Print

Print


> Nancy Gish wrote:
> 
> Dear Carrol,
> 
> It was, though, Eliot who said that without a spiritual meaning sex
> was no more than the coupling of animals.  He didn't, one might note,
> know much about sex or passionate sexual experience--unless maybe long
> after with Valerie.  All those pontifications came from someone who
> was still a virgin at 26,  married suddenly, had a horrific experience
> of sex, and then took up celibacy.
> 
> So that he called it animals only tells us how he saw it, but it did
> come from him.

I guess my response was mostly to the crudity of "making a point."
"Spiritualized sex" was a 20th c invention that was rapidly disappearing
even at mid-century. It was probably an improvement of "Close your eyes
and think of England," but not by mucy. And I think Eliot was a better
poet than he was a moral critic.