--On Friday, February 09, 2007 5:08 PM -0600 Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>
> Ken Armstrong wrote:
>> It's affected because it is spoke or
>> writ that way.
> Perhaps -- but Diana & CR seem to want to make ascribing such language
> some kind of compliment to Eliot, but it isn't. It is merely a trivial
> tautology which tells us nothing about the poems.
I believe Diana said somewhere in this thread that Eliot's creation of
affect was the result of language more subtly employed, for example, than
the lines you've cited. That seems reasonable (even if you disagree, it is
a reasonable proposition) and would be something of a compliment to Eliot,
too, however much that might pain you. The critical approach to Eliot that
takes any isolated subject and claims Eliot brought nothing special to it
-- what's its purpose?