Please let me correct your statement below. I did not call you wrong,
as the quotations (inverted commas?) around the word imply below. I
merely stated that you shifted your terms (hic et ubique?) , which you
did; and that I disagreed with your so doing for the reasons stated in
None of that implies that I think of you as a freshman, as you
suggested (although since I don't think deprecatorily of young people
in general, and have admired a good many, it wouldn't be automatically
depreciating if I did). On the contrary, I am grateful to your post for
giving me something to argue with.
On Sunday, July 24, 2005, at 05:19 PM, Nancy Gish wrote:
> More ado and completely false--I did not confuse anything or use any
> terms not totally common and in common ways. I think this announcement
> of my "wrong" understanding rather astonishing as it seems to assume a
> single (and idiosyncratic since it is contrary to constant standard
> usage) meaning quite personal to Jennifer as somehow uniquely correct.
> See prior post.
>>>> [log in to unmask] 07/24/05 8:06 PM >>>
> Part of my point here, though, is that we cannot have a serious
> discussion of character on such slippery terms. This post confuses
> character, "character", personality, persona, and figure; and in doing
> so, it wrongly understands caricature as character and vice-versa, and
> fails to distinguish between drama, poetic drama, dramatic monologue,
> poetic verse, verse drama, and dramatic poems properly. I argue the
> case because these distinctions were crucial to Eliot, in both his
> poems and his criticism.
> I am reminded of AFTER STRANGE GODS (42-43) and Eliot's criticism
> of whom Pound has condemned to hell -- all types rather than
> individual. E. suggests that the less these artisitic creations engage
> in moral struggle, the less real they are.