Print

Print


I don't get why a poem about or presenting or revealing or exposing the 
perverse should itself be called perverse unless, by definition, it 
presents a false picture of the perverse, i.e.  unless it perversely 
presents the perverse. Ditto the poet. It doesn't make sense to me to say 
that "Eliot--as poet--is perverse" because some of his poems deal with the 
perverse (not, however and BTW, Sweeney Erect). I think Peter is getting at 
the problem in saying what Eliot is doing when he notes how the symbol for 
grace is turned into weapons in FQ. But I don't think this is perverse.

At 06:54 PM 4/6/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>You're right that the way I have written these appears inconsistent.  I
>do mean that the poems are perverse and that Eliot--as poet--is
>perverse.  That does not mean that Eliot--as person--was perverse; I am
>not commenting on him as a person.
>
>I mean that the poems I listed are "perverse" by virtue of the fact that
>they depict events and feelings and experiences that fit the dictionary
>definitions of the term.
>
>I mean that Eliot--as poet--is "perverse" by virtue of the fact that he
>writes on these subjects and exposes/reveals events, experiences, and
>feelings that fit the dictionary definition.  This is part of what makes
>his poetry so powerful:  he is, in fact, plunged into the most perverse
>as well as the most idealized.  He engages an extreme range of
>experience--though I would say it is deep and narrow compared to a
>writer like Shakespeare or Chaucer.  But then, so is Dante.  I am NOT
>doing what Eliot called for in his discussion of comparison and
>analysis--this is not an evaluative claim.