Print

Print


At 09:58 PM 4/23/2006, you wrote:
>Well, Ken, the part of the review you have reproduced belongs to a school 
>of thought that you and I DO NOT approve of. But that doesn't debar others 
>from expressing their views.
>After all, a critic of literature is governed by his own understanding 
>which may not always match ours. To me too, what he writes in the second 
>half is plain nonsense.

  Well, OK CR, but "school of thought" can only be applied to this review 
in the loosest of uses. It was just a hatchet job, nonsense brandished as a 
weapon. It pummeled TSE and pretty much ignored the book. I deleted much of 
the review from my email before I noticed whether the author's name was 
attached; with a little luck, I hope never to read anything else by that 
person. I hope he (assuming it's a he) isn't really a literary critic. He 
reads like a pop culture maven of the sophisticated cynical sort.


>As I had made clear, my intention in drawing attention to this review was 
>limited to its focuss on the repugnant aspect of "desire" in Eliot's poetry.


  To which I'll add that if the conflict between love and desire is banal, 
then so is the "fact" of our existence. Pound said "make it new." Eliot did 
it, and as only the very greatest have.

  Cheers,
  Ken