Hi Nancy,I am inclined to believe it is important but I find it difficult to see the impact in his letters. Do you think this diminished presence paradoxically might signify its importance. Why does he say so little? For example what mention is there of Jean Verdenal's death which I would have thought was a major war event for him ? The joshing Bolo letter to Conrad Aiken of 10 January 1916 is it as far as I can see which says: sorry I've been busy, my wife's sick, jean Verdenal died, Martin Armstrong is missing, my publisher may be conscripted and "… we are very blue about the war, that living is going up, and that King Bolo's big black…etc". What is this - whistling in the dark? Or does it suggest that these matters are given a privileged silence. But I also observe that his letter to his mother of 22 December 1917 discussed his brother in law George's enlisting in very unsentimental and calculating terms "I can't see what good it will do him…no one will give him work for being patriotic. Five years from now everyone will have forgotten whether he was in France or not...the motive seems a very trifling one".For my part I don't see the "personal and wholly insignificant grouse" line as anything more than faux modesty or wry provocative talk. Taken as a whole as it is a contra to the first proposition which is pretty grand" Various critics have done me the honour to interpret the poem in terms of criticism of the contemporary world, have considered it , indeed, as an important bit of social criticism. To me it was only the relief of a personal and wholly insignificant grouse against life; it is just a piece of rhythmical grumbling."Oh yeah sure it is.The more amusing thing is that it is planted at the start of the facsimile edition after all the historical introduction and apparatus detail. It reminds me of an observation often made in my country about football that people seem to act as if it was about life and death but in fact it is more important than that.Cheers PeteOn 11/08/2013, at 1:10 PM, Nancy Gish wrote:Dear Rick,I agree that a link or citation is not only valid but useful--if it is part of a discussion. I do not think a constant stream of one person's interests with no context is the same as what I wrote.I raised this topic because I think it both important and, though discussed in a few key books and articles, not discussed in the depth of other topics. So it seems, with the centenary of WWI next year, a potentially rich idea to consider anew. I am interested in the reactions of others.Best wishes,Nancy
>>> "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]> 08/10/13 8:26 PM >>>
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 11:29:35 -0400, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>This sending of articles one agrees with as if they were somehow proof
>of an opinion is pointless because the history of Eliot studies is far
>too extensive and controversial. There are many readings, and unless you
>have an argument for specifically why this is somehow "true," it is not
>really relevant to discussion. I rather doubt you would appreciate it if
>I sent citations and quotations and statements from my own books and
>articles and those of others I find compelling.
Nancy, I don't think this is really fair. It's the same thing that goes on
in footnotes all the time. Your previous post actually had something similar:
>One would think, from some of the responses to this topic, that it
>was some radically unconventional topic thought up by me. I wish I
>could take credit, but as it happens Paul Fussell in The Great War
>and Modern Memory showed how frequently it appears in the allusions,
>and Vincent Sherry, in The Great War and the Languages of Modernism
>included a long section on Eliot and the War.
For a discussion list I think a either a link or a citation is valid. Its a
way of saying that here is something similar to what I think but I'm sorry I
don't have time to write a dozen or so pages about it in an email.