My CV: M.
William, sorry. since he studied history. ans since — i guess — he is teaching history — you can’t just post “Steven Heller and Prejudice” without knowing the real history of the Swastika!!!! and he didn’t post, let’s say : The Swastika and Prejudice. and then compare what Heller wrote. What Quinn wrote. etc. etc. and then. and only then — we all can learn about the issue. and REALLY talk about prejudice!!!! [if you want i can email you about the books — but not here] David Hamuel
The “real” history? I don’t claim to know the real history of anything, David. And are you the same David Hamuel who was posting yesterday? The prejudice in question is mine. Remember? “Irrational prejudice against Steven Heller”? Ring any bells? And please stop repeating yourself. Matha.
Don’t remember? it’s in here: http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/30/16689.html?1064504736 M.
>not here Why not? I think everyone posting here would be interested if these other books have something that sheds light on the swastika and prejudice, whether against the swastika or against Heller’s judgment on it.
why new thread? to avoid confusion why “hijacking”? because that’s what I was doing. i’m not going to be part of this thread. suit yourself. M.
does anyone who has been paying attention still consider Heller a critic or historian? apparently so. He’s called a critic or historian everywhere I come across his name. His books are heavily disguised as criticism/history. Fooled me anyway. if we just call him a commentator will it make his work easier to digest? That’s a very interesting question. I suppose it would. And it would be compatible with his image of himself too. M.
He writes about history (not just typographic but also political history), so he’s a historian. Just not at all a very objective one. Kinross is a good type historian — he just doesn’t write fast enough for US publishers. hhp
This thread sucks.