Print

Print


On Sep 27 2002, Nancy Gish wrote:

  In Eliot's case, I think personality is deeply
> involved in the poems and in a way that partly defines how they affect
> us. But that is not the same as liking it. I think he wrote brilliant
> lines out of his own sometimes very twisted experience. That is what
> matters to me.

Dear Nancy,

No objections at all. I almost completely agree with the above stated, but
could you specify what precisely you mean by ""personality" that is willing
to use others, and I think he did that throughout his life. (Now the deluge
will come.)"

You don't mean his use of other poets' work, do you? Or is what you mean
that he was a cold blooded *consumer* who used people, who exploited those
who were close to him to fit his own purposes? Was he really that
disastrous?

Cheers,

Temur

>
>
>
> Date sent: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:56:53 +0200 Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot
> Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]> From: Gunnar Jauch
> <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: New online Eliot material To:
> [log in to unmask]
>
> am 27.9.2002 10:21 Uhr schrieb Temur Kobakhidze unter
> [log in to unmask]:
>
> > Dear Nancy,
> >
> > Did I really say that? Personality does matter, but not so
> > overwhelmingly:)) And when one dislikes both the poet and his
> > personality, you just say one dislikes both. As simple as that.
> >
> > It seems, TSE's way of life was part of his poetical perception of the
> > world. You won't be able to write Four Quartets unless you are a
> > highbrow intellectual and a conservative, at least to an extent:-). And
> > to the same extent disliking the personality does mean disliking the
> > potry. Although the personality and the poetry are by no means
> > interchangeable.
> >
> > To say we are impersonal is just a curious way of asserting that our
> > personality is more deeply involved: the thought is Cleanth Brooks's if
> > my memory serves me right.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > TK
> >
> > On Sep 26 2002, Nancy Gish - Women's Studies wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Temur,
> >>
> >> Quite apart from the issue of what Kate said, why does one need
> >> to like Eliot's personality to have a passionate interest in his
> >> poetry?
> >> Nancy
>
>
> Dear Temur,
>
> you don't seem to understand what Nancy is reiterating: The personality of
> an artist, in this case of a poet, is of minor interest; what matters is
> his/her work.
>
> There are many examples:
> E.M. Forster had a strange private life, in Kipling's biography "The Long
> Recessional" one learns about some of his not wholly commendable views and
> actions. In "Life with Picasso" Françoise Gilot tells us about Picasso, an
> egomaniac and an unpredictable macho. That does not change the fact that
> they all were touched by a common genius.
>
> B.t.w.:
> A fabulous exhibit MATISSE/PICASSO, a huge juxtaposition of major works by
> the two giants of modern art, has just opened in the Grand Palais of
> Paris. It will be shown in the Tate Modern in January and later in the
> MOMA. Don't miss it!).
>
> A prerequisite to write such a masterpiece as 4Q is not merely "highbrow
> intellectuality", but mainly knowledge, spirituality, belief and deep
> wisdom. I fail to see what you mean by "conservative", in my view nothing
> but a generalizing, superficial and useless term in any context.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Gunnar
>