I thought your point was quite clear, CR.
It reminded me of Pound's metaphor of poets as the antennae
of the race. I fear literal mindedness like that of the Iranian
government, tends to block the signals.


Jul 22, 2009 09:41:36 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
No, I did not mean to say that "all poets are the same". I was only struck by Eliot's emphasis on Tiresias's "seeing" -- and it evoked the thought in me that "seeing" is the hallmark of poetry and that all poets are essentially one as "seers". That, of course, does not detract from poetic variety or different poets' individual ways of looking at things.

--- On Tue, 7/21/09, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Were that true, there would be no reason to read poetry.  What fascinates is the great variety and differentiation of poets and poetry.  I really don't think even Eliot would want to be in a set with some:  he and WCW couldn't stand each other's way of writing.  MacDiarmid loved his early work but not the later, and his own is both affected by Eliot and in great contrast.
I think this universalizing damages poetry.  And Tiresias is not really everyone either.  As Grover Smith wrote, all of Eliot's characters think like Eliot.  (I would have to get the exact words, but I read it recently).

>>> Chokh Raj 07/21/09 11:57 AM >>>




"Tiresias*  [*read THE POET]

although a mere spectator and not indeed a 'character',

is yet the most important personage in the poem,

uniting all the rest...

What Tiresias* sees,

in fact, is the substance of the poem."


T.S. Eliot

in his Notes to 'The Waste Land'





All poets are one poet.




[That my own remark now follows Eliot's observation is a subsequent modification.]