Does anyone else think the Times would be delighted with Wolcott's response?
I'm wearing rose colored glasses, but I keep thinking a passionate argument about ballet, however vituperative, will bring positive attention. (Do you think we could get them to fight a duel?)
Yes! I'm sure it's good for business. And good that people are reading it. In the best of all possible worlds, it will make them read Macauley (and Wolcott) and make up their own minds!!
Dale makes a good point, too. Are blogs supposed to be "fair and balanced"? I guess not, because there are no rules for blogs. They are supposed to be "a good read" -- entertaining, and that often means something outrageous, or making a point because of the effect a point will have -- and passionate arguments have always been good for ballet.
I'll raise Leigh's questions again, so they don't get lost:
Let's address some of Wolcott's points. Do people find Macaulay's writing overly emotional?
Also, what about Dale's point about Wolcott and his remaining silent on his wife's position vis-a-vis the profession? Can you make that kind of attack and leave that information out?