I never wrote "making a point." I said the typist passage has a point.
I never said it only makes a single point either.
I think it's a bit harsh to judge every post to the list as if it were
published in a scholarly journal. Many are written in a rush on a
mobile. Certainly I could have used a better term to indicate what I
see as the main raisin d'être for the typist passage and surely would
if I were sending a critical essay to an editor. But some tolerance
from you for the nature of posts to a listsrv would be welcome.
Sent from my iPod
On May 13, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Nancy Gish wrote:
>> Dear Carrol,
>> It was, though, Eliot who said that without a spiritual meaning sex
>> was no more than the coupling of animals. He didn't, one might note,
>> know much about sex or passionate sexual experience--unless maybe
>> after with Valerie. All those pontifications came from someone who
>> was still a virgin at 26, married suddenly, had a horrific
>> of sex, and then took up celibacy.
>> So that he called it animals only tells us how he saw it, but it did
>> come from him.
> I guess my response was mostly to the crudity of "making a point."
> "Spiritualized sex" was a 20th c invention that was rapidly
> even at mid-century. It was probably an improvement of "Close your
> and think of England," but not by mucy. And I think Eliot was a better
> poet than he was a moral critic.