You're right, clearly.  But I suppose I was thinking that a brilliant
poem that was not obvious would be more lasting.

I once wrote that TWL is Eliot's Hamlet (using his definition) because
it has no "objective correlative" (again in Eliot's definition).  I did
not really develop that because of where it was written, but I think the
poem is constantly bursting the bounds Eliot places on it or tries to. 
It is immense, psychologically as well as conceptually, and it bursts
critical bounds also.  In that sense, I agree with early claims that it
is about consciousness, though I do not think one can represent whatever
would be meant by a universal consciousness.  Tiresias's attitudes seem
quite surprisingly like Eliot's own.


>>> Marcia Karp <[log in to unmask]> 08/01/07 9:47 AM >>>
Nancy Gish wrote:

>Nothing in the text is obvious.  I've been reading TWL and others on it
>all my life and it is not at all obvious to me that it is what you
>state.  That is why it is still a subject of fascination and diverse
>readings after 85 years.  

The poem not being obvious is not the only reason for its staying power,

I think.