I do not understand on what possible basis you can judge Gordon's
meticulously researched material "fiction." It is consistently based on cited
material, and--more signicantly--Gordon has now done three biographies
that have gone over and over parallel ground with exacting care. It is simply
not possible to dismiss whether one agrees with her judgments or not.
She has done the work, not just speculated or contrived or relied on the
kind of notions of some early memoirs.
Nancy


Date sent: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 01:18:27 +0100
Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
From: "Arwin van Arum" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: Eliot's letters--Gordon's Biography

Say widely accepted to be the most voluminous biography and I'll agree.
Otherwise, I prefer Akroyd. Gordon may have more facts, but that's covered
in a hell of a lot more fiction.

Arwin

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]Namens [log in to unmask]
> Verzonden: dinsdag 6 maart 2001 22:42
> Aan: [log in to unmask]
> Onderwerp: Re: Eliot's letters--Gordon's Biography
>
>
> "...says Lyndall Gordon, whose two-volume biography is widely
> accepted as the
> most authoritative version of the life of the American-born
> poet." (quoting
> from The Sunday Times, as furnished by Pat in her recent e-mail)
>
> Gordon's biography reminds me of the NY Times: All the news that
> is fit to
> print according to the NY Times.
>
> Eugene Schlnger
>