For some reason your message and all the previous ones are blocked, so
if I get some of your text slightly wrong, I'm sorry. But your claim
about the ouvre as an exciting and unified quest is simply one of many
claims. As early as 1949 Elizabeth Drew argued that it was, using
Jungian archetypes as her template. On the other hand, F. O.
Matthiessen, in his groundbreaking book, took no such single-thread
approach. And all that we now know about Eliot's life--that neither
Drew nor Matthiessen knew--cannot be used to demonstrate such a singular
reading. Nor do current critical theories agree on this.
It is simply not possible to prove that what you like has any basis in
either any "true" reading or any critical history: it is one way of
reading, and it can be satisfying to many readers. It is not more.
>>> Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 05/14/07 9:00 AM >>>