(urth) academic commentary

[Lee Berman]

>Antonio P. Marques: it would be dishonest to tamper with the evidence in order 
>that the public wouldn't follow it into disliked territory. But Wright doesn't 
>do that at all. So my view is that he doesn't find the obvious, likely superior 
>interpretation that obvious and likely superior. And not to mention it at all 
>suggests he finds it unhelpful. He doesn't close the path either, he just leaves 
>it for the public to follow on their own.
 
I would agree. Perhaps Wolfe's mild taunting of Wright in the interview I previously
quoted could be more construed as an ad hominem attack since they were in conversation.
But since we here are dealing with Wright only in literary form I think knowledge of 
his atheistic or socialist tendencies is fair game for understanding his work as much as
knowledge of Wolfe's religious/political leanings.
 
In some ways it is a sign of respect of an artist to show interest enough to explore their
personal aspects in a quest for deeper understanding of their art.