That's the nicest thing I've heard said about Eliot
in the longest time.
----- Original Message -----
From: "DIana Manister" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: Sillying (was: through eliot's kaleidoscope)
> Dear Carrol,
> The shortlist of the most linguistically impressive moderns writing in
> English would not necessarily be the same as that for the greatest
> artists. ee cummings for example is a lesser artist than Bishop but
> more adventurous and innovative with the medium.
> Wallace Stevens uses language in new ways but his content is
> unimpressive. What he writes is less significant than the way he
> writes it.
> In my opinion Eliot not only innovates with polysemy, multiple subject
> positions and voices, disjunctive narrative and other formal elements,
> but does so to express content of great meaningfulness across the
> whole range of his output including his prose writing.
> None of his peers displays that excellence so consistently in various
> kinds of writing.
> Sent from my iPod
> On Apr 24, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > DIana Manister wrote:
> >> Hah! That's really funny! Eliot could English better than anyone of
> >> his time, . . .
> > Uh? Pound? Yeats? Joyce? Faulkner? Moore? Stevens? Woolf?
> > I can't remember the title or othr phrases, but take a look at the
> > poem
> > by Moore that contains the line, "We should like to know how that is
> > done." "Englishing doesn't come next better in any time.
> > Carrol