I don't understand why you butted in.
I'm most terribly sorry. I hadn't realised that this was a private grumble thread.
I'll butt out now and take my own opinions and viewpoints with me.
My incomprehension wasn't because the thread is private,
Well, suggesting that I was 'butting in' rather gives the impression you thought I had no business contributing.
but because I found the opinion you expressed incomprehensible.
Not quite sure why you found it so hard, so I'll try again.
The author talked about ten books he felt were undervalued, unappreciated, nearly forgotten. Clearly he used a bit of hyperbole in the article, but, um, that's something a lot of people do, not just journalists.
You disagreed with him about at least three of the books, and said so.
I was surprised by how vituperative you'd felt the need to be, and said that I hadn't heard at all of one of the books, and had no detailed knowledge at all of the other two. Given that I'd see myself as being reasonably well educated and read, that's a data point - one, yes - in support of the Guardian piece. It suggests that, although 'dead and forgotten' may be a bit strong, 'little known' or 'overlooked' may well be appropriate.
Does that render my opinion any more comprehensible?
What's more, given that one effect of such a piece may be to provoke interest in the titles it refers to, and you're apparently an aficionado of at least the Tanizaki work, I'd have thought you might have been a little more graceful in your criticism than simply resorting to abusing John Sutherland as a 'Guardian tosser.'
Ah well, no matter. I shall consider whether to remedy some of these gaps in my reading.