CR wrote: I'm sorry but your remark, "Eliot, though an imaginative genius, had his own divisive vision. Alas." is rather off-the-cuff, Diana.There should be no confusion on this count if one reads Lyndon Gordon's "Eliot's Early Years". I got my basic clarity on the subject from it.
CR: Rather than off the cuff, my remark was based on documentation as cited in this excerpt from the Boston Globe:
"Lyndall Gordon, having produced two copiously researched volumes over the previous decades, combined them into a single tome in 1998 under the conspicuously damning title, ''T.S. Eliot: An Imperfect Life." Michael Hastings's 1985 play, ''Tom & Viv," made hay with the dirty linen of Eliot's grisly first marriage, spawning a prurient Hollywood biopic of the same name. ''It is now our unsparing obligation to disclaim the reactionary Eliot," Cynthia Ozick declared in a 1989 New Yorker essay; in 1995 the British barrister Anthony Julius followed suit with a prosecutorial opus indicting the poet on long-bruited charges of malignant anti-Semitism. Reviewing the recently published ''Annotated Waste Land" this summer, Christopher Hitchens not only caught a distinct whiff of fascism in Eliot's makeup but took the opportunity to bash the masterwork under discussion as ''certainly the most overrated poem in the Anglo-American canon."
Even Eliot's stoutest partisans at times seem overmatched by the blowback. In 1996, when BU professor Christopher Ricks put out his lavish annotated edition of Eliot's youthful poetry, ''Inventions of the March Hare: Poems 1909-1917," much of the immediate attention fixated on a clutch of scabrous verses that had never seen the light of print. Never mind that Ricks's archeological reconstruction of Eliot's early drafts and notebooks yielded up a landmark work of textual criticism. For naysayers on the warpath, the paper trail once again seemed to point straight to the heart of darkness.
As usual, one doesn't have to look far for an Eliot line that seems tailor-made for the occasion: After such knowledge, what forgiveness?"
From: cr mittal <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Eliot and Unitarianism
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:48:51 -0700
I'm sorry but your remark, "Eliot, though an imaginative genius,had his own divisive vision. Alas." is rather off-the-cuff, Diana.There should be no confusion on this count if one readsLyndon Gordon's "Eliot's Early Years". I got my basicclarity on the subject from it.Regards.~ CR
Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:CR wrote: The human mind is so divisive; only Imagination harmonizes, synthesizes, and unites/fuses into one.CR: Yes, I agree.The world is terribly deficient in imagining oneness. Monotheisms proliferate, with dire effects. Reason and/or spirituality never hold their own against our species' violent territoriality.( I wonder how unitary Unitarianism really is?) Eliot, though an imaginative genius, had his own divisive vision. Alas. Diana