Although "for Eliot the word is the thought's flesh" is a well-turned
phrase, it doesn't ring true to Eliot's struggles throughout his writing
with the difficult relationships between words and thoughts. Nor is it
clear how the metaphor leads to insight into his "celebrating
incarnation," which I take, from previous discussions, to mean Christ's
incarnation. There is a logical fallacy, as there is in saying that for
a poet whose "words warm his soul," an overcoat is unnecessary.
Diana Manister wrote:
> Dear CR: Kearns says something to the effect that for Eliot the word
> is the thought's flesh, so one could think of him as celebrating
> incarnation in that manner, passionately and devotedly.