At 10:31 AM 2/28/2007, Diana Manister wrote:
>Ken, if this masterly text is "a piece of interpretation" than it is as
>relativistic as anything else.
All we have is interpretation. Some is good, some is bad, and either in
whatever degree, and some is as good as it gets. Isn't it the point of the
humanities, in some measure, to establish that principle and enable it in
>My point was that Eliot, being the great writer we all agree he is, could
>have easily disabused the public of any anti-Semitic interpretations of
>his poems but he did not. If his intention was to foreground other
>people's anti-Semitism by satirizing it, he could have made that less open
>to speculation, but he did not when he could have.
My point was that you are mistaking his point and making an assumption
that isn't true. In effect,you are criticizing what it isn't, not what it
is, i.e. you are frontloading it with your own assumptions where a more
patient, less prejudiced reading would come to see it differently, i.e.,
not to put too much of a point on it, more accurately.