tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6968056.post4562576797025957012..comments2008-02-21T21:54:11.177-08:00Jimmy Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00700283384274714344noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6968056.post-58694289811884836602008-02-21T21:54:00.000-08:002008-02-21T21:54:00.000-08:00G. &#151; ta for the comment (and my apologies for not emailing lately; I'll try to do better). Robbe-Grillet's comment's a bit cruel: it's not that Roussel wrote badly, it's that he wrote <I>cleverly</I>, which is another kind of sin altogether if you ask me. And while Roussel may have had nothing to say, Robbe-Grillet surely had a lot to say about saying nothing, no? Evocatively and elegantly, of course (<I>of course</I>).Jimmy Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00700283384274714344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6968056.post-41992389424251657062008-02-21T18:28:00.000-08:002008-02-21T18:28:00.000-08:00Hello there!<BR/>About 1985, i read an article by Robbe-Grillet in an obscure anthology (Atlas Press 3) on Raymond Roussel - the whole collection was about him. R-G loved him of course, as he was deeply influenced by him. After a rundown of RR's 'achievements', he states '...basically, he had nothing to say, and he said it badly'. ggharaidhnoreply@blogger.com