Thank you George for pointing out this obvious fact that finding a label "distraction league" and putting in it anyone who disagrees or reads Eliot with some care to his language is not evidence of anything but a refusal to examine the work.
"The Jew" is the way someone like the Gerontion Diana describes would speak of any Jew he knew--as somehow a thing or category rather than a person.  I see no reason anywhere else in the poem to see it as indicating "the one" of "the god" or whatever.  It is a perfectly common use of "the,"
It also makes discussion impossible and is pointlessly rude, but that will not bother those who do it.

>>> George Carless <[log in to unmask]> 02/28/10 2:21 AM >>>
Ken Armstrong ([log in to unmask]) wrote the following on Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 09:30:08AM -0500:
> DIana Manister wrote:
> >Who says the Jew is Jesus? He's depicted as negatively as Fresca and
> >von Kulp. Who are they? Mary Magdelene and The Blessed Mother?
> You have to place yourself in the poem. Where is Gerontion while being
> read to by a boy? What is being read? Where does one find "the jew" (not
> "a jew") squatting on a window sill? One who owns "the house"? One who
> has been spawned, blistered, patched and peeled, i.e. the "fish" in
> stained glass in just those city-centers of Europe? What is the
> significance of the poem's locale to "the field overhead"? You'd have to
> give up your fantasy Eliot, the negative one for whom all things created
> in his poetry somehow equate to psychological fissures and fractures, to
> dig to the real one whom the critics you quote do not touch. The odd
> thing to me is how obvious it is that he hasn't been touched, that such
> an easy identification of "the jew" is so difficult for the Eliot
> Distraction League to simply see, not to say they couldn't sober up,
> gather themselves, and push on from that obvious beginning

Go on, then. Where *is* Gerontion, while being read to by a boy? What is being read? Where *does* one find "the Jew"
(and is it too much to hope that you can justify in some way, from the text, your implication that the 'the' in "the
Jew" makes it Christian rather than derogatory? Justify, indeed, *any* of this from a reading of the text that
doesn't simply fall back to "why, it's so obvious! how can you not see it?"

All of this talk of the "Eliot Distraction League" and its like becomes quickly tiresome. What of the Eliot
Sycophancy League?