Oh for heaven's sake, can you never respond to anything with a serious idea? "Damn good line" is irrelevant to what I said and to the book and to how Eliot is read and to anything now being done in Eliot studies (as is "modified in the guts of the living" when applied to those who wrote when Eliot was alive also). Why don't you discuss something new directly and, if you disagree, critique?
This constant sniping is ridiculous and ruins the list. It has nothing to do with any serious or current or even honest thinking about Eliot. It becomes increasingly pointless to say anything if all it produces is this sort of nasty and pointless and childish reactions. If you actually have anything to say about Eliot that you think is not "lite," for god's sake say it.
I should have known better than to hope an important and fascinating new book might lead to some discussion of Eliot. If "read not at all" is your own general method, no wonder it produces only this.
To the list: I am increasingly sick of this kind of thing and really wish we could return to ideas. Please join in.
>>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]
> 01/03/10 3:18 PM >>>
Nancy Gish wrote:
> A great deal of the response developed when he was alive--"modified"
> nonetheless, or possibly differently or better read.
//"modified in the guts of the living" -- that's a pretty damn good
line. "Possibly different" doesn't quite catch it, better read not at
all, though for sure what we're asked to imbibe is often Eliot Lite or
Eliot relativized. Oh for a literary French chef. //
> >>> Chokh Raj 01/03/10 1:30 PM >>>
> "Now he is scattered among a hundred cities
> And wholly given over to unfamiliar affections,
> To find his happiness in another kind of wood
> And be punished under a foreign code of conscience.
> The words of a dead man
> Are modified in the guts of the living."