I'm thinking of how Mary Wolstonecraft was able to rise above
all the exasperations of her age, and of how Virginia Woolf
was able to step aside some beadle that got in her way, without
bothering to vent upon him.
Eliot is a convenient whipping horse for people who haven't found
their ways around such obstacles. It is his punishment for becoming
a Christian and so betraying the age that thought it could rise
above superstition, and thought TWL was the prime statment of that
belief. As he said once, somewhere, "In an age when everyone is
trying to escape, a person going in the opposite direction will
seem to run away." or words to that effect.
Given what the publication world has become, eg Oprah &c.
the production of a book is no longer an indicator of anything.
From: Nancy Gish - Women's Studies [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Poets on poetry
What I think is that you are astonishingly rude and astonishingly
concerned about what I say. It is not mutual.
On 4 Dec 2003, at 13:10, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> At 06:24 PM 12/3/2003 -0500, Nancy Gish wrote:
> >Oh don't be silly.
> Hope springs eternal.
> > I just finished my third book on Eliot (this one co-
> >edited). No one spends a life doing that out of animus.
> > If you can't make a point, why blether?
> Making a point to you, Nancy, is no easy proposition. If you have no
> animus for Eliot, no one does. The number of books under your belt does
> attest to your attitude toward your subject. Critics have no animosity
> toward their subjects or they wouldn't bother? Is there anyone so naive as
> to accept this for writ?
> >Katherine Anne Porter, like everyone before the necessary research
> >on language, was taught that "man" and "he" were grammatically
> >correct terms for the third person. Everyone else was taught the
> >same. It happens to be nonsense.
> That it is nonsense is beside the point. The point is, if I were to
> continually harp on KAP for what "Everyone else was taught" and commonly
> used, it would rightly appear, wouldn't it, that I had it in for KAP. Why
> constantly be correcting her for what everyone did? Why step on Eliot
> chance you get for what everyone else did? It has nothing to do with your
> handy summary of how "he" came to be used for third person everyone. That
> is a red herring by which you evaded my question. Why? Because when
> disagrees with you, it must be because they are wrong?
> . If you know
> >nothing about it (as your comment suggests), why carp?
> > it is pointless to respond courteously to trolling and
> However, it is your practice to carp and snipe at Eliot and then to
> offense when anyone points it out. I can only disagree with you, you
> imply, if I "know nothing about it." If you are unable to admit or see
> any of this, then the only point in responding is to open better
> possibilities for others. Did you think at all about the suggestion
> regarding artistic expression?
> Ken A.