Thank you Nancy.
You are both kind and generous.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Maurice Bowra's mock-poem
>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 be
> snide to Jacek or to me, given the strong reaction against Eliot's
> claims in--especially--the 80s and 90s. At this point (and Cassandra's
> 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.