At 10:52 AM 2/27/2007, Diana Manister wrote:
What mental deficiency renders us unable to perceive his ironic
detachment, do you suppose?
Impatience to assume the poem. Of course,that is not necessarily a
deficiency unless you give in to it, coming prematurely to your
conclusions. But you'll have to excuse me from the irony camp, as I believe
Guy Brown was quite correct in saying that there is none at all in
Burbank:Bleistein; one finds irony in place of giving Eliot his due in his
portrayal of The Jew and all that flows (masks, characterizations, dramatic
action) from it. Or again, CR's claim notwithstanding, irony is substituted
for taking Eliot seriously in this poem. What you are asking in the next
paragraph is that Eliot not believe what he did and not poeticize his
beliefs in ways that you either don't or won't understand.
>If Eliot was as great a writer as we all seem to agree that he is, surely
>he could have indicated his ironic relation to this offensive material.
>How difficult would it have been for such a great writer to have prevented
>anti-semitic readings with a few phrases putting his remarks into the
>perspective that his apologists insist he intended? And what is the
>absolute reading that will obviate "this relativistic stuff?" If you have
>it, please publish it
As I've mentioned, I do have a copy of it, as fine a piece of
interpretation as any of us could hope to see, if only all of us, as you
say and I agree, could see it.
In the meantime, I think a careful reader will find most of what she needs
to know in the compilation posted earlier, granted that for the book the
reading was extensively worked over and up.