Nancy Gish wrote:
> I can't say polyamory is at all attractive to me, but I don't see how
> it differs from much older ideas of "open marriage." I wouldn't want
> it, but what on earth is "stupid" about it?
What isn't? I was suggesting what Eliot might say about the article.
Having thought further on it, I don't think he'd be that blunt. What is
stupid in the article is what the people indulging in that behavior say
in defense of it. To a man and woman.
> Also, I cannot imagine Eliot as very qualified to comment on anything
> sexual or amorous.
I don't know how you make these statements and keep a straight face.
Do you? Do we all need to offer our qualifications for speaking about
human behavior, human dignity, human responsibility to one another? Or:
what is your qualification to make this judgement? Moreover, I believe
the issue goes not only to the "sexual or amorous," but to marriage.
"Open marriage" is old, granted. So is stupidity, cupidity, and the
narcissism of the permanently adolescent. The question now is, why does
it get a pass in Boston? (Or wherever else.)
> He was celibate until 26, made a disastrous marriage, left it without
> divorcing, and did not find love until he was 65. Nor was he able to
> imagine genuine sensuality in any poem or play. Of all the things on
> which he was not an expert, this must be at the top.
Again, a lifelong concern of Eliot's was the relation of people at
the deepest levels. As well, your little laundry list could be seen as
evidence of learning the hard way. No need to apply to be a drug
counselor if you've never needed drug counseling. The real problem with
it, however, besides its lack of charity, is that it denies the power of
imagination and reduces everyone to the most simplistically conceived
functions of their life experience. And, to put a cherry on top, it
criticizes his poetry for what he didn't write (as near as you can
tell). Well. Peter asked what might Eliot have said. I guess if you
"cannot imagine Eliot qualified to comment on anything sexual or
amorous," it was really pointless to ask what he would have said. He'd
have been wrong, right? So, actually, it's Peter's fault for asking a
question that he knew you could not approve of, etc. I'm glad we got