There is a whole set of essays by E. on S. more or less under lock & key at some U. which I have forgot. They must be very interesting.
P.

Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>The defining difference, I should suppose (though this is a personal reaction) is that Eliot is a very interesting dramatist. I tried hard in a grad-school paper to interest myself in The Cocktail Party, and failed abysmally.
>
>Carrol
>
>P.S. Come to think of it, I may just have provided a definition of The New Criticism: Any commentary in which the intended reader seems to be the writer him/herself, and the purpose is self-persuasion that the poem is worthwhile commenting on. ;->
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of P
>> Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 9:17 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: T.S. Eliot Reads Shakespeare
>> 
>> I vaguely remember those words.
>> First thoughts are: they both borrowed plots. They both borrowed rhythms.
>> They both adapted those rhythms.
>> Shakespeare used much more complexity in his themes, with judgements
>> evolving out of the complexity to give an effect of objectivity. Eliot focussed
>> on a more direct predictable outcome. As to diction, Shakespeare is famously
>> and effectively universal and unidentifiable. Eliot's diction is very enjoyable,
>> but not universal and so much more identifiably his own.
>> Also, Eliot said on a BBC broadcast for younger folk, that if he tried to write
>> poetry when he was tired, it always came out sounding like W.S.
>> E. also said that he wanted his dramatic diction and rhythm to sound
>> ordinary, so folks would be able to say they could write like that too
>> (Wordsworth, thou shouldst have been living at that hour.).
>> So my friend, that's what my psychological dumb waiter has retrieved from
>> my Eliotic subconscious. Sorry I don't have sources for much of that. The
>> demand for text on E.'s drama is so pitifully sad, I just haven't kept up.
>> P.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/30/2013 4:19 PM, P wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 	Poetry is one thing, poetic drama quite another. 4Q has a strong
>> reputation, E's plays the opposite.
>> 	Shakespeare's poems are okay; a majority of his plays are
>> phenomenal.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Peter,
>> 
>>   So what do you think of E's having said (roughly, from memory) that a
>> difference,not saying "the" difference, between him and Shakespeare is the
>> latter having had a form delivered into his hands as opposed to E's having to
>> invent a form?
>> 
>> Ken
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 	Recognizing That Poets Don't Peak Early: T.S. Eliot Reads Shakespeare
>> 	David Galenson, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago
>> 	21 June 2013
>> 
>> 
>> 	"[T]he development of one's opinions [of Shakespeare] may be the
>> measure of one's development in wisdom." (TS Eliot)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 	http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-galenson/recognizing-that-
>> poets-do_b_3479117.html?utm_hp_ref=books&ir=Books
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 	CR
>>