This historian, Peter Heehs, is very subtle and deceptive in the way he denigrates Sri Aurobindo's work. He inserts his negative remarks at strategic points in the text. See Page 306, second para: "By 1920, the Modernists were changing the face of European and American literature, and many of the ideas on which The Future Poetry was based had become antiquated curiosities before any important poet or critic could read the book. Aurobindo's own poetry, rooted deeply in the soil of the nineteenth century, was out of date before it saw print. Aurobindo witnessed the rise of Modernism and found it difficult to align with his own ideas of beauty and significance." Peter Heehs contradicts the perception of his admirers who think Sri Aurobindo deserves the Nobel Prize. http://www.sciy.org/blog/_archives/2009/4/12/4151029.html#1234841 I suppose "devotees of Peter Heehs" will say that is also acceptable under their theory of "personal representation" and "It is not a hagiography. You must expect criticism of Aurobindo in this book." Peter Heehs is a school drop-out. Of course, lack of formal education can be overcome by spiritual development but even that is missing in this author. Instead, all of we have is Ignorance and complete lack of spiritual perception hidden under a sham mask of objectivity. It arouses my wrath when this historian pretends to stand tall by attempting to evaluate Sri Aurobindo's work. I guess he needs recognition from Western academics to compensate for his lack of schooling. RYD, could you tell us why ideas on which Future Poetry is based may never be antiquated ?