yourself that you came up with this crazy angle out of nowhere? 'TGG' is secretly a morality tale (a conclusion that no one else ever felt) and Jay Gatsby is an emblem of American villainy?

Completely random finding? Not influenced at all by your own POV? You really imagine you got to that point by being rational and impartial? Oh GerTRUDE.

Remember: that pseudo-scholar who decided that 'Moby Dick' was essentially a 'depressing novel' ...because that's what his word-count showed? Do you think he came up with that conclusion...at random? Out of the blue? He didn't go looking for that result? Obviously he did! And so did you.

Look at what you brought to the Gatsby hunt, before you even started:
~a history of armchair dissection of great American novels ('Vaseline hand')
~excessive leisure time spent pursuing arcane literary topics
~outsider's scorn for intellectual community
~choice of the *poorest* samples of lit-crit (3 lame anthols?) to hold up as 'just cause'
~John O'Hara syndrome written all over you
~palpably want to 'make a name for yourself' (Penn State Gazette)
~you 'think you can do better than anyone else' analyzing Gatsby (typing it in manually on your laptop???)
~accepting advice from out-and-out internet psychos to 'help evolve your thinking'
~past personal guilt issues related to bond marketing
~overweening hubris sticking out all over (yea verily, a 6" Moses leading people to the truth, let's sing Monty's praises)
~forceful and voluminous 'preacherly opinions on American morality' which you offer up to us at length (post #6)
~'analyst as savior' (groan)
~Bernie Madoff, Richard Nixon, Jay Gatsby ...are all the same ilk in in your mind ( post #6)

Shall I go on? Dude... you were RIPE for this cockamamie theory. No need to dissemble about how 'you found it' or how 'it found you'. You sifted through the novel looking for The Word from ABOVE. If not this, then something else as wacky.

It wasn't even in doubt that you would concoct some such nonsense. You were a dog digging for bones. "Gatsby's corruption'" and you...were made for each other. Even if you didn't see it at the time, that's surely what happened. And you quite threw all your energy into it, didn't you? Counting this, tallying that...

Truly, classic. Lack of self-reflection, in huge, heaping, spade-fuls.

It's one of the most damning things you can say about someone's platform; that there were 'a priori' ideas driving the research. In science, it is deadly. Observer bias. I'm certain it applies to you in this case. Now, you're still a nice guy of course; but let's get real here.

Checkmate, camrade...
Feliks Dzerzhinsky

Feliks wrote: "You started your Gatsby-quest with an 'a priori' idea. That idea was? "The sagging morality of the American citizen".."

Wrong, bagworm-breath. You couldn't be more so. The pattern emerged after multiple readings. I knew something didn't feel right from the beginning, but it didn't come together until I read that essay from one of Bloom's books, which will be revealed later.

On second thought, I'll give you a head start. Google "T.S. Eliot The Wasteland." Pull it up and start reading and see if the parallels don't start popping out at you in the first five minutes. Read it. All of it. And see where it takes you.

I've been running laps while you're whistling "Dixie" at the starting line.

Sigh. Running laps? I've suggested a dozen different approaches to Gatsby in this thread while you have clung to just one.

Next: you're gonna tell me about Wasteland & TS Eliot? Would you also teach your grandmother how to suck eggs? Tell me...were you aware that Eliot was a critic as well as a poet? What criticism of his have you adopted--not just read, but adopted? Can you even name a top critic who ever analyzed Eliot?

This is ...bush-league 'one-upsmanship'. My question is: why? Why do you take this corny tack of telling me I'm overtly-egotistical? Why the flexing? How does this reflect well on your cause? Why is your tone of voice becoming freshman-like with me?

Nevermind. I reiterate. Whenever you *thought* you found the secret of Gatsby...was long after you began looking for it. That's what I am suggesting you consider. It's always valid to consider. 'Observer bias' can never be discounted. Any scholar always takes the suggestion ...with gravity.

Your denials don't matter. We can tell because of the way you articulated your argument in the first place. The way you honed in one 'just one solution'. The way you lined up your ducks. It spoke volumes.

Please hear this loud and clear. You were looking for 'Gatsby's corruption' before you even thought about it consciously. You've got built-in bias which escapes your continual CYA. It's based on who you are. You cotton-to issues of 'American morality', you are predisposed to them, and you found a banner to rally behind. Its that simple.

Running rings around me...sheeesh...we don't even list in the same stadiums. If you ever think you're lapping me, that's a clue you need a checkup. Professional courtesy from me towards you--and genuine cordiality--has always kept us on different tracks. There's never been any reason for us to go toe-to-toe. We have completely different interests. Even right now, we aren't in any substantive conflict. Enjoy that fluke of circumstance.

I'm simply vetting your argument for you, thus far. Not trying to 'break you down' in the slightest! Mark this: I have handled all of your points so far, strictly off the top of my head. Consider what that means.

Lately, you've fallen into the trap of so many others, styling me 'high-handed' when I tug-gently-on-your-coat. I'm actually not pressing you at all, just all along asking you in a friendly way for the robustness your platform ought to have from the get-go. And you tell me I'm ego-burdened. Eh, what? I'm giving you room to flourish and proliferate. If you can pass my tests, you maybe have a valid platform.

What do you think I would have done....to your pal Geoffrey... if he had launched this campaign you have undertaken? Are you kidding me? He'd be in shreds right now. I'd have laid waste to him. If he had treated that Rina the way you did? He'd be a puddle right now.

Bottom line: in this thread, you ought to have had a *stout* answer for everything I asked you. You didn't. I roved at will. I had leisure to go back 30 posts, find remarks you had forgotten all about, bring them forward, and throw them at your feet.

Make no mistake about the different leagues we are in, is all I'm saying. Stop this defensiveness, bring a better game into this house. "Gatsby by the numbers' is like...palmistry. Defensiveness is getting you nowhere. We're giving you *constructive*-criticism. For free. Make use of it. Why look for enemies?

Feliks wrote: "You started your Gatsby-quest with an 'a priori' idea. That idea was? "The sagging morality of the American citizen".."

Monty J writes: "Wrong, bagel-breath..."

Whether Monty J started off with his conclusion and worked from there, only he knows for sure. However, his posts strongly indicate he is imposing his own rigid moral code into his interpretations:

"So you think that Daisy should have overlooked the fact that Gatsby was a crook?"
"Do crooks deserve anything but jail?"
"If we fail to hold Gatsby accountable for his criminality, what does that say about us?"

These are not Fitzgerald's words. These are Monty J's. And his interpretation of Fitzgerald is most likely going to be swayed by such a moral viewpoint (one I don't share, by the way). And it seems to me the only way to make Fitzgerald's words fit into his interpretation is to assume that Fitzgerald shares this moral viewpoint. And there is no hard evidence to support such a thing. The words of Fitzgerald as interpreted by Monty J don't provide evidence, only the closing of a circular argument.

So if I have to make a call here, Monty J's actions seem to belie his words, and he has, in fact, allowed his strict moral code to cloud his objectivity regarding the book. This is, of course, only my opinion, but the evidence I have seen thus far, in my view, supports such an opinion, and is enough to make a reasonable argument against his thesis being bulletproof in content and logic, as Monty J himself claims it to be.

James wrote: "Karen wrote: "s there a video that exists of someone giving directions?"

Not that I'm aware of. It would make a good youtube video though. :D"

Lol, now I want to go there.

James wrote;
"And it seems to me the only way to make Fitzgerald's words fit into his interpretation is to assume that Fitzgerald shares this moral viewpoint. And there is no hard evidence to support such a thing. The words of Fitzgerald as interpreted by Monty J don't provide evidence, only the closing of a circular argument."

I think you are right here- and I think it's a pattern, as I have seen this on other threads, just not as glaringly as with this book.

"And it seems to me the only way to make Fitzgerald's words fit into his interpretation is to assume that Fitzgerald shares this moral viewpoint."

Yep, and I don't think Fitzgerald wanted to teach or preach to us a morality position- otherwise he would not have shown Gatsby as a sympathetic character, with many layers, faults and hope- which he did.

Here's a letter from Fitzgerald:

TO JOHN PEALE BISHOP [Postmarked, August 9, 1925] Rue de Tilsitt Paris, France

Dear John:
Thank you for your most pleasant, full, discerning and helpful letter about The Great Gatsby. It is about the only criticism that the book has had which has been intelligable, save a letter from Mrs. Wharton. I shall only ponder, or rather I have pondered, what you say about accuracy—I’m afraid I haven’t quite reached the ruthless artistry which would let me cut out an exquisite bit that had no place in the context. I can cut out the almost exquisite, the adequate, even the brilliant—but a true accuracy is, as you say, still in the offing. Also you are right about Gatsby being blurred and patchy. I never at any one time saw him clear myself� for he started out as one man I knew and then changed into myself—the amalgam was never complete in my mind.

Your novel sounds fascinating and I’m crazy to see it. I’m beginning a new novel next month on the Riviera. I understand that MacLeish is there, among other people (at Antibes where we are going). Paris has been a mad-house this spring and, as you can imagine, we were in the thick of it. I don’t know when we’re coming back—maybe never. We’ll be here till Jan. (except for a month in Antibes), and then we go Nice for the Spring, with Oxford for next summer. Love to Margaret and many thanks for the kind letter.

Scott

I am particularly interested in this comment: "Also you are right about Gatsby being blurred and patchy. I never at any one time saw him clear myself� for he started out as one man I knew and then changed into myself—the amalgam was never complete in my mind.

Gatsby is a complex character that came to life under Fitzgerald's pen, even became the author himself, and in the end the author did not fully understand the complex character that emerged, let alone paint him with precise words in painstaking detail to make some point about criminality.

Edith Wharton wrote: Meanwhile, let me say at once how much I like Gatsby, or rather His Book, & how great a leap I think you have taken this time—in advance upon your previous work. My present quarrel with you is only this: that to make Gatsby really Great, you ought to have given us his early career (not from the cradle—but from his visit to the yacht, if not before) instead of a short resume of it. That would have situated him, & made his final tragedy a tragedy instead of a “fait divers� for the morning papers.

Fitzgerald's response to it: TO JOHN PEALE BISHOP [Postmarked, August 9, 1925] Rue de Tilsitt Paris, France
Dear John:
Thank you for your most pleasant, full, discerning and helpful letter about The Great Gatsby. It is about the only criticism that the book has had which has been intelligable, save a letter from Mrs. Wharton. ...

Mrs. Wharton thought Gatsby's death might not look like the tragedy it is because we don't know enough about Gatsby from the book. Fitzgerald finds her critique "about the only one intelligable."

Fitzgerald also sees Gatsby's death as a tragedy.

What a time to be alive, eh? To be moving in such fascinating circles, corresponding with such people! Did an email from DFW to Eggers ever seem so interesting?

Petergiaquinta wrote: "What a time to be alive, eh? To be moving in such fascinating circles, corresponding with such people! "

Exactly!

The Gatsby thread was dead before I started lobbing grenades in here.

James wrote: "Edith Wharton wrote: Meanwhile, let me say at once how much I like Gatsby, or rather His Book, & how great a leap I think you have taken this time—in advance upon your previous work. My present qua..."

There's a relatively new book out, A Life in Letters: A New Collection Edited and Annotated by Matthew J. Bruccoli. It is wonderful. Really. The first letter (and I apologize if you're read it) is in a very boyish hand to his sister (he's at school), telling her whom she should emulate, which of the other girls she should look to for how to dress, how to do her hair, what she should talk about, what men like. It's really quite sweet. And I think, well, I just thought it was sweet.

But the letters among the writers and editors, they are just stunning, aren't they? Humbling, exciting, moving.

Feliks wrote: "Running rings around me...sheeesh...we don't even list in the same stadiums. "

It's always embarrassing when a Porche gets passed by a Honda. Maybe you need a tune-up. :)

Feliks, read "The Wasteland," if you dare. It's only a poem:

Whoops. Apologies to those who read my torrent o' text last night. I see I slipped into "harangueing mode" a little bit last night before I dozed off. Looks like it was a cataract (love that word). But it didn't advance the discussion--just me 'reacting to' Monty. Sorry for that.

My previous post--pointing out the crucial element of observer-bias in research, rather does advance the discussion though. At least, I think so.

Maybe what set me off a little...was the weirdness of being replied to with a Jewish slur? When I am neither Jewish, nor a consumer of bagels? 'Bagel Breath' is like, something I haven't heard since my first year on a college campus. This has to be the lowest-point this discussion has reached.

o_0

Monty J wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "What a time to be alive, eh? To be moving in such fascinating circles, corresponding with such people! "

Exactly!

The Gatsby thread was dead before I started lobbing grenad..."

Playing with yourself with grenades is still playing with yourself.

Eliot and The Wasteland prolly can't be called on to buoy up your reductivist reading of the novel, Monty. Once you open that door, you are in the realm of the Grail knight and every classical reference that Feliks was throwing at you earlier. You can't argue a reading for simple morality and criminality in the novel with The Wasteland as your guide. Now you truly will be out of your depths, and I fear you may have inadvertently just given Feliks the go ahead to rip you a new one. You don't tug on Superman's cape...

Oh noes, Heironymo's mad againe!

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Once you open that door, you are in the realm of the Grail knight and every classical reference that Feliks was throwing at you earlier."

Which is why I've been saving it until last. It invites too many distractions.

But. After all. It's only a poem.


(C'm-on, Feliks. I know you can read.)

Feliks wrote: "Whoops. Apologies to those who read my torrent o' text last night. I see I slipped into "harangueing mode" a little bit last night before I dozed off. Looks like it was a cataract (love that word)...."

Don't be too concerned, Monty J wears a bulletproof vest that a BB gun can take out. I wouldn't be so sure he knows a bagel from a donut. But I'm sure he carries that file cabinet of photo shopped facts to Dunkin' Donuts to prove that the French Cruller in the case is a poppy bagel. Pay no attention to the little black seeds and delicious flavor. They are put there to throw you off the scent.

>>It's only a poem.

I don't know if this will be funny or painful or sad, but I'll wager it's a combination of all three at once.

I'm waiting in eager anticipation...

James wrote: "Playing with yourself with grenades is still playing with yourself. "

Guess I should go out and deflower a few virgins, huh?

Feliks wrote: "...a Jewish slur? "

Comes from having so many Jewish friends, who would be laughing like hell.

But if anyone's offended, I offer my deepest apologies. None was intended.

(I thought, since Feliks was so good at dishing it out, he could take a little ribbing.)

Monty J wrote: "James wrote: "Playing with yourself with grenades is still playing with yourself. "

Guess I should go out and deflower a few virgins, huh?"

You might want to deflower yourself first. It gives you a heads up. Sometimes the virgins make the first move.

Deflowering virgins at 17 is an acceptable pastime; at 70, it's a creepy, and mostly criminal, offense.

Petergiaquinta wrote: "Deflowering virgins at 17 is an acceptable pastime; at 70, it's a creepy, and mostly criminal, offense."
Yep, creepy for sure. At 17, fun.

Monty J wrote: "It's always embarrassing when a Porche gets passed by a Honda. ..."

Penn State...hmmph

:\

Nice job there by James with those letters. Mighty pithy!

Of course, there's probably some folks out there who wouldn't ever bother themselves to read what an author ever might say about his own work, because 'that's not what wound up between the pages of the book itself'

:|

"What a time to be alive, eh? To be moving in such fascinating circles, corresponding with such people! "

Again, super job by James.

"Exactly!"

The postmark for that letter was 1925. Yes, times were exciting then, I'm sure.

"The Gatsby thread was dead before I started lobbing grenades in here."

But Gatsby discussion in America, indeed anywhere outside this website, is hardly dead or stagnant. Doing very well, really.

I'd love to jump back in here, but it's been a REALLY busy week. At some point...

Monty wrote;
"Which is why I've been saving it until last. It invites too many distractions.

But. After all. It's only a poem"

Saving, why? This study of Gatsby and The Wasteland is all over the Internet.

Karen wrote: "Saving, why? This study of Gatsby and The Wasteland is all over the Internet. "

Yup. It's nothing new. I'm surprised someone hasn't raised it before now.

I just wanted to get my cut out there and responded to before introducing another distraction. There's been enough of that already. Too many thought threads flying too many directions at once interferes with comprehension. (At least it does for my simple, aging mind.)

I'll allow a couple of weeks for everyone to absorb "The Wasteland" as much as they care to, then post excerpts from the Bloom book's essay.

James wrote: "Monty J wrote: "James wrote: "Playing with yourself with grenades is still playing with yourself. "

Guess I should go out and deflower a few virgins, huh?"

You might want to deflower yourself fir..."

Hey, how'd you know I was a virgin?

(I'm being very selective.)

James wrote: "...his posts strongly indicate he is imposing his own rigid moral code into his interpretations: "

Actually, I'm attempting to introduce the strict early post-Victorian moral code of the millieu of the book.

My code, though highly refined and dearly earned, is a good deal more relaxed than that of the Twenties.

James wrote: "Monty J wrote: "Petergiaquinta wrote: "What a time to be alive, eh? To be moving in such fascinating circles, corresponding with such people! "

Exactly!

The Gatsby thread was dead before I starte..."
Not unless accompanied by a cannon.

Monty J wrote: "James wrote: "...his posts strongly indicate he is imposing his own rigid moral code into his interpretations: "

Actually, I'm attempting to introduce the strict early post-Victorian moral code of..."

"So you think that Daisy should have overlooked the fact that Gatsby was a crook?"
"Do crooks deserve anything but jail?"
"If we fail to hold Gatsby accountable for his criminality, what does that say about us?"

What about the moral code behind these questions/comments? And why would you apply these morals to Fitzgerald's writing, when Fiitzgerald has indicated himself that he saw the tragedy behind the death of this criminal, and made no ovations in his writing that he should go to jail?

Monty wrote;
"Actually, I'm attempting to introduce the strict early post-Victorian moral code of the millieu of the book."

Introduce? You're the only one- what in the book applies to this Victorian moral code?

"My code, though highly refined and dearly earned, is a good deal more relaxed than that of the Twenties"

That's funny- what part of the country in the 20's? Midwestern?

No adult can graft their morality onto other adults 'by the square foot' in this manner. Certainly not via book study. Bible study has been going on in the U.S. since the 1600s, with what effect? Nada. 'Dissecting Gatsby' --with a moral agenda-- is to even less purpose and even less likely result.

It's rather like a gnat buzzing around you while you're in a very comfy chair. You either get up and swat it or you keep waving it away whenever it draws near; but whatever happens, you're not going to just sit there, let it land on you, and let yourself get bit. People have minds of their own.

By the way, in case anyone supposes (from Monty's attack) that Harold Bloom was just some reckless, slovenly schmuck who took it upon himself to tamper with good ole American morality...he's not. Take a moment to skim over his bio and make up your own mind about whether he was just a useless, ivory-tower academic. He did quite a lot to advance literacy and learning in this country.

See, I'm unconvinced that anyone ought to revert to some fantasy of kindly, good-neighbor, crackerbarrel America. This is bogus, delusional. Quizzing each other on our traffic tickets and our recycling practices, trying to cop 'holier than thou'. The same people who vote for lethal injection, forbid abortion, etc etc are sure not who I want to be lumped in with. They're the first to grab pitchforks and torches for the stranger passin' through town. Kohlberg Level 4 sheeple. Mencken wouldn't have thrown in with them. Monty's guilt trip is based on something that never existed.

Feliks wrote: "'Dissecting Gatsby' --with a moral agenda-- is to even less purpose and even less likely result."

Once again, you are deliberately misconstruing my post. Why? Why would someone do that?

Ladies and gentlemen, meet Feliks the professional troll hired by Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, no doubt, to foster controversy rather than honestly discuss literature.

Why? Because controversy creates mountains of clicks which enables Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to charge more for advertising. It's an unethical practice, but almost impossible to detect, unless someone calls it out. Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ has been doing it for years.

If Jeff Bezos had known this was going on before Amazon bought Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, he'd be pissed as hell. He probably paid twice what the company was worth because of falsified traffic. (Maybe I should send Jeff an e-mail.)

Anyone with half a brain knows that you evaluate a 90 year-old piece of literature by the social mores prevailing when the book was published.

(You're cover's been blown, Feliks. I noticed you didn't deny my earlier accusation. I want to see you deny that Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ or Amazon's not paying you to fluff up their web site, or explain why you misconstrue my posts. Are you paid for clicks or by word count?)

Monty wrote;
"Ladies and gentlemen, meet Feliks the professional troll hired by Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, no doubt, to foster controversy rather than honestly discuss literature."

Nope, wrong. You just don't like what he has to say.

Monty J wrote: "Ladies and gentlemen, meet Feliks the professional troll hired by Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, no doubt, to foster controversy rather than honestly discuss literature. ..."

Oh for god's sake Monty. Is everything with you a conspiracy theory?

Gatsby -- the big conspiracy that has been pulled over the eyes of literature scholars everywhere!!!!

Feliks (and myself also) the big conspirators of Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ!!!

I'll go you one better, Monty. I have it on good authority that Feliks is Otis himself just popping in from time to time to see what we mere mortals are up to...

No wait, he's the 93-year-old love child of F Scott Fitzgerald and an underage French school girl that Scott met in a cafe...

Nope, wrong again, he's in fact, rather strangely I'd say, a bit of leftover brunch that Harold Bloom snuck home from the buffet one Sunday morning in 1987 after a charming tête-à-tête with J Hillis Miller and Matthew J. Bruccoli. Here's the weird part: they were planning a collection of essays on the subject of driving pointers and dating tips from the literature of the Lost Generation. It didn't pan out, and Prof. Bloom forgot all about the leftovers at the bottom of his man bag that he likes to refer to as a satchel. It's all still there in the closet in Bloom's walk up across the street from St John the Devine. Bloom'a not too tidy a man, and he stopped carrying a bag long ago, anyway.

No really. He is!

Feliks wrote: "By the way, in case anyone supposes (from Monty's attack) that Harold Bloom was just some reckless, slovenly schmuck who took it upon himself to tamper with good ole American morality..."

Jesus, Feliks, a hundred posts back you guys were trashing Bloom's books as second-rate. Now he's a demi-god. Make up your eff'ing mind.