You have no way of judging what is disingenuous; the criterion seems to
be that I said it. That is one reason I stopped being involved in this
list and will probably stop again: it has become a small group who say
things to each other, write each other notes, snipe at others, and mock
anything based in study of Eliot as opposed to shared and personal
feeling. So please drop the assumption that you can judge. It long ago
became impossible to have any actual discussion of poetry.
For example, the remarks below about oral culture are absurd. Since I
spend a good deal of time on Scottish Studies and that was and in some
ways remains a largely oral culture, I am not likely to reject oral
material. Your private sense of what went on or the personal response
of a couple of people is not "oral culture." It is simply a few
responses. And "academicism" is a completely meaningless snipe based in
nothing; Eliot was an academic who left it but took his scholarship with
him. He did not know all that he did just because he had chats and
shared his feelings: he had studied at Harvard through a Ph.D., which
was in fact accepted. He also wrote constantly about written texts, and
his notes as well as his criticism are full of the erudition of years of
study. It is astonishing that study of such a figure would dismiss his
own life-long academic-based writing.
It would be really interesting to have a discussion again about Eliot
that focused on poems and omitted all this personal meanness and totally
baseless comment on others.
I would be interested, for example, in views about Eliot's images of and
response to WWI.
>>> "Peter Montgomery" <[log in to unmask]> 05/16/07 6:22 AM >>>
Not ad personam in every message, just the ones which seem disingenuous.
A statement of curiosity is a standard ploy in double speak.
If by fact you understand something in print as opposed
to the oral report of general experience then it is understandable that
you don't see where fact comes into it. Academicism doesn't get
along well with oral culture.
Obviously there are any number of perceptions of any
common human experience. That is merely a truism.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: autobiography & 4Q
> I also do not understand why every message must be ad feminem. But I
> presume the Watsons had a perception not based on knowing every reader
> of Eliot. There are differing perceptions by others who "lived
> the period." I don't see where "fact" comes in to what you say.
> >>> "Peter Montgomery" <[log in to unmask]> 05/15/07 7:14 AM >>>
> Somehow I think your curiosity is quite disingenuous, but if you must
> my thesis supervisor Sheila Watson and her husband Wilfred, lived
> through the period and saw the process happen, both during their early
> together in Paris and subsequently, even to the time that they were
> So I suppose I absorbed it by osmosis from their frequent discussions
> and from their seminars. I suppose an academicist might think Wilfred
> least was biased in his observations because Eliot published his
> Neither of them liked Eliot worship, and were skeptical about the
> to which people let themselves be influenced by him.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>; <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 8:51 AM
> Subject: Re: autobiography & 4Q
> > I'm curious: what is your source and basis for this evaluative
> > >>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> 05/14/07 7:01 AM >>>
> > The kind of popularity he enjoyed after the 20s had nowhere near the
> > intensity and universality as that which followed that period. It's
> > a
> > fact. Whether
> > a lessening of intensity constitutes a waning is for the rabbit
> > to
> > decide.
> > P.
> > ----- 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,
> > > 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
> > > poems and readers who preferred the late. Some who championed the
> > early
> > > work as rejecting belief were negative about Eliot's changing
> > > and poetry; others were more impressed. This is not difficult to
> > > understand.
> > >
> > > In recent years his popularity has--if conference schedules and
> > articles
> > > mean anything--increased as those old simplistic dichotomies have
> > > reconsidered.
> > > Nancy
> > >
> > > >>> 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
> > > popularity because of Christianity. That is simply a distortion
> > the
> > > critical history and is not the point I made. My point was
> > > that
> > > 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
> > > 30s. They were
> > > mainstream critics."
> > >
> > > If the first statement quoted above is true, does the second
> > that
> > >
> > > the mainsteam critics were distressed with their own reaction to
> > > turn
> > > 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
> > 6:40 PM
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/801 - Release Date:
> 6:40 PM
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/801 - Release Date: