<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Edmund Wilson: A Life in Literature by  Lewis Dabney</title> <atom:link href="http://calitreview.com/196/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://calitreview.com/196</link> <description>An arts and culture magazine.</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 23:20:18 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator> <item><title>By: Trypticon</title><link>http://calitreview.com/196/comment-page-1#comment-797</link> <dc:creator>Trypticon</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:03:22 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://calitreview.com//2007/06/04/edmund-wilson-a-life-in-literature-by-lewis-dabney/#comment-797</guid> <description>Is this seriously considered a review of a major biography?  A commentator holding forth on his exagerated and distorted sense of Wilson&#039;s politics while saying the man&#039;s value is in his writing while not giving any sense of that writing or its staggering scope?
It seems like Ron Capshaw consulted the stultified Cliff Notes of his mind rather than consulting the vast work of Wilson or the biography at hand which has been getting serious treatment in such places as:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/books/review/04TOIBIN.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/09/04/inquiring_mind/
http://www.bookpage.com/0509bp/nonfiction/edmund_wilson.html
This &quot;review&quot; is entirely without substance and demonstrates an utter lack of seriousness by this so called Literary Review.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is this seriously considered a review of a major biography?  A commentator holding forth on his exagerated and distorted sense of Wilson&#8217;s politics while saying the man&#8217;s value is in his writing while not giving any sense of that writing or its staggering scope?</p><p>It seems like Ron Capshaw consulted the stultified Cliff Notes of his mind rather than consulting the vast work of Wilson or the biography at hand which has been getting serious treatment in such places as:</p><p><a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/books/review/04TOIBIN.html?pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/books/review/04TOIBIN.html?pagewanted=all</a></p><p><a
href="http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/09/04/inquiring_mind/" rel="nofollow">http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/09/04/inquiring_mind/</a></p><p><a
href="http://www.bookpage.com/0509bp/nonfiction/edmund_wilson.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.bookpage.com/0509bp/nonfiction/edmund_wilson.html</a></p><p>This &#8220;review&#8221; is entirely without substance and demonstrates an utter lack of seriousness by this so called Literary Review.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
