Print

Print


Behold the nay-sayers in full vent.
I believe it was you Nancy who warned us about
Copying Eliot texts. Besides it is always advisable to refer to the original rather than to copy it. The passage in question is clear, straightforward and very readable. If one is not prepared to follow the reference,  one shouldn't participate.
P.

Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>It is very difficult to read Eliot at all without noting constant references to light (and dark). In fact, light/dark imagery is pretty common in much literature. I always assume anyone on this list has read the poetry and is interested in discussion (clearly mistaken). But your insulting of Carrol's understanding is not relevant to the issue of a constant stream of quotations from Eliot on a list that exists to discuss Eliot--on, I would presume, the assumption that no one on the list needs the most obvious and constant images pointed out. The question is whether one gets anything out of reading the texts themselves that is illuminating and can be discussed, not whether one can get anything out of a gratuitous set of quotations with common and well-known images. Who on this list is presumed to be so unread in Eliot as to need these anyway?
>Nancy
>
>
>>>> Carrol Cox 07/11/12 6:22 PM >>> 
>P: Could you not get anything from the Eliot texts to which CR is pointing? 
>CR has very kindly highlighted texts in Eliot which relate to light and a 
>poetic rendering of E's intuitions about light. There is a parallel, or 
>perhaps better an analogy between those intuitions and what quantum physics 
>is telling us about the connections between the macro and micro dimensions 
>of the universe. If that is meaningless to you then I am sorry for the 
>paucity of your understanding. I prefer to think that you are just 
>posturing. 
>P. 
>
>-------- 
>
>No. As you must know, I regard CR as an utterly irresponsible in his 
>construal of Eliot's text. But even among responsible readers there will be 
>differences of interpretation, and for that reason I will not assume that a 
>naked quote from Eliot gives positive information on any reader's views. You 
>expressed agreement with some unstated proposition. I would like that stated 
>in your own words before attempting to respond to it. 
>
>My own interpretations of Eliot (and of almost all my favorite poets) 
>express my understanding of the poet -- NOT my own views of the world. In 
>fact, I differ rather sharply in fundamental ways from all the poets I most 
>cherish. Poems do not express existential truths, though they may raise 
>important existential questions. (The word "existential" here does not refer 
>to the philosophy associated with that term.) I love both Paradise Lost and 
>Pound's Cantos; I disagree profoundly with the "world views" to be found in 
>those poems. The same is true of Pope's Essay on Man and Jonson's The 
>Forest and Underwood. Book 24 of the Iliad does encompass a fundamental view 
>with which I am in sympathy, but I hold that view independently of the poem. 
>Hence I would not claim that The Iliad has any 'truths' to 'teach' the 
>reader. The reader who does not already believe he/she shares a common 
>humanity with his/her enemy is not apt to "learn" it from the Iliad. One 
>needs to know that, in fact, in order to recognize the greatness of the 
>poem. 
>
>I'm afraid poetry teaches no lessons, nor does it contain new truths. 
>
>Carrol