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.