Print

Print


Re: Wm Logan 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