> I pick on ?you? since you have been hurling a lot of
> what seems to me as abuse on a great poet. My
I don't see where Nancy has been "hurling abuse", either on the poet
or on his poetry. To say that a poem is 'perverse' is not to say
that it is 'bad', and to say that a poet has been inconsistent in his
own comments on poetry and on criticism -- as I think Eliot very
demonstrably has -- is not to say that nothing he has said is valid,
nor that his poetry is without worth. I do think it's fairly clear
from reading Eliot's comments over the years that he was quite able
to change his own mind about things, or at least to say different
things at different times when it suited him.
> How can I discuss poetry in your lines if you by your
> own words seem to me to be associating with such
> issues that are not primary to the ?poem?? As a crude
What is "primary to the poem" would seem to be what's "in" the poem,
wouldn't it? It's not as though there is anything intrinsically
wrong with a poem being about S&M or about sex or about violence or
about whatever you might please, so why this defensiveness?
Oh, and could somebody please explain to me what they mean when
they talk about a peom being an "idea" rather than an "experience"?
I might just be a bit of a dullard, but I do think some of you talk
in big terms when little ones will do... ;)
George Carless ... [log in to unmask]
Words are just dust in deserts of sound