Dear CR: Your well-expressed sentiments are congenial to my own! Best, Diana
From: cr mittal <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Raine's sterile thunder"
Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 12:42:20 -0700
I too find it incredibly wonderful, Diana, that a Marxist critic focuseson what truly matters in Eliot's poetry, cautioning scholars to steerclear of the artificial barriers that stand in the way of our appreciatingEliot's true greatness as a poet. As Peter Montgomery rightly pointsout, Eagleton's focus is always on the work: he has "simply evaporatedsome of the impeding steam".But there's a moot point that maybe solves the mystery --Eliot may be a Royalist but it's not part of the poet's raidson the unconscious, or his archetypal symbols, or his concernwith time and eternity. Yes, there are hints of Royalism in LittleGidding -- but it's a broken king in a state of disillusionment withthe world -- or, as in Murder in the Cathedral -- it's the Churchthat triumphs over temporal Monarchy -- there are streaks inEliot where Eagleton would find common grounds of compassion(mark the Chorus of Canterbury women lamenting the plight ofthe underdog).Regards,CR
Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Peter and CR: What do you make of the fact that Eagleton is a Marxist critic interpreting the poetry of a self-avowed Royalist? Diana