I understand what you are saying. It is only my
personal impression. Eliot the poet seems to me to
have synthesized religious experience. From a Hindu's
perspective I find I am all with him when I read most
of his poetical works (particularly his 'Ash
Wednesday'), though I feel out of place when I visit a
Church, or at odds with many Christian beliefs. I
have found myself uncomfortable by many of his
religious positions in his prose works. But as I
said, it is a personal impression. I have never
carried it far enough to see if it could be
universally true, for religion could be a subjective
area and could have parameters not applicable to
--- Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> At 11:39 AM 9/24/2006, Vishvesh Obla wrote:
> >I find the statement made by Diana true to a large
> >extent as far his prose works are concerned. In
> >poetry, I believe we see the 'artist' and in prose
> >see a different person (How true is Lawrence's
> >statement 'Never trust the artist; trust the tale'
> This seems unlikely to me not what Lawrence said,
> which should be a first
> principle of criticism, but that there were two
> Eliot's in the prose and
> poetry. My guess is that the claim reflects more --
> much more -- on the
> maker than on the poet/critic. What is it we think
> we know about the one
> that makes it so different from the other?
> As far as Eliot's vision being divisive goes, I
> don't give this much
> credence. It's certainly no more divisive than, say,
> Lao-Tse and his
> partial insight and quite likely a lot less so.
> In any case, make mine High-TSE. ;-)
> Ken A.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around