Print

Print


One could say either "on" or "to" in that particular phrase; they just have 
slightly different meanings.  But I couldn't give you a rule for when both are 
ok and when they aren't.  In this case, "on" implies that it is on your 
forehead AND it is sticking.  "To" implies that it the sticking is TO the 
forehead.  Slight but not the same.
Nancy


Date sent:      	Thu, 8 Mar 2001 22:18:22 +0100
Send reply to:  	[log in to unmask]
From:           	"Arwin van Arum" <[log in to unmask]>
To:             	<[log in to unmask]>
Subject:        	RE: Eliot's letters--Gordon's Biography - erratum

That's probably sticking too - "on" appears to be one of those horrible
Dutchisms that I'm so afraid of when writing English ... ;-)

A.

> Before you know it I'll be wearing thick rimmed
> glasses and have a four letter label sticking on my forehead. ;-)
>
> That must have been great to do, by the way, writing that first chapter
> on CMD.
>
> Arwin
>
> > Nancy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Date sent:      	Thu, 8 Mar 2001 20:58:04 +0100
> > Send reply to:  	[log in to unmask]
> > From:           	"Arwin van Arum" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To:             	<[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject:        	RE: Eliot's letters--Gordon's Biography
> >
> > My point, and probably Ken's too, is that I'd rather have a biography
> > that's a quarter the size, which sticks to the facts and leaves out
> > the interpretation. I know that some people are specifically
> > interested in interpretation of lives, but I am not, and certainly not
> > by
> people with a
> > decent grounding in cognitive and other forms of modern
> psychology (which
> > is to say of the last 20 years). I'd much rather have the facts
> speak for
> > themselves so that I can use them as I please whilst interpreting a
> > poem or a poet.
> >
> > Notice that I did say that Gordon had more facts than Akroyd. I
> just wish
> > that they'd have been more accessible. A CD-ROM would have been a
> > great help here - she could have listed all the facts, and attach
> > interpretations for those who are interested. That would leave
> the reader
> > with the choice to read around them. Now, when you (or, in this case,
> > I) really disagree with the interpretations, or just plainly don't
> like them,
> > they tend to get disproportionally annoying. For the Eliot site I
> > extracted facts about Eliot up to 1922 that I thought were interesting
> > from both biographies and to get the interesting morsels from
> Gordon took
> > a lot of sifting.
> >
> > Interpretations are for me fiction by default. It's perhaps hard to
> > say what interpretations really are, but since I won't call them
> fact, I tend
> > to rather harshly call them fiction. That's perhaps not really fair -
> > there is probably a smooth line between fact and fiction, and each
> > individual interpretation is somewhere along that line, sometimes
> > closer to fact, sometimes closer to fiction. I only read the most
> recent version
> > of the biography, and a lot of the interpretation part of that massive
> > work I simply don't buy - although then again I bought the book
> anyway ...
> > ;-)
> >
> > Arwin
> >
> >
> > > Dear Ken,
> > >
> > > As I don't know Gordon but am greatly impressed by her scrupulous
> > > pursuit of every shred of available information, and as I am
> more prone
> > > to think her unduly deferential to TSE's self-created legacy (in the
> > > first two books especially), I am very interested in what
> > > --specifically--you disagree with and what you know about her as a
> > > source that I don't.  Is there some reason to see her as not
> scrupulous
> > > or as prejudiced?  Why is she a less reliable source than,
> say, Ackroyd?
> > >
> > > Nancy
> > >
> > > Date sent:      	Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:00:56 -0500
> > > Send reply to:  	[log in to unmask]
> > > From:           	Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To:             	[log in to unmask]
> > > Subject:        	RE: Eliot's letters--Gordon's Biography
> > >
> > > Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]
> > > >
> > > Priority: NORMAL
> > > X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0.1 Build (55)
> > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > >
> > > Dear Nancy,
> > >
> > >  Interesting, makes me think of my old favorite Katherine Anne
> > >  Porter who,
> > > like many others, described fiction as creating lies to tell
> the truth.
> > > I do see your point, but if I disagree with Gordon's
> interpretation, it
> > > is because I think it is not true, and if I think it is not true, I
> > > guess I'm stuck if someone says I'm calling it a fiction--how can I
> > > disagree--though that kind of fiction may not (is all but
> cerainly not)
> > > her conscious intention.
> > >
> > >  In the end, I think her work is seriously flawed. It seems to me
> > >  not more
> > > nuanced in its "Imperfect Life" manifestation, but more
> polarized in its
> > > own proclivities (it was polarized more than enough in its previous
> > > manifestations). To anyone who would conclude something about
> TSE based
> > > on her work, I would have to say "Consider the source." That doesn't
> > > dismiss it; it puts in (I would say) a better (truer) perspective.
> > >
> > >  Ken
> > >
> > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:00:08 -0500 Nancy Gish
> > > <[log in to unmask]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Ken,
> > > >
> > > > Interpretation is not fiction.
> > > > Calling her work "fiction" is dismissive. What fascinates me is
> > > > that her first two books were so cautious and admiring, and she
> only moved
> > > > to a more nuanced and mixed mode in the third.  But even if one
> > > > does not agree with her interpretation, it is valid
> > > > interpretation, not fiction. Nancy
> > > >
> > > > Date sent:      	Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:55:47 -0500
> > > > Send reply to:  	[log in to unmask]
> > > > From:           	Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > To:             	[log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject:        	RE: Eliot's letters--Gordon's Biography
> > > >
> > > > Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]
> > > > >
> > > > Priority: NORMAL
> > > > X-Mailer: Execmail for Win32 Version 5.0.1 Build (55)
> > > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:04:49 -0500 Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I do not understand on what possible basis you can judge
> > > > > Gordon's meticulously researched material "fiction."  It is
> > > > > consistently based on cited material, and--more
> > > > > signicantly--Gordon
> has now done
> > > > > three biographies that have gone over and over parallel
> ground with
> > > > > exacting care.  It is simply not possible to dismiss
> > > >  Nancy,
> > > >
> > > >   But no one is dismissing Gordon; just pointing out that her
> > > > interpretation of Eliot's life is still that, an
> interpretation. There
> > > > are citations, and then there are the selection and presentation
> > > > of citations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Arwin says explicitly that she excels in facts. It is what she
> > > >  has
> > > > done with them that raises eyebrows. She has cut Eliot's life to
> > > > fit her prejudices. That, too, should not be dismissed.
> > > >
> > > >  Ken
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ken Armstrong
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>