Breaking news. Literary exhortation. Entertainments. And occasionally the arcane.
I find it very unclassy that Zach has chosen to publish CNQ's rejection letter to Mr. Alexis. A rejection letter is a private correspondence between an author and the publisher to whom he has submitted his work 'in confidence'. If you a person wants to argue with a published piece, that's his prerogative. And if he sees flaws still present in the published form that you he was privy to in its unpublished state than he should feel free to reiterate some of those criticisms. But to publish a critique of a submission strikes me as a low blow.
Glen, it's a not a real rejection letter. Alexis never submitted his piece to CNQ.
Oh. The fact that it was dated threw me off.
Knowing now that the rejection letter format is essentially a ruse, will you give the essay a second chance? I hope you do. It's a great piece of writing.
I read it thoroughly and can't imagine why anyone would find it interesting unless they were taking a college-level course in essay-writing/ rhetoric. The tone is condescending and show-offy. I know that Zach's a bright guy, but frankly, his apparently constant need to display what he knows like a strutting bird, has always put me off of his writing (both his criticism and poetry.)
I couldn't disagree more with your assessment or with your patronizing endorsement of Wells' "brightness" as you put it. There's far more going on in his essay than you are plainly willing to acknowledge or understand. Basic rule: If you are going to dimiss something, do so on the merits instead of whatever past conceptions or misconceptions you have of the critic. Or is the view too good from the cheap seats?
Good brief and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you as your information.
Post a Comment