Bill’s review of How to Read Literature > Likes and Comments
232 likes · Like
Fantastic review. I'm appalled that I'm the first one to give it a "like" (especially when I see some of the so-called Goodreads "reviews" that get dozens of likes). Great job, Bill. This goes on my to-read list.
Mona wrote: "Fantastic review. I'm appalled that I'm the first one to give it a "like" (especially when I see some of the so-called Goodreads "reviews" that get dozens of likes). Great job, Bill. This goes o..."
Thanks, Mona. You're correct when you talk about some of those "so-called" reviews. But it's only right that I tell you that you liked this review a few minutes after I first posted it!
Fascinating review. This sounds like a book I'd enjoy reading. I'm especially curious about the section called "values". Nicely done, Bill.
I'll go for this one! I'm reading more literary fiction these days and I often feel (when I'm not reading with a group) that a lot of the subtlety is slipping away from me. Thank you for a very helpful and enticing review, Bill.
Excellent. I havent read the book (yet) but may I say that I found your eloquence alluring. Plus you used a word I did not know. After I recovered from a brief sensation of inadequacy, I decided to "like" your review, and indeed, follow all of them.
I love reading books about books, always hoping to add more depth to my own reading. This book definitely sounds worthwhile. Thanks for always taking the time to write such comprehensive reviews.
Kay wrote: "I love reading books about books, always hoping to add more depth to my own reading. This book definitely sounds worthwhile. Thanks for always taking the time to write such comprehensive reviews."
Thank you for reading them and commenting on them. It is readers like you that give me the enthusiasm to continue.
I read, and used in teaching & writing, his Literary Theory when it came out in the 8o's--after my seminar with LL Lipking on The Poet Critics in '78. My grad advisor, the "New Critic" Leonard Unger, had written me, "Whatever follows Deconstruction, I hope it's teachable in High Schools."
I had to read your review twice, it was so interesting to me, and then realized I have to read this book. Nice!
Linda wrote: "I had to read your review twice, it was so interesting to me, and then realized I have to read this book. Nice!"
Thanks for the nice comment!
The word Pellucid was not pellucid to me. 8) cheers, Jim
Jim wrote: "The word Pellucid was not pellucid to me. 8) cheers, Jim"
An unusual word, true, but a good one. Besides, I'd already used "clear."
Bill, it is good to stretch.
I appreciate your contribution on my road to becoming a sesquipedalian . Cheers.
Never read this one, but I found his Literary Theory, from my grad U Press ('80's), very useful in writing my book Meaner Parties, on Shakespeare & social class in the 80s. He clarified my undergrad course on phenomenology--Merleau-Ponty makes sense, but Husserl dizzying in trans. He concludes lit is political, sustains society (an its structures, its ills) even when theory runs from that idea. Or so I recall.
Excellent review. I am adding it to the top of my "to read" list.
Well, I can’t wait to exercise my “educated, sympathetic intelligence . . . to illuminate a given work, tempering creativity with knowledge, harnessing enthusiasm with judgment.” Now, that’s a literary sentence, one worthy of a review of a work by Eagleton! I don’t know a thing about you, but your reviews arouse my curiosity. I’m glad Goodreads keeps emails with older reviews coming for new friends. I look with anticipation for what will come next. Tea and reviews first thing in the morning isn’t a bad routine!
Sandra wrote: "Well, I can’t wait to exercise my “educated, sympathetic intelligence . . . to illuminate a given work, tempering creativity with knowledge, harnessing enthusiasm with judgment.” Now, that’s a lite..."
Glad you liked the review.
A great review of a very fine book. Just a note though: Eagleton and Yeats are not countrymen. Yeats was Irish, Eagleton English.
Conor wrote: "A great review of a very fine book. Just a note though: Eagleton and Yeats are not countrymen. Yeats was Irish, Eagleton English."
Sorry for the tardy response, but I visit my old reviews infrequently these days. And thanks for the correction. I used to be careless about this sort of thing -heedlessly careless- and it matters very much what country a person comes from. And Eagleton was indeed born and raised in Manchester, England. (I have altered my review to reflect this fact.)
In my defense I'll add that Eagleton grew up in a working-class Catholic family of Irish descent in Salford, with roots in County Galway, and that his mother's side of the family had strong Irish republican sympathies.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Mona
(new)
May 17, 2015 12:32PM
Fantastic review. I'm appalled that I'm the first one to give it a "like" (especially when I see some of the so-called Goodreads "reviews" that get dozens of likes). Great job, Bill. This goes on my to-read list.
reply
|
flag
Mona wrote: "Fantastic review. I'm appalled that I'm the first one to give it a "like" (especially when I see some of the so-called Goodreads "reviews" that get dozens of likes). Great job, Bill. This goes o..."Thanks, Mona. You're correct when you talk about some of those "so-called" reviews. But it's only right that I tell you that you liked this review a few minutes after I first posted it!
Fascinating review. This sounds like a book I'd enjoy reading. I'm especially curious about the section called "values". Nicely done, Bill.
I'll go for this one! I'm reading more literary fiction these days and I often feel (when I'm not reading with a group) that a lot of the subtlety is slipping away from me. Thank you for a very helpful and enticing review, Bill.
Excellent. I havent read the book (yet) but may I say that I found your eloquence alluring. Plus you used a word I did not know. After I recovered from a brief sensation of inadequacy, I decided to "like" your review, and indeed, follow all of them.
I love reading books about books, always hoping to add more depth to my own reading. This book definitely sounds worthwhile. Thanks for always taking the time to write such comprehensive reviews.
Kay wrote: "I love reading books about books, always hoping to add more depth to my own reading. This book definitely sounds worthwhile. Thanks for always taking the time to write such comprehensive reviews."Thank you for reading them and commenting on them. It is readers like you that give me the enthusiasm to continue.
I read, and used in teaching & writing, his Literary Theory when it came out in the 8o's--after my seminar with LL Lipking on The Poet Critics in '78. My grad advisor, the "New Critic" Leonard Unger, had written me, "Whatever follows Deconstruction, I hope it's teachable in High Schools."
I had to read your review twice, it was so interesting to me, and then realized I have to read this book. Nice!
Linda wrote: "I had to read your review twice, it was so interesting to me, and then realized I have to read this book. Nice!"Thanks for the nice comment!
The word Pellucid was not pellucid to me. 8) cheers, Jim
Jim wrote: "The word Pellucid was not pellucid to me. 8) cheers, Jim"An unusual word, true, but a good one. Besides, I'd already used "clear."
Bill, it is good to stretch. I appreciate your contribution on my road to becoming a sesquipedalian . Cheers.
Never read this one, but I found his Literary Theory, from my grad U Press ('80's), very useful in writing my book Meaner Parties, on Shakespeare & social class in the 80s. He clarified my undergrad course on phenomenology--Merleau-Ponty makes sense, but Husserl dizzying in trans. He concludes lit is political, sustains society (an its structures, its ills) even when theory runs from that idea. Or so I recall.
Excellent review. I am adding it to the top of my "to read" list.
Well, I can’t wait to exercise my “educated, sympathetic intelligence . . . to illuminate a given work, tempering creativity with knowledge, harnessing enthusiasm with judgment.” Now, that’s a literary sentence, one worthy of a review of a work by Eagleton! I don’t know a thing about you, but your reviews arouse my curiosity. I’m glad Goodreads keeps emails with older reviews coming for new friends. I look with anticipation for what will come next. Tea and reviews first thing in the morning isn’t a bad routine!
Sandra wrote: "Well, I can’t wait to exercise my “educated, sympathetic intelligence . . . to illuminate a given work, tempering creativity with knowledge, harnessing enthusiasm with judgment.” Now, that’s a lite..."Glad you liked the review.
A great review of a very fine book. Just a note though: Eagleton and Yeats are not countrymen. Yeats was Irish, Eagleton English.
Conor wrote: "A great review of a very fine book. Just a note though: Eagleton and Yeats are not countrymen. Yeats was Irish, Eagleton English." Sorry for the tardy response, but I visit my old reviews infrequently these days. And thanks for the correction. I used to be careless about this sort of thing -heedlessly careless- and it matters very much what country a person comes from. And Eagleton was indeed born and raised in Manchester, England. (I have altered my review to reflect this fact.)
In my defense I'll add that Eagleton grew up in a working-class Catholic family of Irish descent in Salford, with roots in County Galway, and that his mother's side of the family had strong Irish republican sympathies.