Nerd, you really need to get out of the habit of accusing people you disagree with of lying or being liars. That's name calling, and it really drags the discusions to the gutter.

I know about the Dave Marsh article (more of a blurb, really), and the little bit of controversy it stirred up, but I had a very different take on it than yours, apparently. Accounts I had read over the years weren't contradictory to the account in the Gordon book that Marsh refers to in his article. In fact, it matched other written accounts of Lomax I'd read in other folklore and musicology contexts, so I wasn't the least bit shocked by it by the time it showed up at CounterPunch.

But the Lomax controversy wasn't just a CounterPunch thing either. I also read about it in this Sing Out! letters exchange. I know I read about it elsewhere too, but I can't remember where else right now.

But the important point is, those critical opinions of Lomax didn't originate with Dave Marsh or Robert Gordon's book. Lomax wasn't a saint. Over the years, he alienated a lot of people. There has been a lot of scholarship published in the last 10 years that has been critical rather than reverential, which is as the scholarship should be. Comes with the territory. I don't believe in icon smashing for the sake of it, but I also don't agree with shoving this sort of controversy under the scholarship rug just so as not to tarnish the reputation Lomax studiously cultivated to gain in stature among his peers, and in the music business.

Writing about Lomax at the time of his death, like the writing about Harry Smith, was typical of that sort of writing. It was more testimonial than critical biography, which was appropriate in some instances, not in others. Obituaries are meant to be factual reportage, not unexamined adulation. And I do agree with Marsh that the writing done about Lomax, like the writing done about Harry Smith, made them both look much better in death than they were in life. I just think Marsh got a bit carried away damning him without offering any praise.

But considering your perspective on Lomax, I can totally understand that your exchange with Jeffrey soured you on him. But because your exchange with Jeffrey about an article written by a writer other than him about folk music, demonstrated he was ill informed about Lomax, doesn't mean his analysis of environmental politics is wrong. That just says to me that he ended up playing the role of the customer service department to your complaint about an article in his magazine.

So I'm fine with you leaving that one out as far as you're concerned, based upon your personal experience. But I still think his insight an analysis of environmental politics is dead on.