Print

Print


While Sweeney is definitely concupiscent Stevens was not overtly
polyphiloprogenitive. Often appears that he was just writing one continuous
poem. While Eliot writes the same poem again and again. Making Eliot
Jamesian both in manner and intent, particularly when he decided to become
the Jamesian meta-character in his own life. Logan? A critic. Not so much
controlling you but showing you he's in control.

James only became more James, that is to say the ultimate critic of his own
work once he decided to completely re-do his entire output, an extremely
precious and ultimately aging Jamesian notion. I can't think of another
artist in any medium who has done this. One of the biggest mistakes one can
make when finally ceding the time to crack James is trying to read the
rewrites first. And publishers often neglect  to mention which one they're
selling you.

GAVIN


on 2/26/03 2:09 PM, [log in to unmask] at [log in to unmask] wrote:

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