Carrol Cox wrote:
> "So does that make "Prufrock" second-rate poetry? -- Tom --
> The trouble begins (but only begins) with the utter
> vagueness of the term "morality." It can cover almost anything.
Only if you try to retrofit "morality" to "poetry" in the specific
sense Eliot pointed to. In other words, if you say over here that
morality is THIS, and over there that morality is THAT, and then you
notice that the two do not necessarily overlap....all you've done is
confirm your own prior perception, no poetry needed, no Eliot needed.
But if you ask yourself what is morality that first-rate poetry is
occupied with it, you are doing a different operation; you are coming to
it with an open mind. It makes possible but doesn't guarantee an answer;
coming to it with a closed mind does guarantee a negative answer.