I apologize for mixing up the genders. I am not
familiar that an 'r' would make a difference as that !
I didn't call Eliot a 'Basher'. Bashing is perfectly
valid in the world of letters.
As to Eliot's cynicism as regards Lawrence, I believe
I have justified as to why I find it so. If he was
commenting on Lawrence's short comings, it is most
welcome, for it came from a mind highly sensitized of
the values of Literature. He applies an entirely
different set of yardsticks in his comments on
Lawrence which he himself seldom employed in his best
If you are seriously interested in this issue, you may
try reading the first few chapters of Leavis’s
‘D.H.Lawrence : Novelist’.
--- Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> At 06:52 AM 2/15/2005 -0800, Vishvesh Obla wrote:
> >If what one acquires as one "grows up" in one's
> >discriminating abilities is considered to be
> >as Ms.Carroll Cox makes us understand here, then we
> >need not at all feel any concerns that are central
> >the study of Humanities
> >Lets see what she offers in this context:
> Carroll, our minister of silly lists, would be
> Mr. if he weren't Dr.
> Eliot the basher (because he says DHL is the most
> interesting novelist
> in England), Eliot the cynic (because he notices
> DHL's shortcomings), Eliot
> the elitist---all seem, at best, unevenly applied.
> And if Eliot is a basher
> for his remarks on DHL, then what must some list
> members be for their
> remarks on TSE? Anything less than assassins?
> Ken A.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around