Rules of the game
Sir: The simplest difference between an adverse review and a non-review is this: the latter offers no internal evidence that the book has been read. As a barrister, Mr Mortimer might at least have argued the case for the prosecution (Spectator February 8) but he doesn't even take the trouble to see if my book has anything to say on his chosen interests: Pirandello and spoken dialogue.
It must be an advantage for Mr Mortimer to know what is within the law of contract; but isn't it surprising that The Spectator should be happy with a quotation and a sneer? After all, it is the reader who is being asked to exchange the rules of the game for Mr Mortimer's disingenuous game of patience.
Andrew Kennedy Universitetet I Bergen, Engelsk Institutt, HF-bygget-Sydnesplass, N-5001 Bergen, Norway.
Previous page
