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.