When words like "address. . . at a level he might comprehend,"
"trampled," "foolishly," "mundanely" "predictable," "howling"
"complexify," [there is a verb: it's "complicate"], "in error," "a
reflection on you," "you don't seem to understand," "brandished," and
"casting aspersions" are set in opposition to "absolute"--to which you
claim access, there is no room for discussion.
I do not need to "insert myself": I'm on the list, as are you, and it
is an open forum.
I think you claimed an opportunity; I don't recall offering it.
>>> [log in to unmask] 09/22/05 10:32 PM >>>
I was trying only to be accurate and to address Jacek at a level he
comprehend, judging from the level at which he posts. And I would never
snide to you, Nancy (how ever did you manage to insert yourself into
as if I'd in anyway addressed you?) because (ok, now I'll address you)it
would have no effect. As usual, when Eliot is to be trampled upon, and
this case rather foolishly and mundanely, you are quick to defend the
tramplers. It has long been, in its frequency, pitch, and content,
predictable. Not too long ago, Jacek was howling about how you had to
forth on every opinion opined on the list. Now he thinks you are so
See the dynamics here?
Shall I point out that it makes no difference how many critics wish to
complexify their view of Eliot and to encourage each other in this
enterprise if they are, to be neutral, in error? Communal and
error, if you like. Your analytic strategy of separating what Eliot knew
from what he did, and, incredibly, casting aspersions on his
doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination. That you and however
of your fellow critics pursue that line is really more a reflection on
and them than on Eliot. It is belied utterly by the poetry, a truth
80's and 90's critics apparently have no purchase on.
Your belief in progress, and group progress at that, is in a way
admirable, but you don't seem to understand that no matter how many new
"facts" are unearthed and are brandished by how ever many new (as in
recent, current) critics, what makes the poetry poetry remains
This is an absolute. This is an absolute, and someone who comprehended
in 1951 or 1936 or 1922 cannot be trumped by the latest "theory" and its
numerous declaimers in the 80's, 90's or any other time, or by some
finally published in 2021.
One's complexified view, when it does not grasp this fundamental truth,
distracted from distraction by distraction, i.e. is more accurately
described as compromised.
As far as what I can imagine about you, it is that you probably won't
accept any of this. And why should you? It's not what you see yourself
invested in. But thank you for giving me the opportunity to express it.
--On Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:07 PM -0400 Nancy Gish
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I am not sure it is just a "machine," but Jacek is not at all into
> baloney. It is a fact (from reading nearly every book on him) that,
> unlike most writers, Eliot gets treated as a figure of moral or
> spiritual or cultural authority largely on the basis of his own
> assertion of morality, piety, and/or knowledge. The knowledge is
> unquestionable; the morality and spirituality are extremely
> questionable, as witness the constant questions. It is pointless to
> snide to Jacek or to me, given the strong reaction against Eliot's
> claims in--especially--the 80s and 90s. At this point (and
> and my book is part of this) a rethinking is in process that seeks a
> more complex understanding. But it is not at all going back to the
> hagiography Jacek notes on the basis of a great deal of writing. It's
> just there.
>>>> [log in to unmask] 09/22/05 10:37 AM >>>
> At 07:06 PM 9/21/2005, you wrote:
>> At least one can say in Bowra's favor that--together with John
>> F.R. Leavis, and recently departed David Daiches--he refused to be
>> in, and genuflect in front of, Eliot's PR machine,
> What baloney, Jacek. Now, I admit I still haven't pushed myself
> all of the Eliot bio's, but I don't remember one single recounting of
> "genuflection era." Taken in? Maybe they just weren't bright enough to
> understand what was in front of them.
> Ken A.