Sir: I rubbed my eyes in amazement as I read
your letters page (13 January) about Mr Paul Johnson's article. Though disliking Mr Johnson's discourtesies, I recall the arti- cle as presenting, with a wealth of inciden- tal historical learning, the enlightening argument that although Mr Major is 'grey', ignorant and lacks fundamental convic- tions, these qualities are curiously consis- tent with his great political gift of making those to whom he is talking think that he agrees with them.
Sensible readers who dispute this might have written in with evidence that Mr Major is interesting and informed, or that he does have convictions, or that he is not such an artful and insidiously clever conversational chameleon as Mr Johnson suggests.
Instead, you publish a tranche of letters (13 January) in which Mr Johnson is accused of 'raving', 'delirious and puerile invective', 'petty snobbery', 'hatred or hys- teria', 'shrill silliness' and 'sheer spite'.
How on earth does such abuse answer or refute Mr Paul Johnson?
Sheridan Gilley
Dunelm Mount, 36 Western Hill, Durham
Previous page
