I often think that if Anthony Daniels wrote an excoriation of Mary Had A Little Lamb - "yokel slattern unable to control her indisciplined and stinking livestock" - then the New Criterion would still publish it. After all, they seem to print anything that the primly censorious former doctor writes, even third-rate whimsical ramblings about Sherlock Holmes.
I can't imagine how relentlessly humiliating it must have been to suffer as a patient in his clinic: "You have a foul and diseased liver, Mr Smith; no doubt the result of all that disgusting lager beer you and your scruffily indiscriminating kind drink. It's terminal, naturally. Good day to you. Close the door on your way out."
Fortunately, however, Daniels' constant loitering under the street lamps on the conservative side of Grub Street, often employing the name Theodore Dalrymple as an alias, has been the cause of the most profoundly true sentence I've read this year. Stephen Schwartz, also writing in the New Criterion, in response to a typical Daniels essay about George Orwell, wrote: "Suffice it to say that the publication of such an article exemplifies two increasingly common vexations of the life of the mind: first, the temptation of columnists and pundits to imagine they possess instant expertise on extremely complicated historical issues and can deliver themselves of pompous opinions without conducting any serious reading, and second ... "
Alas, I can't claim to know much about the life of the mind, or complicated issues, but I do know that the latest Daniels/Dalrymple essay is about George Bernard Shaw, whom he dismisses as "a crank." Well, it takes one to know one, eh, Tony.
Having said all this, it should be noted that Anthony Theodore Dalrymple Daniels does still write the best social criticism you will find anywhere. If only he'd keep his literary opinions to himself, especially ones about Samuel Butler.