At 01:25 PM 4/6/2005 -0400, Nancy Gish wrote: >Maybe I'm just extremely prudish or moralistic, but I really think there >is a fairly widespread resistance to murder, rape, drunkenness, and >violation/cruelty. > >And I did not ever attribute these desires or actions to Eliot himself; I >said they were depicted in the poems. They are. That is not an opinion, >just a fact. To write of poems about these things as if they were NOT >depicted in the poems is to eliminate the poet's words from whatever one >calls a poem. I'm doubtful about that "widespread resistance to....drunkeness," but would not question the other items. I It is sometimes confusing to read the above when you've already read sentences like : >By any standard, a poem about strangling a woman and sleeping with her is >"perverse." So is a poem about Sweeney after sex, with an epileptic straining on the >bed while he ignores her. So is a poem about imagining oneself a young girl raped by >an old man in a forest and also imagining oneself as the old man. I can give a long list >if you like. If this does not mean that the poems listed are perverse, the word choice does not indicate it, especially when the same author has said "The idealized Eliot is not--to me--of much interest. Fortunately, he too was much more complicated, perverse, and inconsistent." You can't have it every which way. From where I'm sitting, it is exactly the "idealized Eliot" who, with his poetry, is seen as "perverse." Ken A.