Print

Print


Tom,

  Just enjoying this thread from a distance and wondered about a couple 
of your points below.

On 10/3/2013 12:28 PM, tcolket wrote:
> In more detail during my lunch break:
> 1) Eugenides proposes meeting at Cannon Street hotel and the 
> Metropole, a 'code' for a gay liason. This reference to Cannon Street 
> opens the 'frame'.
>
> 2) Tiresias appears as "man with female brrasts", that is, a male with 
> some female attributes, a veiled  reference to homosexuality.

        What you mean here is that it _could_ be a veiled reference to 
homosexuality, right? You're not saying that it was, as in 1) above, an 
accepted 'code' for homosexuality?
>
> 3) Tiresias watches a rape and notes that he too has "foresuffered ALL"

       Which rape? Not the secretary and small house agent's clerk, 
which seems pretty well established as a consort, quite an unlovely one, 
but the sex was apparently assumed to be part of the deal on both 
parties' parts, so to speak.

>
> 4) Narrator runs away from the "ghastly hill on Cannon Street" 
> (facsimile edition), thereby completing the poetic 'frame' delineated 
> by the two references to Cannon Street.
>
> 5) Why is the Cannon Street hotel now ghastly? Implication: Narrator, 
> as represented by Tiresias, was also raped. Rapist was Eugenides, that 
> is, it was a homosexual rape.

           I don't see your logic here. Why wouldn't the implication, 
for example, be more simply that he is running away from, to put it 
neutrally, a homosexual proposition?  Let's face it, after a rape is 
kind of late to be running; one would expect a different, traumatized 
state of mind.


         I haven't seen my ed. of the facsimilie for a while, but I 
recollect Eliot being quoted in relation to his 'nervous breakdown' that 
he was relieved to learn that he was only 'deranged.' Do you suppose he 
meant by that a brush with homosexuality or at any rate a state of mind 
that would include homosexuality?  Peter D in this thread noted that he 
wasn't so sure what Eliot would think of current views of homosexuality, 
but I think we can be pretty sure he would not be in favor of liberal 
views. His reaction to Peters many years after TWL seems a good 
barometer, whether you think it was a rant or that he was justified in 
his anger. My guess is that he wouldn't have been so angry had he not 
been justified in so being.

   Thanks,
   Ken A