I understand what you are saying.  It is only my
personal impression.  Eliot the poet seems to me to
have synthesized religious experience.  From a Hindu's
perspective I find I am all with him when I read most
of his poetical works (particularly his 'Ash
Wednesday'), though I feel out of place when I visit a
Church, or at odds with many Christian beliefs.  I
have found myself uncomfortable by many of his
religious positions in his prose works.  But as I
said, it is a personal impression.  I have never
carried it far enough to see if it could be
universally true, for religion could be a subjective
area and could have  parameters not applicable to
literary criticism.

--- Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> At 11:39 AM 9/24/2006, Vishvesh Obla wrote:
> >CR,
> >
> >I find the statement made by Diana true to a large
> >extent as far his prose works are concerned.  In
> >poetry, I believe we see the 'artist' and in prose
> we
> >see a different person (How true is Lawrence's
> >statement 'Never trust the artist; trust the tale'
> !).
>   This seems unlikely to me not what Lawrence said,
> which should be a first 
> principle of criticism, but that there were two
> Eliot's in the prose and 
> poetry. My guess is that the claim reflects more --
> much more -- on the 
> maker than on the poet/critic. What is it we think
> we know about the one 
> that makes it so different from the other?
> As far as Eliot's vision being divisive goes, I
> don't give this much 
> credence. It's certainly no more divisive than, say,
> Lao-Tse and his 
> partial insight and quite likely a lot less so.
>   In any case, make mine High-TSE. ;-)
> Cheers,
> Ken A.

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around