I first read Dudgeon's bitter, twisted nonsense in an article published in the Daily Mail, which says a lot about its objectivity...
It upset me at first. I actually cried in a library, which was fairly embarrassing. I think it was put down to exam stress by anyone who saw me though, which was OK. I just felt so frustrated that a cruel, misinformed man is entitled to put such slander into the public domain and present it as factual.
Reading his views, I couldn't help but question what he was hoping to achieve by publishing such horrible, biased insults. It was not a piece of literary criticism, or even an informed biographical piece. It was just slander. It was merely accusatory, insulting, inaccurate and all-assuming slander, spewed from the self-indulgent mind of a writer with little or no grasp of what informative journalism or writing ought to provide. I learned nothing from what I read of his piece, nor would anybody; all it had the potential to do is to warp people's opinions and turn them against a figure who, ultimately, none of us TRULY have the right to turn moral judgement on. He lived and died long ago, and why people think they have the right to insult and accuse him of evil when he cannot present a counter-argument eludes me.
Now, I'm all for speculation, exploration of facts, and theorising. But when it comes to pronouncing a widely celebrated and adored late author to be a heartless, loveless, mind-warping monster, I draw the line.
I mean, come on. I learned the concept of objectivity in writing when I was about 12. Surely as an educated man, Dudgeon should be able to comprehend the need for SOME form of subtlety.
Of course, I'm being terribly insulting and harsh towards him, like a hypocrite. But I'm a university student on an affronted rant. He's a published writer. I think I, of the two of us, have the right to be a bit ratty
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Print