Dear Rick,
    I still don't follow the logic, even if I ignore "more."

    I think that Eliot wrote TWL principally to get problems off his
    chest and to recover from from his dry period of creativity. Thus,
    for its eventual publication he was more likely to let Pound have
    his way with the edits. Eliot was done with it at that time
    (although he still had to add notes.)

What bearing do the reasons you propose have on Pound editing?

> The poem, as given to Pound, was finished in Eliot's mind. He
> exorcised his demons. The poem that Pound helped create was could be
> seen by Eliot as another poem, intended for publication.
> And then [the poet] can say to the poem: 'Go away! Find
> a place for your self in a book--and don't expect me to
> take any further interest in you.'
makes no sense to me.  You've just elaborated your original idea.  The
quotation doesn't convince me.  Even you know it's not so that Eliot
took no further interest.  He was involved with publication of the poem;
he didn't send it away to make its own way.  You mentioned the notes in
a previous post.  We know he read the poem in public.  You quote the
grumbling business which was said after it was published.

> I can't remember coming across anything where Eliot expressed regrets
> on the wording in a poem. I'll be happy to be corrected on this. As
> for TWL he seemed happy enough with Pound's edits (although,
> understandably, critically questioning them as they were happening.)

I never mentioned regrets.  I spoke about a writer re-thinking his work
before, during, and after publication, which is a common (mundane, even)
activity for writers across time and place.  As for evidence, I can't
imagine why the world should be privy to every thought Eliot had about
his work.  Why take lack of evidence as evidence of a lack?  It's bad
methodology, no matter the subject.

    I wish Helen Vendler's response to one of the TSE Society papers
(Gloucester) were in print.  She spoke well, and, to me, convincingly in
disagreement to a contention that TWL is a collaboration.

    I press our disagreement because it is basic to how we understand a
poem to be written.  That, in turn, bears on Timothy's post.