The "Modernists," perhaps with the exception of W.C. Williams, led strangely distorted lives. Has anyone written on this?
In an hour I'll be at the airport to proceed (by way of Atlanta) to Massachusetts and the Science for the People Conference in Amherst. I'll have to ask someone there if early 20th-c scientists were equally twisted.
Quote of the Month (from a speaker at last Saturday's Labor Notes Conference: "We are ruled by two parties, one of which wants to repeal the New Deal, the other to repeal The Enlightenment."
From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nancy Gish
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 11:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Previously at the Guardian
I wonder if you would state specifically and exactly why it is "pathetic." It describes genuine events in his life. For example, the Russell episode: I read the letters between Eliot and Russell at the McMaster library long before any of them were published. I do not see how anyone could do that and think the affair was some total secret that would stun Eliot on discovery. Not all the letters are in the printed volume--unless I passed over some.
The Bolo poems are, in fact, full of crude jokes about buggery.
He did marry Viv suddenly when Emily believed he loved her--because he had said so.
Why are these and other facts "pathetic"? I would genuinely like to know.
And none have prevented me from spending an academic career on his poetry because it is brilliant. I do not understand the insistence on rejecting biography that is disturbing but at the same time consistently making a great issue of his religion, or religiosity as deeply significant.
>>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> 04/10/14 5:06 PM >>>
Pathetic. Posting it reminds me of the fairly recent book title along
the lines of "Don't Vote. It Only Encourages the Bastards"
At least she's divined there's some nose-holding to be done, just not
that it's upon reading her on Eliot.
On 4/10/2014 4:38 PM, Rickard A. Parker wrote:
> I hadn't noticed that Roz Kaveney was doing a series of articles on Eliot.
> The Guardian has been publishing a series of series under the title "How to
> Believe" as can be seen here:
> One on Eliot's flatmate, Bertrand Russell, is also there.
> Previously at the Guardian was another article on Eliot:
> TS Eliot: searching for sainthood amid hate speech and hurt
> Some of the 20th century's finest poetry belongs to Eliot,
> yet any account of it must also keep track of the harm he did
> Roz Kaveney
> theguardian.com, Monday 31 March 2014
> The conclusion:
> ... Eliot managed to say important and useful things about both the
> experience of modernity and the mental states which we may as well call "the
> spiritual life", even if we are sceptical about the existence of spirit. It
> is important that we read him, sometimes holding our nose, because with all
> his deep personal flaws – and all the more when we think about them – he
> remains one of the key writers of his and our time.
> Rick again here:
> Also along the same lines is another article that brings up Eliot. Before
> sending you that URL I will post a URL to a picture in which Eliot appears
> with others mentioned in the article. http://tinyurl.com/k3ywycn
> Rick Parker
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.