Print

Print


Dear Nancy,

I find myself in agreement with Christopher Ricks. And one reason, I
can say before I elaborate more fully, the Petronius epigraph is more
rich is because it is the epigraph to TWL. The Conrad is not.

Incidentally,

> Pound's own account of why he cut things was not just to avoid being
> overly long either.

I hate to keep on repeating myself here, but perhaps this statement of
yours shows clearly our disparity of opinion on such matters. Once
again, Pound cut nothing from TWL. Whatever was cut, was cut by Eliot.

Yours, Jennifer

On Sunday, October 24, 2004, at 11:37  AM, Nancy Gish wrote:

> This is Christopher Ricks's opinion--one among many.  Of  course the
> poem as published has "claims."  I don't really know of anyone
> fascinated with the process who thinks the outcome is not important.
> But the outcome is also the outcome--of a very complicated process
> that took years (parts of the poem date to 1914 and earlier) and that
> involved collaboration.  So this statement seems to me a false
> dichotomy.
> Nancy
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 10/24/04 2:20 PM >>>
> From pages 71-72 of Ricks:
>
> "The hold that a writer's revisions may have over our attention does
> have
> its dangers, as is evidenced by the way in which the inchoate
> fascinations
> of the Waste Land manuscript can sometimes be felt to supplant the
> fully
> consummated fascination of the poem proper.  These days, The Waste
> Land as
> published in 1922 may find itself characterized as Eliot's somewhat
> unsuccessful attempt to write the manuscript.  We might do better to
> give
> priority to the study of revision as a means, not an end, the end
> usually
> being a deeper understanding of the final work itself.  The claims of
> process have been especially heeded of late, and this has brought some
> gains
> when it comes to understanding the genesis of works of authoritative
> imagination, but the product, the end-product, ought to exercise its
> claims
> too."
>
> Meg Ford and John Stewart
> Telephone: (+44-20) 7359-4590
> E-mail: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
> Behalf Of Peter Montgomery
> Sent: Sunday, 24 October, 2004 7:44 a.m.
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Decisions and Revisions in T.S. Eliot
>
>
> Then there are Robert Graves and Bob Dylan who
> published their revised versions. John Fowles revised
> THE MAGUS completely, to suit the movie version.
>
> It's a living language and a living culture.
>
> I wonder if Ricks noted the revisions Eliot did
> between the first mag. version of TWL and the
> first book version.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John G. Stewart
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 2004-Oct-23 10:54 AM
> Subject: Decisions and Revisions in T.S. Eliot
>
> The Autumn 2004 issue of The Book Collector, in
> the News and Comment section on pages 435 to 437,
> talks about Christopher Ricks Panizzi lectures on
> Eliot, now published as "Decisions and Revisions
> in T.S. Eliot" (16).  The short comment is not
> available on line, but here is the website for the
> publication.
> http://www.thebookcollector.co.uk/summary.html
>
>
> Blurb is below:
> http://www.utppublishing.com/detail.asp?TitleID=28
> 92
> Decisions and Revisions in T.S. Eliot attends to
> one specific embodiment of Eliot's re-thinking:
> changes that he made after publication. Such
> revisions have a different standing from any made
> prior to publication, and they raise questions
> about reception, audience, and (pre-eminently)
> self-criticism. In Eliot, the revisions are often
> substantial and always acutely of interest, for
> they incarnate a movement of mind even after he
> had given the work to the world. Such changes in
> Eliot's poems and elsewhere have not much been
> pondered as evidence of his art and thought.
> Moreover there has been an unthinking assumption
> that revisions to discursive prose, in the nature
> of the case, do not much matter - yet to look at
> the cases is to see how much each may contain.
>
> Christopher Ricks is a professor in the College of
> Arts and Sciences and co-director of the Editorial
> Institute at Boston University.
>