Rickard A. Parker wrote:
>Marcia Karp wrote:
>> I wish Helen Vendler's response to one of the TSE Society papers
>>(Gloucester) were in print. She spoke well, and, to me, convincingly in
>>disagreement to a contention that TWL is a collaboration.
>> I press our disagreement because it is basic to how we understand a
>>poem to be written. That, in turn, bears on Timothy's post.
>I tried to get the point across but I failed. I'm not going to bother again.
>If explaining myself here is not beyond not capabilities it is beyond the
>worth for this post. Why not go directly to responding to Tim's post?
Timothy's post opens
What do listmembers think of giving Pound credit or blame for
shaping The Waste Land?
I don't see how I can add to the discussion (others might find a way)
without considering Eliot's relation to the poem. You brought up that
relation in the context of Pound's work on it, so it seemed to me you,
too, thought it part of the discussion. As for the details: I don't
believe there is a cut-and-dry reason why Eliot wrote the poem, nor am I
convinced of his "being done" with it. My disagreement is not meant as a
bother, nor is it irrelevant to the question.
I can understand if you are frustrated by my difficulty in seeing
the connections you are making. But Timothy adds, in reply to Lyndall
Gordon and Marjorie Perloff
This opinion makes Eliot seem rather passive. Most poets, I imagine,
show their poems to friends, and the decisions about the final form
are still their own.
Seems to me I am addressing his post, if that is the price of admission.