The last few days I've had a series of annoying computer related
problems keeping me from getting and responding to posts. I'm going
to reply now but with a bunch of replies in this one post (as tracking
down the originals will be a real problem.)
Mainly for Tim,
Once again an excellent April Fools prank. I caught on right away
though as this is about the only time you post. Please let us hear
from you during the year. Personally I would like it if nobody gave
away the joke until the 2nd. As for Ken's request to get the website
back online -- I second that.
Mainly for Carroll:
Thanks for taking the time to go in depth with Antigone. I see Eliot
using Antigone elsewhere and you post will help me develop the point.
I hope the doctors found nothing and that you'll have fun filling up
again.
Mainly for Peter:
Quite awhile back you sent in a quote by Eliot about drama. I've been
thinking about it a fair bit but I can't get beyond my cynical first
thought. That is that money is really behind the restriction on not
giving the audience the full art. The play, unlike a poem, has
production costs that must be recouped. Then the audience needs to enjoy
the play to recommend it to others and thus make the play make money.
If the playwright make the audience do too much pondering they will lose
their place in the play. Unlike the written word they can't stop and
think.
Mainly for CR:
Be careful about Eliot's use of rocks and stones. These materials are
not the same things and the symbolism will be different. Rocks are the raw
material and stones are rocks that are manipulated, modified or put to
use. Think of a pile of rocks being used to make a stone wall or a rock
being chipped away at to make a stone spearhead or quarried rock being
sculpted into a gravestone.
Mainly for CR:
On the web very recently I came across an essay about "Ash Wednesday"
being about Eliot's relationship with Vivien (the poem was originally
dedicated to her.) If so then Belladonna, the lady of the rocks, could
also be making an appearance there.
I don't have the URL to the webpage and I only skimmed the beginning of
it so I can't really say more about it.
Mainly for Diana:
Eva Hesse probably has made the same mistake regarding Eliot and
homosexuality as others have. One way of looking at the hyacinth girl
incident is that nothing happened and that TWL centers around regret.
Another view is that something did and that this was the moment's
surrender mentioned in Part V. This view was put forward pre-Peter
but post-Peter this was sometimes seen as a homoerotic or homosexual act.
I see this as a fair way of reading the poem but it should be noticed
that this was a _MOMENT_ of surrender, not a giving of a lifetime to
it.
Regards,
Rick Parker