The kind of popularity he enjoyed after the 20s had nowhere near the
intensity and universality as that which followed that period. It's just a
a lessening of intensity constitutes a waning is for the rabbit butchers to
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: autobiography & 4Q
> He lost popularity with many. He gained it with others. To say, as
> Peter did, that "no doubt his popularity waned when he became a
> Christian," is quite different: it makes an absolute out of a rejection
> of simplicity. There have always been readers who preferred the early
> poems and readers who preferred the late. Some who championed the early
> work as rejecting belief were negative about Eliot's changing attitude
> and poetry; others were more impressed. This is not difficult to
> In recent years his popularity has--if conference schedules and articles
> mean anything--increased as those old simplistic dichotomies have been
> >>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> 05/13/07 4:31 PM >>>
> At 11:31 AM 5/13/2007, Nancy Gish wrote:
> "It is not at all the case that at any point he.... in any way lost
> popularity because of Christianity. That is simply a distortion of the
> critical history and is not the point I made. My point was precisely
> this sort of simplification is inaccurate."
> and previously wrote:
> "Very few readers read him as proposing a religious idea when his first
> work came out. Many were distressed at the turn in the late 20s and
> 30s. They were
> mainstream critics."
> If the first statement quoted above is true, does the second mean that
> the mainsteam critics were distressed with their own reaction to "the
> in the late 20s and 30s"?
> Ken A.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/801 - Release Date: 5/12/2007