THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL MARCH (pp. IO, II)adopts Schumpeter's distinction, arguing that Keynes was not entirely successful in translating his vision into a logically watertight model (iii)Stylistic difficulties. Keynes is often accused of a lack of clarity. This suggested by O'Donnell(Ig8ga, P. 6) as a reason for the difficulties in the interpretation of Keynes. O,Donnell approvingly quotes Wittgenstein's maxim that if anything can be said, it can be said clearly. Leijonhufvud(pp. IO, II) s far as to say that the General Theory is 'a badly written book ' and that epairs'has led to confusion because different writers have corrected Keynes's model in inappropriate ways. It is also argued that Keyness style is too loose and vague. This echoes Whiteheads criticism of Keynes's dissertation on probability as using the style of literature, not the style of logic and philosophy (iv)Inconsistencies. Some writers have suggested that Keynes did not have a coherent and consistent vision. It is an argument used by Leijonhufvud but also by Robinson (1973, p, 3)in her well-known comment that 'there were moments when we had some trouble in getting Maynard to see what the point of his revolution really was recent extreme example of the author- generated confusion'thesis is the neo-Ricardian argument that Keynes made a mistake in retaining the neoclassical concept of the marginal efficiency of capital (Milgate, I982). This created the possibility that, if the rate of interest is sufficiently low, there will be sufficient investment to maintain full employment. According to Milgate this undermined the principle of effective demand, the essence of the General Theory. Furthe ermore it forced Keynes to develop explanations of interest rate maladjustment; hence Keynes's misguided emphasis on expectations and liquidity preference. 2) The confusion is reader-generated An alternative explanation of the confusion surrounding the General Theory is to focus on the actions of the audience. Again there are a number of variants this explanation (i)Inappropriate framing. Readers have interpreted Keynes relative to inappropriate frame of reference. This results in the development of a variety of'subjective'interpretations based on personal beliefs and ideological and normative biases. In the process the objective meaning of Keynes becomes lost. This line of argument is epitomised by Leijonhufvud,'s distinction betwee Keynesian economics'and the 'economics of Keynes. It is an argument repeated by Fitzgibbons(1988, Pp. I-5) when he points towards the problem of 'systematically biased interpretation (ii)Selective reading. a closely related variant to the inappropriate framing rgument is the problem created by readers considering only parts of the text Thus O'Donnell (1989a, p. 4)sees the main reason for the multiple parts,rather than the whole of his relevant writing@ erpretations on selected interpretations of Keynes as the 'tendency to base int ii)Reliance on secondary sources. The tendency towards multiple interpret- tions of Keynes has been exacerbated by the tendency to read about Keynes rather than to read Keynes himself