Print

Print


Peter Montgomery wrote:
> These are flawed generalisations needed I think to make my point.
> The appreciation of literature used to be a public thing. Lots of 
> people from different backgrounds in different employments produced 
> and critiqued it. It has now primarily migrated to the academy, where 
> it must accomodate various conditions like publish or perish. The same 
> joy and commerce of ideas is no longer there. SO I am, as you can tell 
> very cynical about the academic setup, and what that has done to the 
> appreciation
> of literature. I see no reason to hide my attitude. I have simply lost 
> interest in the academic debate. I have not lost interest in the poetry.
>  
> It could be that if a person comes to Eliot's poetry with a 
> significant Christian theological or spiritual background, he or she 
> will appreciate nuances in
> the whole context of Christianity which are reflected in Eliot's 
> poetry pre and post conversion, that others might not get. That is not 
> meant to be an exclusive situiation, it is just the way it is. I may 
> appreciate some Islamic poetry for a lot of different reasons, but I 
> could well believe that there may be some elements of it that I just 
> won't and can't get because I don't believe in that religion. There is 
> no inuendo implied here. It is just
> a point of view.
>  
> Does that make sense? I don't mean to speak for Ken, but I'm wondering 
> if that is what he is getting at.
    It's not easy to say what a metaphysically attuned sensibility is. 
In his book Thompson's whole effort was to reveal (not prove) it in 
every realm of Eliot's thought (poetry, criticism, dissertation).  I'll 
say more but am way under the weather and will have to take a rain 
check. Waiting for rain to stop, as it were.

Ken