I didn't say it was the result of illness; Eliot did. I did not say the
source hunting was a wild goose chase; Eliot did.
I'm still not saying either. I just said that allusions to the Bible do
not entail a demonstration of faith.
The term "sighting" already begs the question.
>>> Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> 07/09/07 7:03 PM >>>
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
> The poem is not a
> puzzle, and the landscape is individual and nightmarish.
Nontheless, the poem is puzzling, and leads to endless discussion,
or is it not meant to be discussed?
If searching out sources is to be poopooed here (a supportable position,
esp. in certain circumstances), would that not also include
I note that we have switched from religious/spititual to Biblical with
to the possible allusion in question.
It makes sense to me to read the poem as a set of overlays
as used in some forms of painting.
There are biblical, religious and spritual sets, all overlaid together,
creating a special effect of universality and compatibility.
Whether intended or not, that effect is achieved, and in
a masterly form of art.
Of course if one wants to argue that it is simply an oral evacuation
by illness (like a form of automatic writhing), that just happened to
astounding effects, well, why not?