Print

Print


Dear Nancy,

I do completely agree with you. "Political correctness" is an absolutely 
senseless stereotype, and as all stereotypes is primarily designed to fit 
the mediocre and thus prevent them from any further thinking, unless in the 
*politically correct* way:))))

Jose


>From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: T.S. Eliot's pacifism
>Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:54:35 -0500
>
>I agree with much of what Frank says, but I also keep wondering when
>people will stop using the astonishingly meaningless phrase "politically
>correct."  Every position that argues a thesis is in one sense political, 
>and
>all sides of all issues can be labeled "politically correct."  Formalist
>criticism was once politically correct.  Praising the war on terror is now
>politically correct, though the people most prone to it like to use the 
>label
>for everyone else.  I happen to support some of what has been done, and
>that is irrelevant to my point that "politically correct" means absolutely
>nothing at all.  It is just a convenient verbal bludgeon for anything 
>anyone
>wants to trivialize or scorn.  If one disagrees with a position, one is 
>really
>called on to give some reason beyond calling names.  Calling them "dumb"
>does not prove anything either, let alone convince anyone to think
>differently.
>Nancy
>
>
>
>Date sent:      	Fri, 11 Jan 2002 01:25:14 +0100
>Send reply to:  	[log in to unmask]
>From:           	"frank kretschmer" <[log in to unmask]>
>To:             	<[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:        	Re: T.S. Eliot's pacifism
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: marco manunta
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:16 PM
>Subject: T.S. Eliot's pacifism
>
>Hi,
>
>first: I don't really like to be told what is right in "one, two, three"
>steps. Its sounds so authoritarian.
>
> >I don't think that's the right angle from which to judge Eliot's poetry.
> >First, poetry is a matter of metrics and adequacy of that to the poem's
> >subject.
>
>Seriously? Well, if so, it sounds very much like an argument on
>fundamental concepts of literature, and so I may answer in likewise
>fashion, although I normally AVOID THIS KIND OF DISCUSSIONS;
>BECAUSE THE
>ARE IN MOST CASES DESTRUCTIVE RATHER THAN HELPFUL:
>
>I personally (as well as academically) believe that any poetry which
>co-exists with a great war is, if intended or not, a comment on this
>situation. A poet who stays silent throughout the years of a worldwide
>catastrophe (which Eliot did not, as we have already argued) also
>comments
>on the situation. Literature never exists within itself, it is always
>connected to the world it exists in, and reading  (& analysing) literature
>can to my understanding never be separated from this. Then, and only then,
>comes the adequacy of form and subject.
>
> >Second I do believe that considering the latter from a "politically
>correct"
> >point of view is to turn literature into something which, by definition,
> >is not and cannot be.
>
>What can then can literature be?
>
> >Third, it sounds a lot like older discussions regarding whether you had
> >to share TSE's belief to appreciate his poetical output. So dumb!
>
>Can you for instance hear a Cat Stevens record in the same way as during
>the days when it was not known that he had turned to be a rather
>fundamentalist Islamist (as far as I know, he agreed to the "death
>warrent" for Rushdy)? It is not as easy as you put it.
>
>Frank
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com