> The questions sort of answered themselves, I thought. Once you see
> them, at least, you have to give up the superficial view that Gerontion
> is hate speech composed by an out of control poet. I mean, what foolishness.
Sorry, but what patronising nonsense. I of course "see" what you mean - it's not exactly rocket science to infer that "the
Jew" might mean, oh, one particularly famous and influential Jew. The question is whether you can really
justify that reading in any way other than to say (as you essentially do) "well, the alternative is too
awful to imagine and if it were the case then, golly, we'd have no reason to ever read Eliot again!"
As I think somebody else said, nobody said that Eliot was "out of control." At any rate, I can personally
find technical, or poetic, merit in things that I don't myself endorse; can't you? Or is it necessary to
find morally fabulous everything that you read? As Lemmy said, the Nazis had the best uniforms. (No, I'm
*not* equating Eliot with the Nazis.)
> "sordid"? Sorry, but these critics are fashion mongers who add nothing
> to Eliot studies, except of course bean hill after bean hill of
I have to say, I often find it interesting that those who seem most unwilling to either examine any dark
side of Eliot, or, as seems to often also be the case, to be apparently unwilling to read (or
at least to make reference to) anything concrete in what the man actually wrote, are often the quickest to
hurl pejoratives at those real scholars on this list who have clearly invested so much time and effort in
an attempt to understand Eliot and his poetry. Me, I'll take the academics over the populists any day of
> Do you recollect what Eliot said would be the fate of his Poems 1920?
Why don't you tell us, so that I and others can respond honestly to it? I do remember Eliot's reference
to "being sick of doing business with Jew publishers," though. I suppose he found it difficult to spend so
much time in the presence of their Christian godliness.