Print

Print


We aren't talking about writing on Eliot, we are trying to discuss Eliot's poetic techne in his plays, & we have to start somewhere.

 You wanted a discussion. I am trying to provide some background for those who are interested, if there are such people.

One passage we could discuss goes from the bottom third of p. 436 to the top of p. 438 of the Complete Poems & Plays. Here Eliot is making a blatant statement about common speech and poetry. My blatant bias, as I said, is not the plot but Eliot's poetic technique which I think is quite interesting.
P.

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

>My point is that everyone who writes on Eliot has read Gardiner: she is a classic. So of course what she says is valuable. But it is also dated in its information and in the context within which she wrote. At the time she published that book, Eliot was still alive and the grand figure who has, since then, first been sharply critiqued and then revised as a more complicated figure than either the first or second of those responses. I don't think you or anyone at any time can simply assert what is "the very best" because of course knowledgeable scholars will not all agree, and I don't mean me: I don't write on the plays; I do read commentaries. She is one of many important critics. 
>
>Nancy
>
>>>> P 08/05/13 9:08 PM >>>
>Well, to repeat myself, Eliot said (somewhere) that he wanted to write in a poetic style with which people could identify, such that they might say that they could write like that.
>For example I refer people to any of the plays after MITC. The very best commentary to use as a guide is Helen Gardiner's The Art of T.S Eliot.
>Recency is not an assurance of currency or or quality; nor is negative criticism an agent of good discussion. It is more an undercover way of being personal. Providing a good example is a much better facilitator, if in fact having quality literary discussions is what one really wants.
>
>Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>Why would you refer me to Gardiner's very well known and now very old book (1950)? Anyone interested in the plays might want to read Randy Malamud and Carol H. Smith in David Chinitz's collection, A Companion to T. S. Eliot (2009). But I would be more interested here in any commentary from members of the list than exchanges of citations that we can all find if we don't already know them. 
>
> 
>
>If you wish to make a point about the plays, that would be interesting. What about them?
>
>Nancy
>
>>>> P 08/05/13 6:13 PM >>>
>I refer you to my attempts to discuss Eliot's plays. The content may not be all that enticing but the renderings of common discussion in verse form are. I refer you to Helen Gardiner's The Art of T.S. Eliot. Sometimes I wonder if we are not addicted to content. No more critical perception is at play.
>P.
>
>Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>Even if one has university access, as I do, one cannot be constantly looking at one person's latest suggestion or, in an earlier comment, "blog."  I am no more able to read all this than you, and it's all available in databases and bibliographies when one chooses.
>
> 
>
>A discussion list, I would think, would be for discussion. This has not been one for a long time.
>
>Best,
>
>Nancy
>
>>>> David Boyd 08/05/13 4:55 PM >>>
>
>The author is a distinguished Editor on the current Eliot Project.
>
> 
>
>But, CR, it's very irritating to face demands for payment to read this and other papers that you circulate. I don't have the luxury of online access via university etc library to all manner of (expensive) online literary databases, so it's all rather cruel to be tantalised and then refused access unless I pay $$$$ 
>
>
>
>On 5 August 2013 20:33, Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>T. S. Eliot & the roots that clutch
>
>by Jim McCue
>
>The New Criterion 
>
>March 2013
>
>
>http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/T--S--Eliot---the-roots-that-clutch-7572
>
>
>CR
>
>
>
>
>