This is from the Sept 30 issue. It was posted on the web on Sept 23:
If it's the right one, then Rickard deserves the credit
for getting it to us first.
From: Ken Armstrong [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 2:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New Yorker
Appears, from a quick scan of the NYer website, to be in the September 30
issue . The article itself is not up, and I have not seen the mag in the
flesh, but I like what Eugene says. K.A.
At 01:57 PM 10/11/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>I can't help thinking there is some confusion here
>and we are really referring to the NY review of
>the recent book on Eliot's love life.
>From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 11:42 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: New Yorker
>Article argues that you cannot tell a poet by his or her spouse/lover et
>cetera. I thought the article might dissuade further analysis of the
>individual artist; and direct scholarship more towards an explication of
>artistry not of Eliot but his poetry. Not quite sure if that is possible
>this media-besotted age, but hopeful. (And, if I know this list, it is
>probable that my last comment will trigger more replies than the
>penultimate.) My apologies in advance: I have just thought since my
>teenage years that Eliot's poems have a great "voice."