Thanks, Diana, for your very heart-warming note. Absolutely right --
I have been thinking along these lines too, intrigued by what you
aptly put in the subject-line as "Eliot's creative process". Yes, it has
so many dimensions to it and has engaged the critics' attention all
along. It's something that intrigued Eliot himself and he attempted to
describe it now-in-this-now-in-that fashion -- no wonder there have
been contradictions which cease to be so as part of an all-inclusive
whole, as you put it. 
Thanks too for putting in the article "T.S. Eliot and the Poem Itself"
by Denis Donoghue. I have yet to read it though. I've been awfully
busy with family and friends.
And I'm grateful to María Laura Balbín for that quotation from Peter
Ackroyd. Since I had Ackroyd's book, I instantly rushed to read it
and found it was precisely this experience of Eliot vis-a-vis poetic
creation that accounted for the way how 'What The Thunder Said'
got composed.
Peter Montgomery's observations in this regard have been
greatly illuminating.
Well, I'm in the process of typing out some interesting material on
this from Peter Ackroyd (including the English version of what Laura
quoted in German).
And I'd like to read that article by Donoghue before I finally
get back to the List.
Best regards.
~ CR  

Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear CR:
One wonders what all Eliot scholarship implies if it is not an explication of his creative process -- not only why he chose this image or phrase or cadence, but how it came to him, and what part it plays in his larger vision. Eliot himself asserted that he did not understand his own creative process. The remark he made about keeping his hand in with practice verses so he would be ready when real poetry arrived testifies to that. 
Bergonzi quotes Eliot's assertions that the creative process is irrational and possibly dangerous. Eliot himself believed its source to be a "primitive" part of the psyche. Perhaps the discussion in this list on Eliot and the primitive is pertinent to developing insight into his creativity.
The source of great work is always mysterious, even to the artist who produces it.  Beethoven, Picasso, the Beatles, Stravinsky, Jackson Pollock....what possessed them? Where did their originality come from? This curiosity is not the exclusive possession of Eliot admirers. If the public's ongoing interest in the wellsprings of genius constitutes a cult, it is a very inclusive one. Diana

Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.