Larkin was once asked to judge a poetry competition. He was presented with a large batch of entries and assured that the really bad ones, which were generally verses of praise to Her Majesty the Queen had been weeded out. "Those were the ones I would have liked," Larkin is supposed to have mumbled.
Eagleton did a preposterous attack on Dawkins in the LRB. We discussed it on the other board, if anyone could find a link. I recall Hofzinser being particularly good on Eagleton's article.
People hate those threads, don't they? A lot of people, anyway. When we're in the throes of one, I can't really judge them. But re-reading that one, I actually think there's a lot to be said for them. Bits of that got very good, I reckon.
You wait til you're in your late 40s, sunbeam, and then you'll find yourself not remembering what you were saying half way through reading a book about bullfighting.
A statue of Larkin on the sea front at Heysham? Not that I've ever noticed. In fact, Googling "Philip Larkin statue" doesn't return anything concrete (or bronze or marble, for that matter).
QUOTE: A statue of Larkin on the sea front at Heysham? Not that I've ever noticed. In fact, Googling "Philip Larkin statue" doesn't return anything concrete (or bronze or marble, for that matter).
I think, but I could be wrong, that Andy's post should be adorned with a nice picture of Eric Bartholemew's home-town statue.
QUOTE: A statue of Larkin on the sea front at Heysham? Not that I've ever noticed. In fact, Googling "Philip Larkin statue" doesn't return anything concrete (or bronze or marble, for that matter).
I think, but I could be wrong, that Andy's post should be adorned with a nice picture of Eric Bartholemew's home-town statue.
I think perhaps Andy's point was that it looks more like Miserable of Hull than the late Mr. Bartholomew. Apart from the stance, that is.
I do enjoy Eagleton - After Theory is good. As for that review of Dawkins though . . . hmm. Those bits Hofzinser quote, it's hard to tell if he is paraphrasing what he regards as the best ideas about God presented by theology, or if he is simply going off on a wishful, quasi-mystical fancy of his own. Who "says" any of this stuff other than Eagleton?
And I don't believe there is an onus on Dawkins to read every last refined, angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin theological tract before speaking up on religion - especially when such tracts have little or no bearing on the way religion is taken, practised and understood by the vast majority of the faithful.