If I have given the impression that I support the excessive adulation
of Eliot, then that is too bad. I simply meant to report the fact that
he had and has
been elevated to that status by a lot of people, and I believe it
affected how he expressed
his ideas in prose in order to counter the affects of that adulation.
It is simply my impression based on experience and study in general. I
haven't quoted anyone.
It is a simple talking point in this very oral medium.
Marcia Karp wrote:
> (Recent messages have been entirely too long, quoting endlessly and
> not making clear what points are being addressed. I'm writing, sans
> quotation, in rely to Peter and Nancy on Eliot and an undefined
> canonization, though Peter would elevated Eliot, via cannonisation
> into a big bang. [Yet, the canon and the cannon are in fact from the
> same root.])
> Wanting real readers, wanting to be published in magazines read by
> people who might care about poetry and might help get books published,
> wanting to participate in a cultural life outside the desk -- what
> poet doesn't want these?
> "Canonization" has been used in the several letters by several listers
> to mean two different things: some psuedo-sainthood and literary
> immortality. The first is in the realm of human nonsense and ego and
> who cares? As for the second, again, what serious artist doesn't want
> his or her work to last?
> Where is the news in a real writer wanting to be considered one?
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.6 - Release Date: 3/30/2005