Print

Print


I’ll give you that one you’re right Nancy, but before I give up the field can I observe that when Eliot reads the lines in the 1946 recording there is a lightness about the first  first lines before the mood is subjunctive.  I suppose the author can still produce a reading which is against the spirit of the written word but I feel that the  long run after “gaily’ something like an anapest on “gaily to" followed by seven spondees finishing on “your heart” is a crack of light. I think it needs to be so that the subjunctive carries its emotional lode. But I wouldn’t want my original post to be seen as a white ant criticism in contra of Carrol -  I was just asking. I prefer to be outrageously wrong if I’m going to be anything.

Have a peaceful Easter

Cheers Pete


On 17 Apr 2014, at 11:07 pm, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> But Pete, it's in the subjunctive: "would have." So it didn't.
> Nancy
> 
> >>> Peter Dillane <[log in to unmask]> 04/17/14 1:39 AM >>>
> there is a kind of shadow in the cave isnt there Carrol?
> 
> "the boat responded gaily to the hand expert with sail and oar the sea 
> was calm, your heart would have responded gaily, when invited , beating 
> obedient to controlling hands"
> 
> 
> wistful I grant but something like it
> 
> Pete
> 
> On 4/17/2014 2:33 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> > Eliot would have peed in his trousers if someone told him there was joy in TWL. Someone is confusing TSE with Joyce Kilmer.
> >
> > Carrol
> >
> >