[log in to unmask][log in to unmask], 30 May 2001 01:37:08 +0100381_- > Oh, Jon. How you disappoint me though you pledge solidarity.
Don't worry, Marcia, I've made a lifetime's study out of disappointing
people, and it's probably too late for me to change now! :O)
> He sings wonderfully.
Ah, I never said *I* didn't like it! There's a rough-hewn, craggy grandeur
to his voice that's quite compelling, I think. [...]47_30May200101:37:[log in to unmask]
7768 19 22_Re: Reality and poetry20_Jennifer [log in to unmask], 30 May 2001 08:27:18 +0100586_- Dear Rickard,
What is a poem's 'poetic self' (as opposed say to its unpoetic, or
prosaic self?)? I'm not sure poems have 'selves'. For a brilliant
biographical reading of TWL, see William Empson, 'Using Biography'.
Whether or not Eliot was 'wounded' and whatever writing TWL did for him,
doesn't seem to me to matter to the poem at all. It is not generally
helpful, as Eliot recognized, to consider the poet over his poems, or to
read things into the poems rather than teasing things out of them. And at
least if you do so, you must realize that that [...]37_30May200108:27:[log in to unmask]
7788 55 22_Re: Reality and poetry14_Rickard [log in to unmask], 30 May 2001 07:42:56 -0400386_- Jennifer Formichelli wrote:
> What is a poem's 'poetic self' (as opposed say to its unpoetic, or
> prosaic self?)? I'm not sure poems have 'selves'.
I beg to get out of this. I was reusing Rick seddon's words thinking
that I understood them. If I write about the meaning of them I will
embarass myself and have to seek out Rick's rock to hide under. [...]44_30May200107:42:[log in to unmask]
7844 117 22_Re: Reality and poetry14_Rickard [log in to unmask], 30 May 2001 07:44:55 -0400268_- Marcia Karp wrote:
> Any of us can only know what we know in the ways we know. I don't find
> it untrue or up to me to decided that only someone who has felt a given
> feeling or emotion has a chance of expressing it. All this is a given. [...]44_30May200107:44:[log in to unmask]
7962 99 22_Re: Reality and [log in to unmask], 30 May 2001 07:46:12 EDT639_- --part1_3e.c5fc9a6.28463784_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In a message dated 5/29/01 3:22:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> This might not be a word I would thought of using before quoting
> Joseph Campbell but what is wrong with compassion?
People more interested in the artist's life than in the art don't exactly
qualify as compassionate. Most of them have no interest in art, or an
inability to relate to it as art, from which they take off in either of two
directions. [...]37_30May200107:46:[log in to unmask]
8062 30 22_painting: burnt norton12_james [log in to unmask], 30 May 2001 09:13:35 -0500495_- For Pat:
Have you seen Helen Frankenthaler's painting Burnt Norton? My wife, who is
an artist, says it's an abstract painting. If you've seen it, can you
describe how it relates to the poem?
James F. Loucks, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of English
Coordinator of English
Department of English
The Ohio State University at Newark
1179 University Drive
Newark, OH 43055-1797
Fax 740 366-5047
[log in to unmask] [...]38_30May200109:13:[log in to unmask]
8093 143 22_Re: Reality and poetry12_james [log in to unmask], 30 May 2001 09:26:51 -0500638_- I'm not so sure expose bios are inherently evil. They tend to re-open the
conversation, as witness Lawrance Thompson's scorpionlike bio of Frost
(albeit not of the "bowel-genital variety)or Louise DeSalvo's book on
Woolf; in the latter instance the book prompted a respo