Thanks for your previous lengthy and scholarly note. It helpfully
elucidates the situation. A factor in your favor is that Eliot mentioned
38-42 pages in length and it turned out longer, suggesting that the
lengthier notes were added as you said they were.
What I was hoping to suggest was that there was not an immutable Eliot. He
changed his opinions from, for example, writing a sarcastic paper about
Kipling when he was at Harvard, to espousing his works later in life; from
being an adherent of Bergson, to abandoning his philosophy; and so on.
Perhaps his description of TWL notes was part of the guise of Old Possum
that he seemed, from interviews, to adopt later in life.
I enjoy and benefit from Eliot postings on the Eliot list, but I am
uncertain what "cheap thrills" meant, except that the comment seemed to fit
within the increasing vituperation that characterized the OT postings, so I
was unable to respond. I wonder how I could have phrased my comment more
effectively so as not to offend but to spark to life an actual Eliot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2002 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: Printing of Eliot's work
> 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