Print

Print


Since the same could be said for readers of many other writers, Ken's statement is more a matter of principle, without assumptions as to who does or does not "get" whatever.
P. M.

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

>The unstated assumption in your claims here is that you do "get" Eliot and therefore are in a postion to judge whether others do.  But that is simply one of many perspectives.
>
>Nancy
>
>>>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> 01/10/13 10:13 AM >>> 
>On 1/10/2013 12:17 AM, Nancy Gish wrote: 
>For anyone on this list who cares about Eliot's poetry, I think it 
>matters very much to realize the degree to which it has been read 
>from many, many perspectives. 
>
>This is an oft repeated truism and hardly needs repeating to people on 
>this list, at least to those who post to it. People agree and disagree. 
>To varying, not to say maddeningly so, degrees. "But," to quote Artie 
>Johnson's German soldier, "vut duz it mean?" Now I realize that "read 
>from many, many perspectives" does not have to mean the same thing as 
>"agree and disagree," at least on the face of it, but it seems to come 
>up with great regularity when the need is felt to reign in and tamp down 
>some escaping molecule of thought or speculation or assertion that 
>might, blush, put Eliot in a positive light. That might even make him 
>seem, well, exceptional. That seems to be the cardinal sin. For, as we 
>know, views proliferate, people disagree. 
>
>Is entertaining "many, many perspectives" in reading Eliot's poetry an 
>end in itself? The reader who rests at that station, which may be 
>necessary in some measure to pass through, has everything, potentially, 
>and knows nothing. So because I worry about people on this list who 
>actually care for Eliot's poetry, let me suggest that the answer to 
>Artie Johnson's question when applied to "many, many perspectives" is 
>that some people, to varying degrees, get Eliot, and some, to varying 
>degrees, don't. Try to affirm the former and move past the latter. The 
>truth doesn't lie in consensus. 
>
>Ken A
>