[Milton-L] Fish

James Rovira jamesrovira at gmail.com
Mon Aug 6 10:29:04 EDT 2012


The word "guesses" was an unfortunate choice -- I think "informed opinion"
would be better.  I apologize.  While I did read Surprised by Sin some
years ago, I don't recall the preface, but that too should be a reliable
source.  However, deference to the author at the time of the writing is one
thing, but deference to the author 45 years after the fact -- especially
without checking independent sources just as letters, diaries, journals,
student notes, etc. -- is a bit irresponsible.

I will read your article before responding further, though.

Thanks for the reply,

Jim R

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:23 AM, David Urban <dvu2 at calvin.edu> wrote:

> Jim,
> If you read my article, you'll see that I address what the reviewers of
> *Surprised by Sin* wrote on this matter.  And, of course, Fish's original
> preface addresses the matter also.
>
> But I have a couple of concerns with your first sentence.  First, to say
> his word on the matter is "no more reliable than our own guesses" is
> hyperbolic and offers no deference to the author.  I'm sure you are more
> aware of your influences than a reader (who may not have recently read what
> you wrote)  who "guesses" about them.  Second, not everyone's opinion on
> this matter is a "guess."  Speaking for myself, I base my stance on serious
> research and textual analysis.
>
> I'd be honored if you read my article and tell me what you think.
>
> http://appositions.blogspot.com/2012/07/david-v-urban-surprised-by-richardson.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20120806/16a1ddc5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Milton-L mailing list