"the contradiction of non-political politics"
It should be fascinating to read, in this regard, Terry Eagleton's
views at the following link:

Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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 focuses
on what truly matters in Eliot's poetry, cautioning scholars to steer
clear of the artificial barriers that stand in the way of our appreciating
Eliot's true greatness as a poet. As Peter Montgomery rightly points
out, Eagleton's focus is always on the work: he has "simply evaporated
some 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 raids
on the unconscious, or his archetypal symbols, or his concern
with time and eternity. Yes, there are hints of Royalism in Little
Gidding -- but it's a broken king in a state of disillusionment with
the world -- or, as in Murder in the Cathedral -- it's the Church
that triumphs over temporal Monarchy -- there are streaks in
Eliot where Eagleton would find common grounds of compassion
(mark the Chorus of Canterbury women lamenting the plight of
the underdog).

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

TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.