None of this conversation seems to have referenced Eliot's
claim that he wanted to spike the guns of the critics who
were hard on Prufrock for not having sources supplied.
Why would they have expected such documentation from
Prufrock, when few English poems have given much detail
of sources? Eliot was, young, from the US and far too good
a poet for their liking. No doubt they had trouble dealing with
such an unusual poem. Shakespeeare is of course the classic
plagiarist of lines, speeches and even whole plays (plots).
He never bothered and no one seems to have blamed him.
But I am just regurgitating an old conversation lest it be forgot.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: "Son of man"--- was Re: Origins. . .
> Eliot's slipshod notes were not the result of laziness but haste. He
> was asked to provide them at the last minute before publication.
I'm remembering that Eliot was thinking of the notes as early as
January or February of 1922. The Boni and Liveright book was published
in December. I can't quickly find my copy of Lawrenre Rainey's
"The Price of Modernism: Publishing The Waste Land" to verify.