Vishvesh Obla wrote:
>
> [clip] The
> issue that I raised was how Eliot being an artist of
> the greatest kind could be so much prejudiced in his
> understanding of Lawrence,

There are two false premises here, namely, (a) that "an artist of the
greatest kind" should be unprejudiced and (b) that a great artist will
necessarily recognize or understand another artist, great or otherwise.
(This leaves open the question of whether either of the artists
concerned are or are not of "the greatest kind.")

> that too when they
> apparently seem to have had similar interests in their
> quest for the greater possibilities of life

This seems tautological. I.e., it characterizes everyone, artist or
non-artist, and something that characterizes everyone characterizes no
one in an interesting way. Surely Rochester was in "quest for greater
possibilities of life" when he wrote "The Imperfect Enjoyment," as was
Charles Churchill when he wrote "The Dedication," and as was Austen when
she wrote _Mansfield Park_. (All superb works, and the last is
unsurpassable.) Who doesn't want greater possibilities.

> and react
> similarly in their negation of modern civilization.  I

Two people dislike rye whiskey. Does that mean they have anything else
in common? But more importantly (and assuming that both did "negate
modern civilization), such universal negations (like universal
affirmations) evoke for me Carlyles's response on hearing that Margaret
Fuller had said "I accept the universe," "Gad! She'd better." The
rejection of a whole civilization is as juvenile as accepting the
universe.

Carrol