Print

Print


Or diversions or excursions.
P.
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Chokh Raj
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: TS Eliot vis-a-vis Naturalism

Cf.

Of Man's First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe.
 
-- 'Paradise Lost'
 
CR

--- On Tue, 5/31/11, Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Nor to the reversions and conversions.
P.
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="http:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Chokh Raj
To: [log in to unmask] href="http:[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 6:31 AM
Subject: Re: TS Eliot vis-a-vis Naturalism

There is no end to the perversions of human nature.
 
Cheers,
 CR


--- On Sun, 5/29/11, Tom Colket <[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]> wrote:
CR wrote:

CR> these poems embody the naturalistic impulses/instincts of human nature.

The naturalistic impulses/instincts of human nature to shit on a table?? OK. If that's what you think TSE was trying to communicate to his audience, OK.

Listers like Ken will be glad to know that I do NOT consider Columbo's adventure on the table to be, IN ANY WAY, an autobiographical reference!!

-- Tom --




----- Reply message -----
From: "Chokh Raj" <[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow>[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, May 28, 2011 11:52 pm
Subject: TS Eliot vis-a-vis Naturalism
To: <[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow>[log in to unmask]>



> Tom, we are only drifting away from the point I'm making. In my reading of them, these poems embody the naturalistic impulses/instincts of human nature. I take them to be a demonstration to the poet of "the fallen state of man". Well, a point of view anyone, including Eliot, might disagree with. I hope some might view these poems in this light.
>  
> Thanks,
>  CR
>  
>  
> --- On Sat, 5/28/11, Tom Colket <[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> CR wrote:
>
> "In July [1915], Wyndham Lewis published 'Preludes' and 'Rhapsody on a Windy Night' in Blast - although he refused to print extracts from the Bolo saga, 'Bullshit' and 'The Ballad of Big Louise', a folly which Eliot ascribed to his puritanical principles." -- 'T.S. Eliot: A Life' by Peter Ackroyd (Simon and Schuster, 1984, pp. 60-61).
>
> =======================
>
> CR:
>
> Rather than look at a secondary source like Ackroyd, let's look at a primary source, Eliot's letters. An excerpt from TSE's letter to Ezra Pound (February 2, 1915):
>
> =======================
>
> "I have corresponded with [Wyndham] Lewis, but his puritanical principles seem to bar my way to Publicity. I fear that King Bolo and his Big Black Kween will never burst into print. I understand that Priapism, Narcissism etc. are not approved of, and even so innocent a rhyme as
>
>     . . . pulled her stockings off
>     With a frightful cry of 'Hauptbahnhof!!'
>
> is considered decadent."
>
> =========================
>
> Around the same time (Jan, 1915), Lewis wrote to Pound [as quoted in the footnote to TSE's 1915 letter to Pound]:
>
> "Eliot has sent me Bullshit and the Ballad for Big Louise. They are excellent bits of scholarly ribaldry. I am longing to print them in _Blast_, but stick to my naif determination to have no 'Words ending in -Uck, -Unt, and -Ugger.' "
>
> =========================
>
> Is that where Ackroyd gets his notion of the "puritanical principles" of Lewis? If so, I think TSE is being rather tongue-in-cheek with Pound about this, and not seriously calling Lewis' decision to not publish a "folly". Also, if this is Ackroyd's source, I don't see the Bolo/Columbo poems included in the material sent to Lewis.
>
> In any event, we know Eliot sent some ribald poems to Lewis in 1915. TSE died in 1965, 50 years later. Are you saying that TSE was so devastated by Lewis' rejection of the Bullshit and Big Louise poems in 1915 that he never published a single Bolo or Columbo poem again over the next 50 years, even though he really wanted to???
>
> -- Tom
>
>  
>
>
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 18:52:19 -0700
> From: [log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow>[log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: TS Eliot vis-a-vis Naturalism
> To: [log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "In July [1915], Wyndham Lewis published 'Preludes' and 'Rhapsody on a Windy Night' in Blast - although he refused to print extracts from the Bolo saga, 'Bullshit' and 'The Ballad of Big Louise', a folly which Eliot ascribed to his puritanical principles." -- 'T.S. Eliot: A Life' by Peter Ackroyd (Simon and Schuster, 1984, pp. 60-61).
>  
> CR
>
> --- On Sat, 5/28/11, Tom Colket <[log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> You have some rather bizarre examples of TSE "shocking the reader into an awareness of certain harsh physical/psychic realities". The Columbo and Bolo verses were dirty jokes meant to be shared only among TSE's friends; //he never intended those jokes to be published//.