I obliterated your post, and then, of course,
realised it was relevant to a point I had made.
All this is vague for me, because I was in Calgary at the
time with limited access. I vaguely remember that a couple
of folks asked me to elaborate on a point I made, but there
was no way that was that was going to happen at the time,
since I couldn't pop the posts down to use later.
If said folks want to re-raise their points, I would be harpy to try
As I remember, there was a lament that Sweeney A. was
not finished, or the technique not followed up. I mentioned Eliot's
desire to evolve a common speech kind of verse. I think his
straegy was a perceptual one. He wanted, like Joyce, to help
people find the poetic in the ordinary. I suppose one could
wonder whether finding the ordinary in the poetic accomplished
that goal. Then there was the counter goal of creating levels
of insight -- in effect finding the deep in the superficial. I suppose any
writer would warm to indications that goals had been achieved.