In a message dated Wed, 13 Jun 2001 6:34:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "INGELBIEN RAPHAEL" <[log in to unmask]> writes:
<< <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> Pat Sloane wrote: > Why are you saying he feared individualism? This is the man who said one
> couldn't understand what it meant to transcend personality unless one had a
> personality in the first place.
Pat, Aren't you being slightly disingenuous here? Anybody who's read 'The Function of Criticism' knows that Eliot was one of the most articulate opponents of liberal individualism. Your own quote from 'Tradition' shows that he regarded individualism / personality as a problem that had to be transcended. OT: Dubya has just arrived in Brussels, and the traffic problems aren't the better for it. This might be called adding injury to insult, I suppose... Yours,
[log in to unmask]>>
I think it is more accurate to say that Eliot regarded individuality as a vital and necessary ingredient in the recipe of the creative process, but one that, because of its very power, had to employed with great care, lest it overwhelm the final product.
OT: We in New York City can still remember "Bush-lock" (traffic gridlock caused by a presidential visit) from Bush I. It got much worse as Clinton-lock, because he came here more, and because Hillary often visited, to the same effect. Whether security was tighter for the Clintons, I don't know -- but it seemed the tie-ups were even worse.
This all relates to the Reagan shooting, I think, as even after JFK and the attempts on Ford, things were not this bad until the mid-80's. I can't imagine what it's like in Washington, with the President always around and the streets a mess to begin with. All a dimension of the imperial presidency, I suppose. I think it's a bit overdone.