Print

Print


Existence of happy media comes to mind, though.....

IMHO it's somewhat crass to try to evaluate the works without anything at
all of the life: both are in at least one big dimension one and the same.

On 13 November 2012 22:34, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
>
> >>> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> **11/13/12 2:06 PM >>>
> As I age and reread the truly lasting poems I have come to conclude that
> poems should stand on their own, independent of the lives of the poets.  In
> other words, a reader can grasp great language without biographical
> reference.  This I am not deterred by the destruction of letters.  Consider
> what little of Shakespeare we have and how weighty and worthless was that
> massive volume last year of Larkin's every scribble and a few years past a
> similar scraps collection of Bishop.
> **
>
>
>     Amen. Not having Eliot's letters would be a deprivation of sorts (I'd
> be sorry not to have them for my own purposes), but not any greater a
> distraction than having them, and arguably, if not certainly, less a one.
> Does anyone seriously think a writer owes his letters and private papers to
> scholars? It would seem to turn the world on its head and make purblind
> critics and their meanderings the raison d'etre of literature.
>
>  Ken A
>
>