The drift of your argument is pretty clear, David.
Equally concerned, Eliot must have found kindred souls in
Brother Every, Charles Williams and others like them.
No wonder all this forms a backdrop to his poetry.
He subsumes much of it in his work
but, IMHO, in a manner congenial to
his notion of art.
I haven't read poetry written by Br. Every and
others who are in the vanguard to assert
Christian values. FR Leavis does not seem to have
a high opinion of it. I'm not sure, but if it is
any of your concern to project their poetry
as a viable medium of Christian reclamation,
you will have to, I'm afraid, project it as works
of art parallel to Eliot's.

I should be sorry if I got you wrong.


From: David Boyd <[log in to unmask]>;
To: <[log in to unmask]>;
Subject: Re: Christian Discrimination
Sent: Mon, Oct 8, 2012 8:26:22 AM

I haven't yet taken in the whole of his book, but I think that Bro Every was advocating a return to mainstream Christian values and attitudes, which he felt largely had been lost or abandoned since about the end of the eighteenth century.

He saw greed and pursuit of profit replacing Christian propriety; trivial and meaningless pastimes and diversions replacing worthwhile recreation (cf perhaps Eliot's 'distracted from distraction by distraction'). He pointed to contemporary buildings and vernacular architecture as victims of these forces - comparing the mock-Tudor speculative boxes of suburbia with modest, utilitarian, medieval and Georgian buildings and settlements.

He advocated that the discrimination should be Christian not as of righteousness but simply because it provided a time-honoured code of values of assured goodness, which modern society he argued was largely bankrupt in. He didn't absolve the Church though from having somewhat lost its way, too.

His outlook seems much the same as eg John Betjeman's revolt against 'ghastly good taste' in architecture and his ridiculing of concrete boxes with a steel girder cross on the front and a Saint Ecumenicus sign on the front as absurd and ugly compared with traditional church architecture, which was put up for the glory of God.

Michael Roberts too (another pal of Eliot) approached similar from a geopolitical perspective and Charles Williams and perhaps CS Lewis from a theological one.

Generally, if one views the whole canon of immediate prewar English cultural thought as a carnival procession,  this seems to have been one of the main bandwagons. It was just such a great pity that Roberts and Williams both suddenly dropped dead and fell off the float not far from the start. It was a far poorer event without them.

On 7 October 2012 22:45, Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
AND if someone were to find nothing Christian about these quotations, conscious or unconscious, I would humbly say that, to me at least, theit Christian implications are timeless and profound. But I would rather leave it to the reader to explore this aspect rather than spell it out myself. 


From: Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2012 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: Christian Discrimination

Needless to say, all these quotations are meant to illustrate Christian discrimination, to demonstrate that literature can be as much unconsciously Christian as consciously so. Actually, what FR Leavis remarked about Christian discrimination in a literary critic holds good for a writer as well: "If Christian belief and Christian attitudes have really affected the critic's sensibility, then they will play their due part in his perceptions and judgments, without his summoning his creeds and doctrines to the job of discriminating and pronouncing." Eliot cherished this ideal of literature. 


From: Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]>;
To: <[log in to unmask]>;
Subject: Re: Christian Discrimination
Sent: Sun, Oct 7, 2012 5:07:34 PM

another excerpt, if you like

“My nerves are bad to-night. Yes, bad. Stay with me.  
Speak to me. Why do you never speak? Speak.  
What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?  
I never know what you are thinking. Think.”  
I think we are in rats’ alley  
Where the dead men lost their bones.  
“What is that noise?”  
                      The wind under the door.  
“What is that noise now? What is the wind doing?”  
                      Nothing again nothing.  
You know nothing? Do you see nothing? Do you remember  
        I remember  
                Those are pearls that were his eyes.



From: Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2012 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Christian Discrimination

'The Waste Land': an excerpt

I can’t help it, she said, pulling a long face,  
It’s them pills I took, to bring it off, she said.  
(She’s had five already, and nearly died of young George.)  
The chemist said it would be alright, but I’ve never been the same.  
You are a proper fool, I said.  
Well, if Albert won’t leave you alone, there it is, I said,  
What you get married for if you don’t want children?  
Well, that Sunday Albert was home, they had a hot gammon,  
And they asked me in to dinner, to get the beauty of it hot—  
Goonight Bill. Goonight Lou. Goonight May. Goonight.     
Ta ta. Goonight. Goonight.  
Good night, ladies, good night, sweet ladies, good night, good night.



From: Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, October 7, 2012 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Christian Discrimination

connecting nothing with nothing 

But how shall one do it?

Hey, there's the rub. 

"'tis a consummation / Devoutly to be wish'd." 


[Aside] What shall Cordelia do?
Love, and be silent.

[Aside] Then poor Cordelia!
And yet not so; since, I am sure, my love's
More richer than my tongue.

Nothing, my lord.


Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave
My heart into my mouth: I love your majesty
According to my bond; nor more nor less.