Does your digression, quoted below, advance or clarify
the discussion of Elliot and his poetry? My answer is no.
It seems clear that the community discussion does not
need such irrelevant and gratuitous pseudo-analysis.
It's quite enough to stay to the point of the LIST---
the Text and its criticism.
[More follows the quoted digression.]
Ref: 4/1/05 2:11 PM
...What I abhor is the trite that goes on as comedy or
satire. When a person like Jay Leno makes a mockery of
say, George Bush, what I observe is his calculated
appeal to the newspaper reading common man or the
regular TV watching guy. Such an appeal is not only
crude but dangerous as well. The laughter that he
provokes is a consequence of having scratched your
subconscious ego to your pleasure and not because of
any possible humor as related to the issue. After
watching him, you don't become more conscious of the
issue; you only tend to be less conscious of it...."
"The laughter that he provokes is a consequence
of having scratched your subconscious ego to your
pleasure and not because of any possible humor
as related to the issue."
is an incredible arrogance, a crossing of boundary.
Mind reading is always nonsense and a violation.
Neither you, nor anyone, can say why another
Your digression belies your last line
"For, one could laugh for any reason or
even without one as we all seem to do today !"
Is that inconsistency?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vishvesh Obla" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: Eliot and 'Form'
> Dear Nancy,
> You don't know me :) I am given more to laughter than