That is a hard decision to make. From his letters, Eliot seemed constantly
desperate for money during this period and begged from everyone, especially
his family. His mother was constantly sending her 34 year old son checks
and even hand-made pajamas. Yet his salary at the bank seems above average
for the period. Perhaps it was his need to support his wife's medical
difficulties. But he also took a month to vacation in southern France,
continually had a servant during this time, and could afford a pricey
psychiatric clinic. What may seem double dealing to one could be
interpreted as hard headed reality for someone who had just written his
longest poem for which he had high hopes. But treating Eliot as an icon
instead of a person capable of acting harshly--referring to his drinking
buddy from Harvard, Conrad Aiken, as "just stupid" when he was
simultaneously soliciting his help--seems misplaced.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Printing of Eliot's work
> 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?)
> Rick Parker
> "Rickard A. Parker" wrote:
> > Erwin Welsch wrote:
> > > Rainey also suggests that Eliot was duplicitous in seeking various,
> > > 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."
> > Erwin,
> > 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
> > better?
> > Regards,
> > Rick Parker