Ken, I greatly appreciate your earlier observation too:
//We seem to have people acting as automatons -- the human engine throbbing,  the automatic hand -- where evil, to reference Eliot on
Baudelaire, is subordinated to the indifference of anaesthetized sensibilities.//
"So far as we are human, what we do must be either evil or good; so far as we do evil or good, we are human; and it is better, in a paradoxical way, to do evil than to do nothing: at least we exist. It is true to say that the glory of man is his capacity for salvation; it is also true to say that his glory is his capacity for damnation. The worst that can be said for our malefactors, from statesmen to thieves, is that they were not men enough to be damned." -- TS Eliot's 1930 essay on Baudelaire

--- On Wed, 5/12/10, Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Clearly, Ken is right. One should not expect, as in this case, a one-to-one correspondence between the borrrowed material and the use which the artist makes of it -- the important thing is how the echoes from the original are assimilated into, and enriched by, a new context.

--- On Tue, 5/11/10, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
//No.  See Conrad.//

>>> Ken Armstrong [log in to unmask]> 05/11/10 4:50 PM >>" rel=nofollow target=_blank>[log in to unmask]> 05/11/10 4:50 PM >>
Nancy Gish wrote:
> She simply accepts; she does not engage or desire or anything.

//Exactly. Like an automaton. Isn't that "the horror the horror," --- "that death had undone so many"?//

Ken A