At 09:30 PM 9/26/2006, Carrol Cox wrote:
>What are the political presuppositions of the crucifixion of Celia on an
>ant hill in the Cocktail Party? Where on earth, hypothetically, would
>such scene be located in 1950? What business would an English woman have
>inserting herself in such a location?

   One assumes she was inserted into the ant hill by others. Wasn't her 
"business" named?

>  Since the fact is only thrown in
>almost parenthetically at the end, with no context or rationale given,
>the play assumes that it will be perfectly intelligible to the audience.
>What is one to say of an audience that can swallow that camel? What can
>one say of the social/political premises of a playwright who can ask his
>audience to swallow that camel? Are Eliot's assumptions the same as or
>at least related to those of Kipling in "The White Man's Burden"?

   Sometimes Carrol I think your enthusiasms reflect a mccarthyite thinking 
from the other end of the political scale. It doesn't dress up any better 
on the left than on the right.

Ken A.