I decided to check this out myself. I would say that it was the facts
about the dealing over the publication of TWL that may cause one to
think that Eliot was double dealing and not statements or nuances by
Rainey. Also, I think I would consider what was going on a case of
hardball business dealing rather than duplicitousness (is that a word?)
"Rickard A. Parker" wrote:
> Erwin Welsch wrote:
> > Rainey also suggests that Eliot was duplicitous in seeking various, and
> > sometimes conflicting, publishing outlets during 1922. But that is
> > another topic entirely.
> Then Ken Armstrong wrote:
> > Cheap thrills, Mr. Welsch? Lucky for us Rainey is "a cautious writer."
> A second chance here.
> Would you really rather say "Rainey also suggests that Eliot was
> duplicitous" or that the facts of the dealings suggest that Eliot was
> duplicitous? Or is there some other wording that you think would be
> Rick Parker