That rage comes through much of his prose & becomes offensive. But to be
fair, when Leavis began his career taking literature seriously was very
nearly regarded as bad form at Oxbridge, and probably Leavis took a lot of
shit. There is a tactful smugness in C. S. Lewis that I find as offensive as
> -----Original Message-----
> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> David Boyd
> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:19 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: TS Eliot: Murder in the Cathedral
> Lawrence can nonetheless be seen in a broad sense as a religious poet?
> Whilst not citing the correspondent, for reason of privacy, this is an
> impression of Leavis, sent to me privately:-
> I saw Leavis lecture once, in Manchester, and I can't recall anything,
> he seemed to be permanently boiling with suppressed anger - it was not
> what about. The highlight was when an 'end of class' bell went off whilst
> reciting a speech from Othello to introduce some point (his lecture had
> badly). His silent rage was quite a sight.....
> On 27 September 2012 18:35, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> David Boyd
> > F.R. Leavis during the 1940s in Scrutiny very savagely attacked
> > he was a bit of a psychopath, who had feelings of hate towards
> > such as Bethell (although he seems to have exempted T.S. Eliot
> > venom.)
> Leavis's hero was D.H. Lawrence, hardly a Christian writer. He was
> objectionably irascible, and simply could not understand any attempt
> theorize literature. See his interchange with Wellek. His 'basis'
> reading a text seems to have been a sort of unconscious psedudo
> One just 'felt' it. Probably his utter inability to understand
Dickens is an
> index to his perspective.