I agree. My way of putting it would be that it is practise, even
somewhat promising practise, perhaps sparked by reading one
of the French symbolists, saved for future reference, and hardly
a finished piece. None-the-less I think Debra's attempt to explain
her disagreement with Nancy is more the point.
Which ever angle one takes on the poem, is one justified in saying
Eliot as artist is perverse for writing it? And how can one distinguish
the artist from the man? Is perversity not a fit subject for any
artist, however undeveloped in his skills, perceptions and insights?
If Eliot was being conscously (or even unconsciously) perverse
in creating the lines, rather than exploring the material as a subject for
art, is that not a reflection on him as a person, rather than on him
as an artist.
That is what I take the debate to be. Perhaps I have it wrong.
Carrol Cox wrote:
>The question is whether this unpublished scribble by Eliot (and similar
>unpublished scribbles) _is_ art. Debra makes an eloquent argument that
>it is, but I'm a bit bothered by what I guess you could call a lack of
>_control_ on her construal. Consider the following.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/2005