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.