----- Original Message -----From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Diana ManisterSent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 5:06 AMSubject: Re: Eliot on Charles Williams' mysticismWell now Peter that's where we disagree. I think the poetry, especially pre 4Qts, expresses conflict between aspects of the speakers. Lust does not happily cohabit with spirituality in those speakers, or in any of Eliot's characters. The typist and the young man are lustful but not spiritual, for example. Erotic love comes only briefly and soon disappears. To me the brilliance of Eliot's poetry is at its most luminous when it reflects these sharp mirror-fragments in an unresolved manner. Eliot's work taken as a whole is not consistent, but shifting and indeterminate.
Shakespeare's characters may have their conflicts, but the overall balance of human life is a feature of his work, whereas it is rarely if ever a feature of Eliot's.
And all of his various pursuits have a high degree of integration with each other.P.----- Original Message -----From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Diana ManisterSent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 8:53 AMSubject: Re: Eliot on Charles Williams' mysticismArguing about what label fits Eliot's poetry is as silly as trying to label Shakespeare as either mystical or wordly or psychological or political, etc. A great artist covers all of it. Eliot's work addresses sociology as much as religion, and interpersonal relations or the lack thereof as much as spirituality. He was not a disembodied spirit. He was very much embodied, emotional, political and wordly as much as religious and perhaps mystical. And so is his work.
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:33:04 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Eliot on Charles Williams' mysticism
To: [log in to unmask]
Personally, I would cherish an end to presumptions of knowledge that can simply deny, without any demonstration, the ability of anyone to read Eliot except those with some apparent secret. This has nothing to do with understanding poetry, Eliot, criticism, or even a "metaphysical perspective."It is only an assertion of private certainty that insults everyone on the list who disagrees. Why then even discuss?Nancy
>>> Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> 03/31/10 7:34 AM >>>
Thanks, Ken, for making a classic statement on the metaphysical perspective of Eliot's poetry. It stands up to any scrutiny. This is the post that, at last, justifies the list. I'll cherish it -- now & evermore.
--- On Tue, 3/30/10, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Eliot did say in an interview with a French newspaper that between his pre- and post-conversion poetry there was no essential change in point of view. Eric Thompson, to whom I've often referred on the list, wrote one book on Eliot, and that on Eliot's metaphysical perspective; the point being that he had a metaphysical perspective from the time his first mature poetry (Prufrock and so forth) appeared to the end. Is this boring? I have no idea why it would be. It does not preclude experimentation, exploration, peripeteia, or any dynamic thing you can think of.
It's not up for a vote.There's no security in numbers. What matters is what it is. Either that's the prize or there is no prize. Scholarly views change like ripples in a pond. The place the rock hits the water is unchanging.
The poetry is in the poem. For those who didn't see it 1923 or 1937 or 1963 or 1998, there's no reason to suppose it'll be visible in 2014. The mass of knowledge that has accreted around Eliot does not make the poetry.
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get started.