I know he was trying to inspire, Jack. My point is that he failed, because his exposition and content were so woolly and imprecise. All part of that 'air of having triumphantly demonstrated what has merely been strenuously asserted' that John Gross described [writing of another critic] as 'faintly comic'. He was a noted academic, for heaven's sake. One should expect some intellectual, not merely vaguely 'inspirational', argument from him, surely?

A bit like an art critic saying, "ooh, aah, this is beautiful" over & over again. I should never bother to look at any art on such a one's recommendation or say-so.

~M~