On further thought, you are right. Comspiracy is somewhat inaccurate.
It is more like a religious commitment to desacralise, or, if you will
(or won't) de-anagogicalise his work, to limit his influence to literary
and away from any of the work he did to express what oft was thought
but not so well expressed in the area of inner human experience, esp.
personal religious experience.
"saying that this was all folly"
George Carless wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 07:59:00PM -0700, Peter Montgomery wrote:
>>I'm with you, Marcia. I sense yet another conspiracy to downplay Eliot's
>>contribution/importance to modern poetry.
>A "conspiracy", no less? "The other side"? In Peter's apparent
>paranoia, he as usual finds an argument where none really exists. Peter,
>what is it of Nancy's quite sensible response, about this being a
>semantic argument, that so sticks in your craw? Does the suggestion that
>Eliot might have been assisted by "il miglior fabbro" offend the
>apotheosis you would grant him?
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.19/93 - Release Date: 9/8/2005