Ken Armstrong wrote:
> At 03:12 PM 2/8/2007, Diana Manister wrote:
> >Carroll, since you are being legalistic about it, I should say the affect
> >is elicited by language designed to do so. I do not believe that words
> >have their own feelings. Diana
>    Carrol sort of has a point, as not only affect but anything at all
> relating to language must be located in the hearer (more than the reader)
> or the speaker (or writer). On the other hand, surely we can all agree that
> there is affected language. It's affected because it is spoke or writ that
> way. In that sense, a physics formula is without affect. That isn't to say
> that Lawrence Stearne or James Joyce would not delight in nesting e=mc
> twoed  is such a way as to give it affect -- but it would get affect in
> part by playing off of it affectlessness, yes?

I think the AHD has the right idea here: Affect as a noun should be
confined to the realm of psychology. 

I cannot conceive just what Diana thinks is to be gained by insisting on
the banality of Eliot having a certain kind of (non-existent) language.
It doesn't tell us one damn thing about the poems. Any old fool can
generate a phrase which will get an emotional response.

It takes a heap of living
To make a house a home.

The discussion is simply absurd and has nothing to do with Eliot that I
can see. It certainly doesn't illuminate any of his poems or show how
they differ from a daily squib by the late Eddie Guest.

>   BTW, tho Carrol doesn't object, the proper spelling of his name is with
> one "l"
> (he said, affecting not to elicit affect).

I never correct people.

I like to regard it as a partial test of whether they read what is on
the page/screen or, rather, see only what they expect to see.

> Cheers,
> Ken A.