Come now Jennifer,
Lots of people do tarot and other semi-cultic forms
of fortune-telling for fun. Think of chinese fortune cookies,
and one's daily horoscope. Huge industries, but only people
like Nancy Reagan actually believe in them. Obviously Eliot
never took it seriously, or if he did, he was incredibly
private about it. Of course he WAS incredibly private.
And my how he liked secret ritual - cf his theft from
Conan Doyle. No. Unless one has precise evidence in this case,
one cannot rule out his "tarot"ing, to use your weird tortured
verbing. In fact, given the skittish influence of Viv, and what
I see in Sweeney Agonistes, I'm reasonably sure he knew the deck
and its functions well.
From: Jennifer Formichelli
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 2004-Oct-26 7:35 AM
Subject: A novel?; a reply to Francis ; was , Re: Tarot and Huxley
Yes, I meant Crome Yellow. Thank you.
By the way, I said 'reasonably sure'. Who can be? I can be. Eliot did
not take fortune-telling seriously; everything he has written on the
subject has so suggested. Can someone show otherwise? I believe someone
wrote in to N & Q at some point to show that even the cards in TWL are
Anyhow, my point in writing this post is not that. It is to accept the
gambit. What gambit?
>> TWL is just a different
>> kind of a novel. As is Prufrock.
TWL a novel? Really? Not to me, nor Prufrock neither. How then do you
define poetry, or verse? Both TWL and Prufrock not only contain
end-rhyme & metre, and they also contain that piece of punctuation
(and poetry, Eliot noted, is itself a different system of punctuation)
unique to poems and verse: substantial line-endings, which have a
purpose and sound in poetry and verse which they do not have in prose.
Do you still wish to call Prufrock and TWL 'novels'? Ricks writes that
many critics talk about Eliot as though he were a novelist manque.
On Monday, January 18, 2038, at 07:14 PM, Francis Gavin wrote:
> Why can we be reasonably sure of that? The similarity of names, as in
> characters is a direct lift from Huxley's satire. TWL is just a
> kind of a novel. As is Prufrock. Or Finnegans Wake. The lot not real
> on the Flaubertian characterization. You may not be interested in the
> Twentieth Century, Jennifer, but the Twentieth Century is interested
> in you.
> And I just know you meant CROME Yellow. Didn't you?
> on 10/24/04 2:13 PM, Jennifer Formichelli at [log in to unmask]
>> ( I should think if there were, it
>> would be only a joke in passing; Eliot and Huxley did not Tarot
>> together; we can be reasonably sure of that.) . I think you must mean
>> the similarity of names between Madame Sosostris and M Sesostris,
>> phony fortune teller character who appears in Huxley's Chrome Yellow?