Reading about 18th century England, I keep tripping over Henry Fielding in his role as magistrate. Wishing to learn more of his life, I searched for biographies and chose this one based on favorable reviews. I am only a few pages in but, sadly, am unlikely to finish it.
The jacket refers to the author as "eminent British writer... is Professor of English as the University of Bristol". But is the writing herein indicative of what the profession has sunk to?
My critiques so far:
- a biography that does not deign to include citations or biographical references
- bombastic; a false air of erudition, in which the author tosses in unneccessary words or allusions, not with the aim of clarifying a point but rather to demonstrate his superiority (oh but it must be nice talking down to undergraduates from your stage)
- shameless drawing of completely unsubstantiated inferences
A short quotation from page 2 is proof enough of that this book is travesty of authorship:
"It was this muddled inheritance which gave Fielding his peculiar combination of qualities... All his life Henry enacted in his own person, [sic] a struggle between these opposite qualities, January and May, Apollo and Dionysus... There was a split in Fielding's nature, and geneaology goes a long way to explain it."
Fielding's ghost must be apoplectic.