Print

Print


The fallacy is simply the addressing of the person rather than the
issue. Actually, that is what these do. 

Poets are public figures, and their public words are the basis of valid
commentary, including their biography. I am not in a debate with Eliot.
Eliot, in later criticism (for example, Yeats) often addressed the poet:
analysis, including biography and its impact, is not the same as a
debate over meaning.
Best,
Nancy

>>> Ken Armstrong 11/10/11 9:17 AM >>> 
Actually, Nancy, these are not ad hominem in the sense of a logical 
fallacy. Do you think your remarks about the range of Eliot's 
understanding of "human emotion" are ad hominem? 

Ken A 

Nancy Gish wrote: 
> 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 >> > > 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. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>