Print

Print


My response is to Peter's query only, Schlanger.

Regards,
CR

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015, [log in to unmask] <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> No that is not what I meant at all.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 7, 2015, at 8:03 PM, Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
>
> I just looked up, at random, and find there are 372 very-recent (May-June
> 2015) responses to Julian Peters' comic adaptation of 'Prufrock.' One has
> only to read these responses to see how readers continue to be engaged with
> Eliot's poetry.
>
> Regards,
> CR
>
> On Tuesday, July 7, 2015, P <[log in to unmask]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
>
>> Do we even read the original poetry anymore? I don't recall seeing any
>> evidence of it recently.
>>
>> P.
>> On 6 Jul 2015 6:39 pm, "[log in to unmask]" <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Is this a seasonal book for the obviously bored or the traveling retired
>> schoolteacher?  Does anyone other than us bother to read the original
>> poetry or prose anymore?  Next let us have a book on the preferred socks
>> and linen.  Minds withering on the vines.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2015, at 8:42 PM, Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Bloomsbury and the Poets
>> By Nicholas Murray
>>
>> "A delightful guide to the rich literary history of the London district"
>>
>>
>> http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/9291512/bloomsbury-and-the-poets-by-nicholas-murray-review/
>>
>> Well, just in case you didn't come by it.
>>
>> CR
>>
>>