Print

Print


... in THE N.Y., my favorite mag,



(btw: wonderful + funny drawing -- the gloss on the grecian urn is  
fantastic!)

a vicious article:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/ 
1989/11/20/1989_11_20_119_TNY_CARDS_000355886

ABSTRACT: A CRITIC AT LARGE about the poet T.S. Eliot, who once was a  
commanding literary figure whose formulations were revered. It's  
impossible nowadays to imagine such authority accruing to a poet. In  
his person, if not in his poetry, Eliot was false coinage. Born in  
St, Louis, he became indistinguishable from a proper British Tory.  
Such unalloyed self-alteration suggests a hatred of the original  
design. And certainly Eliot condemned the optimism of democratic  
American meliorism, he despised Unitarianism, centered less on  
personal salvation than on social good, & he had contempt for Jews as  
marginal, if not inimical to his concept of Christian community. In  
the 40s & 50s Eliot was absolute art: high art when art was its most  
serious & elitist. Eliot's aristocratic ideas which some might call  
Eurocentric & obscurantist no longer interest most literary  
intellectuals. The biographies that have appeared in recent years  
have brought Eliot down to human scale. They've exposed the nightmare  
of Eliot's first marriage & its devastating evolution. It is in the  
nature of fame to undergo revision: Eliot appears now to be similarlt  
receding into the parochial, even the sectarian. His reach, once  
broad enough to incorporate the Upanishads, shrank to extend no  
farther than the neighborhood sacristy, & to a still smaller place  
the closet of the self. The chief elements of the Age of Eliot are no  
longer with us & may never return: the belief that poetry can be  
redemptive; the conviction that history underlies poetry.


Cheers,

Gunnar

PS
To honor the tomorrow's historic event,

(just to illustrate how much attention given to it here in Old Europe:
a friend of mine who has no TV asked me if he could come over to  
watch it at 6 p.m.)

a debate on Obama and TSE would be in order.
It seems he had been quoting TSE at length in his Minnesota speech.  
Any ideas?