Print

Print


There is no opposition between what I said and what you said: I referred
to quantity, you to quality. Hugh MacDiarmid, for example, published
masses, much of it bad. But what is great, if collected as "the best
of," would be much more in quantity than Eliot. It is agreed on all
sides, as far as I can see, that TWL not only is a great poem but
largely defined the meaning of modernism. He still only published the
best of his work, unlike Wordsworth or MacDiarmid. But anyone willing to
read Sangschaw and Penny Wheep is confronted by genius. Unfortunately,
there seems to be a dearth of willingness to address the mass of
modernist work that was not--for many reasons--canonized.
Nancy


>>> Ken Armstrong 11/07/11 8:52 AM >>>
Not to press too hard on the obvious, this is only true if the standard
is lines published. If you step back from it, it is telling that the
poet who published The Waste Land could by any measure be said to have
published little. As Hughes points out, almost everything he did publish
is of the highest poetic order, and the book and review referenced
below, not to mention the thriving if not altogether appreciative
critical industry that still lives on the poetic corpus suggest that in
the most important sense few have published more. 

Ken A

On 11/7/2011 8:17 AM, David Boyd wrote: Yes, Eliot far less prolific
than 'awd Wudswuth' , as the bemused Lakeland peasantry used to call
him. 

Of course, it was a different era, and Wordsworth had little else to do
but to live a life of leisure / write his poetry 


On 7 November 2011 12:56, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Eliot produced a lot of poor stuff also; he didn't publish it. But you
can read it now in IMH. (Actually, some of that is good also, but it's
sometimes crude or even offensive). It is interesting to note just how
little Eliot did publish for someone with his ability and fame. 
Nancy


>>> David Boyd 11/07/11 4:00 AM >>> 
Just recalling when I was fortunate enough, in Summer 2010, to be able
to attend a talk by Prof Brooker, where she compared Wordsworth's themes
etc with Eliot

And, I have to agree with the view of a (more minor) poetic contemporary
of Eliot, that Wordsworth produced some of the finest poetry in the
English language, but a lot of pretty poor stuff too - far more
profligate / garrulous than Eliot !


On 7 November 2011 02:57, Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
A Review of 

T. S. Eliot: The Contemporary Reviews
Jewel Spears Brooker, ed.
Cambridge University Press, 2004 

By Bernard Brugière 

"Another recurrent debate concerns the hiatus between the early (up to
Ash-Wedneday) and the later poetry presumably underlain by the
transformation of the author of "Prufrock", "The Hippopotamus" and The
Waste Land into a renegade, whose diasavowal of agnosticism was
comparable with Wordsworth’s abandonment of his youthful revolutionary
principles. Yet the more perceptive reviewers sensed that Eliot’s
conversion to Christianity entailed no dramatic reversal of his earlier
beliefs and noted that "the surface discontinuity concealed a deeper
continuity" (XXVI)." 

http://transatlantica.revues.org/860#compterendu-860 

a nodding acquaintance -- just in case

CR