Print

Print



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 <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[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."
>