Print

Print


Since you cannot find them, here they are. Both these comments are
generalizations about the kind of person who writes criticism and not
about the poet or poetry. They are "to the man" [sic]: that is what it
means to write about the other and not the issue. Just FYI. (italics
mine)

Both state an inadequacy or lack of the correct view (thougth what it
has to do with consumerism is unclear) in the critic as a reason for
what is assumed to be the true reading.

Nancy


And not assenting to this may well reflect much more on the critic than
on the poet/playwright

Accompanying this lack of appreciation in Eliot criticism for these
rather large 
factors, and possibly a part of it, is the strain of consumerism it 
exhibits, as if creating satisfactory verse or poetry were rather like 
turning on the hot and cold taps just right to get the most comfortable 
mixture for the bath water.




>>> Peter Montgomery 11/10/11 5:53 AM >>>
I have re-read it VERY carefully Ken, and I can find no personal
comments at all,
just a position with which Nancy chooses to disagree, which is fine. I
find
the assertion of personal attacks puzzling.

Cheers,
Peter
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ken Armstrong 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Eliot's 4 English drawing room plays

Nancy,

As you said in an earlier post, any lister is free to agree or disagree
with any other. I would only say that nothing in my message below is
meant as ad hominem -- it is meant as observation for consideration. In
that vein, I stick by it, because I think it's accurate.

Ken A

On 11/8/2011 7:58 PM, Nancy Gish wrote: 

>>> Ken Armstrong 11/08/11 4:02 PM >>> 
On the other hand, the significant emotion of art was what Eliot was 
after, and some points could be raised in defense of his efforts. 

That is not at stake. I was talking about something else. I think the
best work on Eliot's emotion in art is by Charlie Altieri. 

He was under no constriction to present emotions other than what he was 
interested in.

No one said he was. The reviewer merely pointed out the limits of his
emotional range. For a contrast, think Shakespeare.

If his plays were not fully successful, there are other 
places to look besides to a deficiency in the poet's appreciation of 
human emotions, the claim of which is at best highly problematic anyhow.


That's a fine topic, a different one.

One large bit of territory to investigate might be what Katherine Anne 
Porter called "the failure of love in the Western world." For the poet 
or artist who perceives that overarching failure, religious ecstasy or 
despair may very well be the proper themes of his poetry/plays. 

That topic has been explored since the first reviews. Discussing
something else is not a failure to know about it or even agree.

And not assenting to this may well reflect much more on the critic than
on the 
poet/playwright. Isn't this something that critics should keep in mind 
and be sensitive to, that there judgments may reveal more about them 
than about their alleged subject?

Ad hominem remarks (and ad feminem) are not arguments, just
name-calling.

Too, Eliot was trying to revive verse 
plays and wrote somewhere (don't remember whether it was about the plays

or the poetry) about the advantage of having a form delivered developed 
into your poetic hands vs. the difficulties of trying to (re)establish a

form.

Also well known: no one denied it.

I think this is a more promising area in which to look for Eliot's 
difficulties than to his appreciation of human emotion.

By all means, look. Let us know.

Accompanying this lack of appreciation in Eliot criticism for these
rather large 
factors, and possibly a part of it, is the strain of consumerism it 
exhibits, as if creating satisfactory verse or poetry were rather like 
turning on the hot and cold taps just right to get the most comfortable 
mixture for the bath water.

More ad hominem/feminem.

While I suppose just about everyone would 
agree that that is not what creating art is about, I can't help 
wondering why then people persist in talking about it that way. 

Perhaps careful reading of a great deal more contemporary criticism
would be illuminating. I don't find myself wondering.

What I do not understand is why anyone on this list assumes either that
they are experts who can assert truth and others are somehow utterly
absurd, or that we cannot have a civil discussion without any personal
attacks or constant assertions of personal feeling that lead nowhere.
Nancy



Ken A 

Nancy Gish wrote: 
> That is not what I meant at all, that is not it at all. I wish this 
> discussion could have remained a discussion, but that seems
impossible. 
> Nancy 
> 
> >>> Chokh Raj 11/08/11 7:18 AM >>> 
> The significant emotion of art. 
> CR 
> 
> *From:* Nancy Gish 
> *To:* [log in to unmask] 
> *Sent:* Monday, November 7, 2011 1:55 PM 
> *Subject:* Re: Eliot's 4 English drawing room plays 
> 
> Dear John, 
> I agree with what you say, though as an actor ( English professor who 
> acts for fun in a Shakespeare ensemble), I think one could do a 
> fabulous and exciting performance of /Sweeney Agonistes/. I also saw a

> brilliant performance of /Murder in the Cathedral/ in the Cathedral at

> St. Andrews. It was performed all through and around the audience. 
> That seems to affirm what you say about the comedies: //he really had 
> not figured out that there are living humans with a much wider range 
> of emotion than religious ecstasy or despair.// But I wonder why, 
> then, you chose them. Do you think they could be directed and acted in

> ways that would make them work now? 
> Nancy 
> P. S., of course he seemed much changed by human love when he finally 
> experienced it. 
> >>> John Angell Grant 11/07/11 1:31 PM >>> 
> Hi Nancy, 
> Thanks for the thought. I am a theater person myself, and have talked 
> with other theater folk about the issue. Draw is always an issue. My 
> sense is that Eliot's plays have a smug "I know the secret to life" 
> feel to them, which is alienating and, in my view, paradoxically 
> unchristian--a link to his Puritan heritage. Here's a 1950 review by 
> of the The Cocktail Party, by William Barrett from the Partisan 
> Review, which Jewel Brooker includes in her Contemporary Reviews book,

> which nails some of it, in my view. Barrett is referring to the 2 
> choices of life offered in The Cocktail Party (2 choices represented 
> by the Chamberlaynes, and Celia): 
> 
> â€*Here we must remember that Eliot, the last great product of the 
> Puritan mind, has never shown in his poetry any real belief in the 
> possibility of human love. The moment of love is presented always as 
> the moment of withdrawal and renunciation, the awful daring of a 
> momentâ€*s surrender, one of â€?the things that other people have 
> desiredâ€*; and consequently the beauty of the world is never present 
> in the fullness of joy, but always with that painful clutch at the 
> heart as at something taken away, lost, uncapturable. No doubt, 
> resignation is necessary to get through life at all, and Freud himself

> stated that the aim of analytic therapy was to enable the neurotic to 
> bear the sufferings inevitable in human life; but this is only half 
> the picture, for the work of the analyst may also be to liberate the 
> patient for the positive joys that life can hold, even perhaps for the

> possibility of love, and if the neurotic were told that he is to be 
> resigned only for resignationâ€*s sakes, it is very unlikely that he 
> would have the strength to go on. 
> â€*I was surprised to read that one critic found in the play the 
> gaiety that Stendhal recommends for all art, for it seems to me that 
> at bottom the world of The Cocktail Party is the same empty world of 
> Prufrock, except that 37 years ago Eliot did not disguise his contempt

> for this emptiness. So I feel at the heart of this play some immense 
> tricherie [cheating], or at least self-deception, for I canâ€*t 
> believe that Eliot takes the Chamberlaynes as serious as he pretends 
> to. Here again, comparison with Sweeney Agonistes becomes instructive,

> for in this earlier fragment Eliot fully realized all his hatred of 
> human life and really enjoyed himself in the raucous company of Doris,

> Sweeney, Klipsteins, and Krumpacker—in comparison with whose vulgar 
> vitality the characters at the cocktail party are genteel skeletons. 
> As a writer Eliot has never really given us Godâ€*s plenty: the 
> qualities of his genius are not robustness and richness, but 
> precision, terseness, and intensity; and the shadow which haunts these

> qualities is a certain tendency to thinness and brittleness that here 
> in The Cocktail Party has at last caught up with him.†
> 
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask] 
> > wrote: 
> 
> Dear John, 
> I would think you could learn more about that from theater people 
> than TSE enthusiasts. You might want to ask some theater faculty 
> or directors. 
> My guess is that they are not only rather outdated for 
> contemporary audiences but are in verse. I imagine directors would 
> doubt that they would draw. That's only a guess based on what is 
> produced. 
> Best, 
> Nancy 
> 
> >>> John Angell Grant 11/07/11 12:48 PM >>> 
> 
> I'm writing a Master's Thesis on Eliot's 4 drawing room plays 
> (Family Reunion, Cocktail Party, Confidential Clerk, Elder 
> Statesman). Does anyone have thoughts about why they are rarely 
> performed these days. I set up Google Alerts for all 4 a few 
> months back, and only one production popped up, and that wa 6 
> rehearsed staged readings of The Cocktail Party by the 
> English-language theater in Abu Dhabi! Donmar did a series a few 
> years back. And there was an NYC production a year or so back. 
> 
> 
> 
>