A condition that sparked some of the genius of the poem. Now that's an
insight, Peter.
Thanks,
CR
On Saturday, August 15, 2015, P <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I for one haven't lost sight of the major theme of sterility in the poem
> and the emanations from the unconscious that resonate so strongly, eg.
> "bats with baby faces". To see it so concretely in a very down to earth
> conversation just strengthens it all the more. Eliot was deeply disturbed
> at the time ("I can connect nothing with nothing"). That condition no doubt
> sparked some of the genius of the poem. The children line speaks to the
> condition of the whole society whatever the class. Eliot may not have
> experienced it as a dig, but Viv's personality tempts one to think so.
> Still, surely, how could he not have looked at the matter personally?
> On 15 Aug 2015 11:43 am, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/15/2015 10:57 AM, Chanan Mittal wrot
>
> Nor can one ignore its resonances vis-a-vis Eliot's own married life
>
> One doesn't have to ignore them not to be distracted by them.
>
>
> Eliot must have been painfully alive to its implications for him.
>
>
> Maybe,maybe probably even, but what's the point? It's the implications
> for us the readers that matter, isn't it? Putting so much effort into
> making one-to-one equations of what's in the poem with what was in Eliot's
> life seems a way to avoid meeting the poem on its own ground, or worse,
> denying that there is a ground on which to meet the poem. If biographical
> speculation is our ultiimate interest, then ok, speculate away, but let's
> not confuse it with honoring or appreciating the poem's action.
>
> Ken A
>
>
> On Saturday, August 15, 2015, Nancy Gish <
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>[log in to unmask]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
>
> Of course not--it was not at all covert. Nor was he at all unaware that
> his images of Viv were extremely negative. Pound, at least, said it was
> "too photog." What has that to do with her reasons for editing a line,
> making it more effective, and explicitly leaving it up to Tom to use or
> not?
>
> The issue here is about the text and whether it has any evidence to
> suggest what Eliot thought or felt about what she edited, and it doesn't.
> If there is any in letters, I have not seen it but would be interested.
> N
> >>> Chanan Mittal 08/15/15 12:59 PM >>>
> Eliot could not have been unaware of the line's suggestion vis-a-vis his
> own marriage.
>
> CR
>
> On Saturday, August 15, 2015, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>> wrote:
>
> Eliot also clearly respected her intellect and skills at this point.
>
> Re: "protocol"--just read the text of the Facsimile. And biography,
> especially the new one by Crawford. There is no reason at all other than
> wild speculation to think that at this time he "winced."
>
>
>
