----- Original Message -----
From: marco manunta
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:16 PM
Subject: T.S. Eliot's pacifism
first: I don't really like to be told what is right in "one, two, three"
steps. Its sounds so authoritarian.
>I don't think that's the right angle from which to judge Eliot's poetry.
>First, poetry is a matter of metrics and adequacy of that to the poem's
Seriously? Well, if so, it sounds very much like an argument on fundamental
concepts of literature, and so I may answer in likewise fashion, although I
normally AVOID THIS KIND OF DISCUSSIONS; BECAUSE THE ARE IN MOST CASES
DESTRUCTIVE RATHER THAN HELPFUL:
I personally (as well as academically) believe that any poetry which
co-exists with a great war is, if intended or not, a comment on this
situation. A poet who stays silent throughout the years of a worldwide
catastrophe (which Eliot did not, as we have already argued) also comments
on the situation. Literature never exists within itself, it is always
connected to the world it exists in, and reading (& analysing) literature
can to my understanding never be separated from this. Then, and only then,
comes the adequacy of form and subject.
>Second I do believe that considering the latter from a "politically
>point of view is to turn literature into something which, by definition, is
>not and cannot be.
What can then can literature be?
>Third, it sounds a lot like older discussions regarding whether you had to
>share TSE's belief to appreciate his poetical output. So dumb!
Can you for instance hear a Cat Stevens record in the same way as during the
days when it was not known that he had turned to be a rather fundamentalist
Islamist (as far as I know, he agreed to the "death warrent" for Rushdy)? It
is not as easy as you put it.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com