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.