the thought ocurred to check out the meaning of squat which revealed the
of squatters inhabiting public sites etc.Don't see how it's relevant, but I
thought I would throw it in, just in case.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Armstrong" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: The Jew in Eliot's poetry (anti-semitism and objective
> Peter Dillane wrote:
>> Interesting thought Rickard; If a poet were formulating an image starting
>> with a window and its attendant architecture a figure of a person how do
>> you decide on the word for what the figure does.
>> In the plastic arts people often start with a structural obligation
>> in a commissioned work or because they have say an oblong canvas or they
>> working with found objects.
>> So just like the Maori in the coin where do you think the squatting comes
>> - at the start of the thought or a word choice once the figure is
>> but needs to be concisely separated from part of any scene which might be
>> part of the window itself.
> Pete and Rickard,
> If you mean where does the squatting come in in the composition of
> Gerontion, it might be useful to point out that Eliot was not under any
> such material restrictions regardless of when the thought struck him. If
> he wanted to portray a flesh and blood person, he could easily have picked
> a place where such a person would be; not squatting in a window. The
> figure of Christ crucified or the Passion might be a scene of him
> squatting, whether you've seen that image or not (Eliot is known to have
> visited a lot of churches and could easily be thought to have an extensive
> catalog of such images). And unless someone pipes up to say that yes,
> it's a widely known fact and they've seen Jewish landlords or landlords in
> general squatting in windows, I don't think there is any real reason to
> think that the Jew in the poem is a flesh and blood person.
>> I see Perloff's argument as being a valid reading (but I haven't taken
>> it as my reading.) The landlord would be a private symbol of Eliot's
>> outsideness, an uncomfortable position.
> I don't understand the distinction, valid reading but not yours. What
> does valid mean if it doesn't mean you incorporate it into your reading?
> That it's possible but not necessarily so?
> My own take on Perloff, besides her previously demonstrated unreliability
> in assessing Eliot, is that she is psychologizing the poem where there is
> no compelling reason to do so, except as she is willy nilly trying to
> shore up a prejudice about Eliot and his poetry. And of course that is
> what I think she is doing.
>> I can't remember seeing either a flesh and blood person or a symbol
>> squatting in a window though I have seen cymbals squinting through a
> cymbals? squinting? Hmmm. I've seen them glinting with a bang, not a
> whimper, but never squinting....
> Ken A