Print

Print


More fragile than you could possibly imagine Carrol. I am however even more concerned about the lack of novel perceptions about TWL. Modern criticism is not very inspiring. It has built up a set of sort of unconscious rubrics of what is acceptable and not to be violated. Its time to make it new.
P. M.

Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I'm reminded of freshmen who respond to disagreement as coercion. P must
>have an extremely fragile ego to be so worried about his "rights" as a
>reader.  
>
>Carrol
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of Nancy Gish
>> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:20 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: 'The Waste Land' - An Autodidact's Approach
>> 
>> I think I noted this before, but what engages my students most is having
>> them read the whole poem aloud. I assign sections and we go through the
>> whole, each student thinking in advance about who is speaking and why and
>> what they want to achieve or understand (acting work). They all love it
>and
>> say so. When asked why, one student said, "because if you are going to
>read
>> it out loud, you have to understand every word." They all agreed. (Hurrah!
>> Who knew?)
>> 
>> I don't know what you mean by "original readers," since, as I have also
>> noted, Mary Hutchinson heard Eliot read it in a private reading before
>much
>> of anyone else had seen it, and she called it "Tom's autobiography, a
>> melancholy one" (from memory but very close). Yet that experience has
>> been the butt of your constant contempt.
>> 
>> Also, it was immediately reviewed in many, many places and with totally
>> contrasting and different attitudes--from the totally new work of genius
>to an
>> absurd and chaotic mess that was destroying poetry.
>> 
>> So I assume--given nearly a century of discussion and constant
>> disagreement--nothing stops you from reading in your "own context." As you
>> seem to dismiss every reading brought on the list, why not?
>> 
>> I would be genuinely interested in any serious explanation, but if it is
>one
>> more snippy and insulting remark, I have no interest in responding.
>> Unfortunately, we are back to the private blog.
>> Cheers,
>> Nancy
>> P. S. There are autodidacts and then there are just readers. Hugh
>> MacDiarmid was a genius who left school at 18 and merely read every book
>> he could find or that was published and he could get--and wrote brilliant,
>> great poetry. That is an autodidact--one "self-taught." I have not read
>the
>> daily selections that keep turning up, but unless they are by people who
>are
>> genuinely self-taught, they need to be taken with several grains of salt.
>> 
>> 
>> >>> P 05/12/13 12:39 PM >>>
>> Not very helpful but fun in an ironical sort of way if one doesn't mind
>> bobbing and weaving. I am curious as to when we get permission to read the
>> poem in our own context, ie. bring our own experience to the poem like the
>> original readers were able to do.
>> 
>> P. M.
>> 
>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> OK, no great discoveries here, but possibly some humor and an
>autodicactical
>> observation or two (interesting def. of post-modernism). It is on an
>> Amazon.com page of readers' reviews of one of the quickly printed TWL
>> editions when the masterpiece went viral (i.e. out of copyright):
>> 
>> http://tinyurl.com/bpxsd6c