Print

Print


Well, in Kyd and in TWL he's mad.

Nancy

>>> [log in to unmask] 09/26/05 9:16 AM >>>
Indeed to "the world" Hieronymo's mad. ~  CR 

Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Amen.
Peter

Ken Armstrong wrote:

> Nancy,
>
> I was trying only to be accurate and to address Jacek at a level he 
> might comprehend, judging from the level at which he posts. And I 
> would never be snide to you, Nancy (how ever did you manage to insert 
> yourself into this as if I'd in anyway addressed you?) because (ok, 
> now I'll address you)it would have no effect. As usual, when Eliot is 
> to be trampled upon, and in this case rather foolishly and mundanely, 
> you are quick to defend the tramplers. It has long been, in its 
> frequency, pitch, and content, predictable. Not too long ago, Jacek 
> was howling about how you had to hold forth on every opinion opined on

> the list. Now he thinks you are so kind. See the dynamics here?
>
> Shall I point out that it makes no difference how many critics wish to

> complexify their view of Eliot and to encourage each other in this 
> enterprise if they are, to be neutral, in error? Communal and 
> fashionable error, if you like. Your analytic strategy of separating 
> what Eliot knew from what he did, and, incredibly, casting aspersions 
> on his spirituality, doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination. 
> That you and however many of your fellow critics pursue that line is 
> really more a reflection on you and them than on Eliot. It is belied 
> utterly by the poetry, a truth those 80's and 90's critics apparently 
> have no purchase on.
>
> Your belief in progress, and group progress at that, is in a way 
> admirable, but you don't seem to understand that no matter how many 
> new "facts" are unearthed and are brandished by how ever many new (as 
> in recent, current) critics, what makes the poetry poetry remains 
> untouched. This is an absolute. This is an absolute, and someone who 
> comprehended it in 1951 or 1936 or 1922 cannot be trumped by the 
> latest "theory" and its numerous declaimers in the 80's, 90's or any 
> other time, or by some letters finally published in 2021.
>
> One's complexified view, when it does not grasp this fundamental 
> truth, is distracted from distraction by distraction, i.e. is more 
> accurately described as compromised.
>
> As far as what I can imagine about you, it is that you probably won't 
> accept any of this. And why should you? It's not what you see yourself

> invested in. But thank you for giving me the opportunity to express
it.
>
> Ken A.
>
> --On Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:07 PM -0400 Nancy Gish 
> wrote:
>
>> I am not sure it is just a "machine," but Jacek is not at all into
>> baloney. It is a fact (from reading nearly every book on him) that,
>> unlike most writers, Eliot gets treated as a figure of moral or
>> spiritual or cultural authority largely on the basis of his own
>> assertion of morality, piety, and/or knowledge. The knowledge is
>> unquestionable; the morality and spirituality are extremely
>> questionable, as witness the constant questions. It is pointless to
be
>> snide to Jacek or to me, given the strong reaction against Eliot's
>> claims in--especially--the 80s and 90s. At this point (and
Cassandra's
>> and my book is part of this) a rethinking is in process that seeks a
>> more complex understanding. But it is not at all going back to the
>> hagiography Jacek notes on the basis of a great deal of writing. It's
>> just there.
>> Nancyu
>>
>>>>> [log in to unmask] 09/22/05 10:37 AM >>>
>>>>
>> At 07:06 PM 9/21/2005, you wrote:
>>
>>> At least one can say in Bowra's favor that--together with John
>>
>> Sparrow,
>>
>>> F.R. Leavis, and recently departed David Daiches--he refused to be
>>
>> taken
>>
>>> in, and genuflect in front of, Eliot's PR machine,
>>
>>
>> What baloney, Jacek. Now, I admit I still haven't pushed myself
>> through
>> all of the Eliot bio's, but I don't remember one single recounting of
>> the
>> "genuflection era." Taken in? Maybe they just weren't bright enough
to
>>
>> understand what was in front of them.
>>
>> Yrs.,
>> Ken A.
>
>
>


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.5/110 - Release Date:
9/22/2005


		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! for Good
 Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.