Print

Print


Nonetheless Eliot had a fair amount to say about James,
a fellow member, along with Pound et al. (good old al.)
of the great mid-Atlantic rift. I just can't remember where
(I'd start with Selected Essays, then On Poetry and Poets).

BTW, fwiw, I believe the word is polyphiloprogenitive
(from one of the Sweeney poems), but you are to be
congratulated for even trying for it.

Cheers,
Peter.
Dr. Peter C. Montgomery
Dept. of English
Camosun College
3100 Foul Bay Rd.
Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
[log in to unmask]
www.camosun.bc.ca/~peterm

-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Wm Logan


In a message dated 2/26/03 9:28:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:




I'm not sure 'supersubtle' is a word Eliot used much. To me, it's definitely
Jamesian.



I think this is why Logan is so reviled -- he creates his own reality and
his own strata of importance.  He is a builder of hierarchy and a definer of
things.  If he defines "supersubtle" as an Eliotic word, it becomes so in a
small way and perhaps he can change Eliot from being a fiddler of language
into someone who glues things together in a haphazard and
"oh-look--aren't-I-so-smart way" like James.
Eliot, and Stevens for that matter, would MUCH rather use a word like
Philopolyprogenative or Concupiscent -- they liked to fool people (e.g.
"deal" is a kind of wood -- always fools on the first few reads), Logan (and
James) enjoy controlling them.
Michael