Print

Print


What they DID was write out their battles with the small minded.
They did not consider that petty.  As the small minded never get it
until that is done over and over, it continues to be written.
Nancy

On 4 Dec 2003, at 18:05, Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It's not what they said, Nancy. That's the whole point.
> It's what they did. Instead of letting themselves be blocked
> by the male establishment, they challenged it, and rose above
> its pettiness, to do great things for their sex. They didn't
> waste their time continually batting at the small-minded for
> recreation. They moved on. Their saying was to a meaningful
> purpose, not for mere personal relief.
>
> P.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nancy Gish - Women's Studies [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 4:38 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Poets on poetry
>
>
> I'm sorry, but this is just factually untrue.
>
> Mary Wollstonecraft and Virginia Woolf wrote brilliant critiques of
> what you seem to think they "rose above."  Woolf was astounded,
> offended, and fiercely resistant to the beadle, and Wollstonecraft
> wrote the first major feminist philosophical argument for equality of
> women because of her resistance.
>
> Whatever are you supposing they said?
> Nancy
>
> On 4 Dec 2003, at 16:08, Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > I'm thinking of how Mary Wolstonecraft was able to rise above
> > all the exasperations of her age, and of how Virginia Woolf
> > was able to step aside some beadle that got in her way, without
> > bothering to vent upon him.
> >
> > Eliot is a convenient whipping horse for people who haven't found
> > their ways around such obstacles. It is his punishment for becoming
> > a Christian and so betraying the age that thought it could rise
> > above superstition, and thought TWL was the prime statment of that
> > belief. As he said once, somewhere, "In an age when everyone is
> > trying to escape, a person going in the opposite direction will
> > seem to run away." or words to that effect.
> >
> > Given what the publication world has become, eg Oprah &c.
> > the production of a book is no longer an indicator of anything.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nancy Gish - Women's Studies [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 10:36 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Poets on poetry
> >
> >
> > What I think is that you are astonishingly rude and astonishingly
> > concerned about what I say.  It is not mutual.
> > Nancy
> >
> > On 4 Dec 2003, at 13:10, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > At 06:24 PM 12/3/2003 -0500, Nancy Gish wrote:
> > >
> > > >Oh don't be silly.
> > >
> > >     Hope springs eternal.
> > >
> > > >  I just finished my third book on Eliot (this one co-
> > > >edited).  No one spends a life doing that out of animus.
> > > >  If you can't make a point, why blether?
> > >
> > >
> > >    Making a point to you, Nancy, is no easy proposition. If you have no
> > > animus for Eliot, no one does. The number of books under your belt does
> > not
> > > attest to your attitude toward your subject. Critics have no animosity
> > > toward their subjects or they wouldn't bother? Is there anyone so naive
> as
> > > to accept this for writ?
> > >
> > >
> > > >Katherine Anne Porter, like everyone before the necessary research
> > > >on language, was taught that "man" and "he" were grammatically
> > > >correct terms for the third person.  Everyone else was taught the
> > > >same.  It happens to be nonsense.
> > >
> > >    That it is nonsense is beside the point. The point is, if I were to
> > > continually harp on KAP for what "Everyone else was taught" and commonly
> > > used, it would rightly appear, wouldn't it, that I had it in for KAP.
> Why
> > > constantly be correcting her for what everyone did? Why step on Eliot
> > every
> > > chance you get for what everyone else did? It has nothing to do with
> your
> > > handy summary of how "he" came to be used for third person everyone.
> That
> > > is a red herring by which you evaded my question. Why? Because when
> > someone
> > > disagrees with you, it must be because they are wrong?
> > >
> > > . If you know
> > > >nothing about it (as your comment suggests), why carp?
> > >
> > > >  it is pointless to respond courteously to trolling and
> > > >sniping.
> > >
> > >    However, it is your practice to carp and snipe at Eliot and then to
> > take
> > > offense when anyone points it out. I can only disagree with you, you
> > > imply,  if I "know nothing about it."  If you are unable to admit or see
> > > any of this, then the only point in responding is to open better
> > > possibilities for others. Did you think at all about the suggestion
> > > regarding artistic expression?
> > >
> > > Ken A.