On 2/22/2013 5:43 AM, Peter Dillane wrote:
> Yeah it strikes me as a bit rich the marriage without warning to Hayward and Trevelyan. It's almost asperger-ish.
Particularly if you just accept one or the other's account of it at
face value. I'm a little skeptical that anyone would do so in the normal
course of human affairs. From the time I got on this list in 1998, I've
been slightly amazed by the naivete of the critics of Eliot's personal
life, which sometimes seems to tumble over into a willful lack of
self-knowledge . Janis Joplin may have a point, but a more universal
truth seems to me to the one Peter Dillane expressed:
"...his treatment of Hale Hayward and Trevelyan is just the way of the world. Relationships are mostly characterised by an inequality of devotion and unthinking indifference. He doesn't seem to have been wilfully malicious and certainly no more manipulative than most of those not besotted." Or to put it another way, as per your inscribed pen story, I'd be willing to bet the house that everyone on this list over a certain not very advanced age has more than one similar story, similar to yours and Eliot's. Denial seems one of the strongest of human traits (as my old Eliot prof put it: we see, deny, and go on) and unless Heywood and Trevelyan were true idiots, it's unlikely that there weren't signs for them to see if they accepted them. Did he do great harm? Did they? It ain't a black and white world. Those who hold on to that illusion carry their Orlando, Florida with them.
P S Don't know Anne Porter, but Piaf's platitude reminds of Katherine Anne Porter's rejoinder to W. B. Yeats regarding love pitching its tent in the place of excrement: Yes, that's one place it's pitched its tent, but there are others. W.B needs to come up for air. My own thought is that paying attention may give you greater insight into another than sleeping with them. Just a thought, i.e. haven't and will not be putting it to any scientific tests....