All I said was that it is the power of the poem that makes the difference.
One is subordinated to the other. No big powerful poem, no legions of
scholars tracking down the pub. history.
--On Friday, July 29, 2005 4:52 PM +0000 CR Mittal <[log in to unmask]>
> Dear Ken,
> One can understand your impatience with the history of a composition
> vis-à-vis the composition itself. And take heart, yours is not the sole
> voice. For the composition remains the primary thing and the
> deliberations about the history of a composition, valuable in their own
> right, do at times seem, to quote from another context, “inert and
> extraneous, like so much scaffolding erected around a building that
> remains obstinately and mysteriously invisible”, and at other times “a
> sordid boon”! All the same, there are scholars who devote a lifetime
> exploring the history of a composition because it is a passion with them.
> Just as yours and so many others’ is for the creation itself. And why
> not? In great art, as in TWL for instance, one looks for
> “interpenetration and metamorphosis”.
>> From: Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: TWL Notes
>> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:44:48 -0400
>> --On Wednesday, July 27, 2005 9:46 PM -0400 Nancy Gish
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> That the composition is more interesting than the publication
>>> history to
>>> one person does not make it in some absolute way "more
>>> does it?
>> With all due respect, it does. The list you've itemized is important
>> in subordination to the poem. Were the poem a flop the list would be
>> at best neglected, wouldn't it? It gets its importance from the
>> poem, not the other way around.
>> Ken A.
> Top-of-the-line jobs!. Log on to www.timesjobs.com and apply TODAY!