Thanks Steven.
I meant the Freud/homosexuality comment to explain my
own skepticism about that approach, not a reflection on
your observations.

The Miller (good old JHM, around a long time) link bombed,
but thanks. Happy to look at the John Peter piece if its
convenient, sinceyou so kindly offered.


-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Michaelangelo

In a message dated 9/24/02 0:31:50 AM EST, [log in to unmask] writes:

> As for the homosexuality, Steve. No disrespect intended but
>  I come from a time when Freud and homosexuality were used
>  to explain just about everything.


No disrespect taken, but you should know that I did not start out reading
with any preconceived notions of what the poems were about. I gradually came
to look at the theme of homosexuality (and "God's view of homosexuality")
a recurring and major theme in Eliot. I do not care at all whether such
themes are fashionable to explain everything, or, conversely,  are now
considered clichés and therefore incapable of explaining anything.

> but are they Prufrock's?
>  One of the reasons I asked, was because conceivably some critic
>  somewhere had made a definitive determination and I didn't
>  want to fly in the face of that.

Here's a few critics that you may want to consider:
1) James Miller "T.S. Eliot's Personal Waste Land" -- out of print, but
usually available at Internet used book stores like www.bookfinder,com

2) John Peter (April 1969 issue of "Essays In Criticism") "A New
Interpretation of The Waste Land" (a reprint of his 1952 essay that was
suppressed for 17 years after legal threats by Eliot). I have a scanned copy
of the Peter essay and I'll email it on request.

-- Steve --