On Sep 27 2002, Nancy Gish wrote:
In Eliot's case, I think personality is deeply
> involved in the poems and in a way that partly defines how they affect
> us. But that is not the same as liking it. I think he wrote brilliant
> lines out of his own sometimes very twisted experience. That is what
> matters to me.
No objections at all. I almost completely agree with the above stated, but
could you specify what precisely you mean by ""personality" that is willing
to use others, and I think he did that throughout his life. (Now the deluge
You don't mean his use of other poets' work, do you? Or is what you mean
that he was a cold blooded *consumer* who used people, who exploited those
who were close to him to fit his own purposes? Was he really that
> Date sent: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:56:53 +0200 Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot
> Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]> From: Gunnar Jauch
> <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: New online Eliot material To:
> [log in to unmask]
> am 27.9.2002 10:21 Uhr schrieb Temur Kobakhidze unter
> [log in to unmask]:
> > Dear Nancy,
> > Did I really say that? Personality does matter, but not so
> > overwhelmingly:)) And when one dislikes both the poet and his
> > personality, you just say one dislikes both. As simple as that.
> > It seems, TSE's way of life was part of his poetical perception of the
> > world. You won't be able to write Four Quartets unless you are a
> > highbrow intellectual and a conservative, at least to an extent:-). And
> > to the same extent disliking the personality does mean disliking the
> > potry. Although the personality and the poetry are by no means
> > interchangeable.
> > To say we are impersonal is just a curious way of asserting that our
> > personality is more deeply involved: the thought is Cleanth Brooks's if
> > my memory serves me right.
> > Regards,
> > TK
> > On Sep 26 2002, Nancy Gish - Women's Studies wrote:
> >> Dear Temur,
> >> Quite apart from the issue of what Kate said, why does one need
> >> to like Eliot's personality to have a passionate interest in his
> >> poetry?
> >> Nancy
> Dear Temur,
> you don't seem to understand what Nancy is reiterating: The personality of
> an artist, in this case of a poet, is of minor interest; what matters is
> his/her work.
> There are many examples:
> E.M. Forster had a strange private life, in Kipling's biography "The Long
> Recessional" one learns about some of his not wholly commendable views and
> actions. In "Life with Picasso" Françoise Gilot tells us about Picasso, an
> egomaniac and an unpredictable macho. That does not change the fact that
> they all were touched by a common genius.
> A fabulous exhibit MATISSE/PICASSO, a huge juxtaposition of major works by
> the two giants of modern art, has just opened in the Grand Palais of
> Paris. It will be shown in the Tate Modern in January and later in the
> MOMA. Don't miss it!).
> A prerequisite to write such a masterpiece as 4Q is not merely "highbrow
> intellectuality", but mainly knowledge, spirituality, belief and deep
> wisdom. I fail to see what you mean by "conservative", in my view nothing
> but a generalizing, superficial and useless term in any context.