True, but he did.

>>> P 08/24/15 4:20 PM >>>
And if Eliot hadn't written TWL we probably wouldn't have the critics or
the biographers either. 

On 24 Aug 2015 12:36 pm, Nancy Gish wrote:

If you think Lyndall Gordon and Peter Ackroyd and Robert Crawford are
parasites, fine. But biographies are about lives, not just poems, so if
you write a biography, you write about the life. And lives do deeply
affect what an author writes. Had Eliot not spent summers on the Mass.
coast and sailed up past Maine to the straits of Belle Isle, we would
almost certainly not have those powerful images at the end of
"Gerontion" or the haunting ones in "Marina" or the fishmen who "lounge
at noon" or the Dry Salvages. "Marina" describes the ocean off the coast
of Maine; it's very vivid and accurate. Eliot sailed there. I live
there, and it is accurate and evocative. The idea that poems come out of
nothing experienced by the poet makes no sense.

No one ever suggested conversion by the way.

>>> P 08/24/15 3:07 PM >>>
It is much preferable to look at the facts & ignore the opinion, based
or baseless. Even more preferable is focusing on the poetry & leaving
the rest for the parasites to crawl all over each other about. 
I wonder if Eliot's antisemitic streak ever converted anyone to
antisemitism. BTW, antisemitism includes all the Semites, not just the
Jews, does it not?

On 24 Aug 2015 11:49 am, Nancy Gish wrote:

No it isn't. Some opinions are based on facts and some are just
speculation. Readers need to sift those, not just assume the truthiness
is all.

>>> P 08/24/15 2:46 PM >>>
It's all a matter of opinion anyway. 
On 24 Aug 2015 7:33 am, Nancy Gish wrote:

Much of this review is generally knowledgeable and useful, but it ends
on a weird note. A biography is by definition the story of a life, and
it is not meant to be "finished" and "polished" at the expense of the
life itself. Anyone who has read Eliot's harshly negative comments on
women writers or his poetry on Fresca and the disgusting Bolo and "Gross
Lulu" poems, let alone the facts of his relations with Emily Hale,
Vivienne, and Mary Trevelyan would be a bit surprised to know that
gender is of passing interest. And anyone who has read After Strange
Gods or the lifelong influence of Charles Maurras would find exclusion
of the issue of Jews simply dishonest. There is no need at all to look
to other scholars--though ignoring Lyndall Gordon, or Ken Ascher on
Maurras, would be a failure in itself--to find gender and anti-Semitism
as issues. One need only read Eliot's own writings.

To call this a miscue is to call for idealizion, not biography. And to
object to other scholars in a scholarly biography is equally strange.
Wilson is a professor and lacks an excuse for such misguided remarks.

"Crawford’s one serious miscue here is his being too attuned to all
this: He frequently lingers on questions of “gender” and Eliot’s view of
Jews, as if looking over his shoulder at the assertions of scholars
rather than keeping his eye trained on the details of the poet’s life.
This gives Young Eliot, at times, the feel of a monograph of passing
interest rather than an effort to present the finished, polished story
of Eliot’s life. A few slips into jargon and the occasional direct
references to the work of other scholars, which should have been
reserved for the endnotes, contribute to this feeling."

>>> Chanan Mittal 08/24/15 9:44 AM >>>
Poet in Embryo
Old Possum’s formative years.
The Weekly Standard 
Aug 10, 2015