Psychic flagellation

That Robert Love sure has a talent for insulting people. So far he's called me "musically ingenuous" (who, me?) "catatonic" (duh) and "deat"; accuses me of "public defecation" (aw shit) of repeatedly "embarrassing myself in public" and of writing "ill-tempered", "obnoxious", "inadequate" and downright "egregrious" reviews. I mean who does he think I am, Bruce Mason? The worst bit was saying that 1 profess "knowledge" of "social science". That really hurt.

In reply, I merely said this was (a) unprovoked (b) personal (c) abuse. Mr Love sulkily adds now that his attacks were "far from unprovoked". Now look mate, I don't even know you, right? So if sometime 'way back I beat you to a seat in the cable car or dated your best girl well........just don't take it so hard. You say you "can't be bothered hating" me. Well you're bothering yourself about something, and if just doesn't seem wise to keep it a secret between you and your shrink any longer. In the meantime, for variation try ringing the Good Doctor next time you feel twitchy.

Hey, but it's not really funny. Robert Love is attacking me because he feels I made a similar attack on "Valdramar". I think the shrinks call this "projection" — you attribute your own faults to someone else then attack them on that basis. That way you appease your own guilt and can continue with your own vice with conscience satisfied. Sort of a psychic flagellation.

So in the interests of straightening out his head, I'm going to go into these accusations at some length. Sure, its irresponsible to do so when Important things like the raid on the abortion clinic are happening.

First, he says I'm misquoting him all the time. "I did not assert that the show was remarkable" he says, and on this slender base launches an all out attack, saying this is typical of my "inattention" and invites me to re-read his letter. I did. And I'm right, the actual quote is "few.....will have been able to avoid the conclusion that Valdramar is really a remarkable show — and almost certainly so not only in virtue of having provoked" such a review from me. To me, that terribly constructed sentence stilt says that the show is remarkable, partly because of my review and partly in Loves own opinion. Actually "Valdramar" is remarkable. Remarkably bad. And that's why my review was hostile. See the connection?

2)	Similarly, he says I misquote him about the spite and blind aggression. Now if I write a review and someone in response accuses me of things like that, then I naturally figure they're talking about the review. My mistake. He was actually talking about the footnote to the review! But of course!
3)	Mr Love feels that it is "obnoxious" of me to say that the relationship between Downstage and the Cockburn/Banas gang is "incestuous". I gave reasons for this, that I won't repeat. But maybe "incest" is the wrong word; I mean how am I to know whether they actually tuck? Bruce Mason says in his Listener review (Sept. 14) that whatever Mr Banas asks for at Downstage he seems to get. And that bothers me, too.
4)	Mr Love takes it on himself to lecture me about the nature of criticism. Besides being wrong, his lecture is also irrelevant. May I repeat for the third time that the various cited ineptitudes of "Valdramar" meant that I decided not to play the constructive critic. A critic, by the way, is not required to indulge the pretensions of the work under review, and judge it solely on its "own terms". Provided he gives reason, he can reject the terms altogether. In this case I saw no reason to spend more effort writing the review than the Cockburns had spent in writing the show. And of course I know the genre, Robert. How else do you think I recognised the plagiarism?
5)	Without citing any examples Mr Love accuses me of "embarrassing myself in public again". I denied this, and this denial is now cited as evidence of my "apparent gross in sensitivity". Shucks, could say I'm embarrassed for your sake, Robert, but you'd probably feel I was being patronising. And where in my review do I complain about my dinner and seat.? Or is that another "subtle irony"?
6)	More importantly he slanders Salient reviewers in general; he accuses them of a pretence at informed and informative criticsm. Obviously this whole tedious business requires Robert Love to show us how it should be done, not privately but publicly. Do a review of "Valdramar". Show us these "obvious musical merits"; if they are "demonstrable" then demonstrate them, and not, please, with unsupported opinion that this or that harmony is "inventive". And what are these "other qualities" besides the music that I am supposed to be insensitive too? It'll be good therapy, Robert, and I'm confident that it'll make damn good reading. Go to it.