Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:29:59 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: The tall poppy syndrome within CR


Hi Ruth,

>I think that it's best to allow that the merit (or lack thereof) of Bhaskar's
>writing style is something about which rational people of good will can and do
>disagree.
>
>Don't you agree?

Yes, but it doesn't seem to occur to the detractors.

Mervyn

PS. I didn't say anything about disingenuousness, and don't doubt that 
such opinions are sincerely held. I was rather posing the question of 
what is going on at a subconscious level--it's not even in one's own 
self-interest as a critical realist to put as many people as possible 
off reading Bhaskar, in particular because, as you concede, the truth 
might be the opposite re the style (or at any rate depends on your point 
of view). This raises questions about your 'rational' which in a longer 
answer would lead me to qualify, though not resile from, my 'yes'.

In message <1067108435.3f9ac8538208d-AT-mymail.yorku.ca>, rgroff-AT-yorku.ca 
writes
>Hi Mervyn, all,
>
>I don't know John Roberts (actually, I do know *a* John Roberts, but I don't
>know that it's the same guy), so you may be right to claim that his 
>criticism of
>Bhaskar's writing style is disingenuous.  And I am certainly sympathetic to a
>general negative assessment of the character of much academic 
>discourse.  Still,
>I think that it's best to allow that the merit (or lack thereof) of Bhaskar's
>writing style is something about which rational people of good will can and do
>disagree.
>
>Don't you agree?
>
>Warmly,
>Ruth
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---