Some resonance here from Keats:CROn Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 4:00 PM Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:This is what is called a dynamic relationship; it doesn’t remain static after a thousand letters.CROn Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:44 PM Peter Dillane <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Hi Ken,I guess if one has been lucky enough not to crash and burn too often in love it is a good idea to be slow to judge.I allow Eliot’s now released statement was probably written in anger and it was a while ago and it is a strange document protesting she took more notice of her uncle than her boyfriend me! etc.Clinton trying to argue that when he said he had not had sex he meant insertive copulation is tiresome. But when people dally with each other over canapes I think its still sex not that there’s anything wrong with that. The notion you can say hey I’m off the hook I didnt take it too far is unbecoming for a sophisticated man that’s all I meant.On the other hand she and he do seem to have shared the belief that genital relations define the status of a relationship. He as protest of innocence she of propriety.I note he represents their love as not congenial devoid of common interest while she makes the opposite claim. What can that mean? I spent the weekend in the pits of a motorcycle race where one could watch men working on girlfriends and wive’s bikes getting them out on the track and women similarly occupied on their mens’ bikes. I wondered how many of these crew gals and guys were bored beyond sanity - week after week year after year. Was that Eliot? MmmmIf as he says she was distant from him on so many fronts it is a remarkable thing to write over a thousand letters.I guess I am being a bit hard on an angry frightened man. Apart from anything else how do you recall what you said in 1131 letters or whose correspondence to you is included as they report he sent other people’s letters to him. You might be worried about all sorts of censure and as his statement shows in its legalistic preamble he was partly worried about early release not 2020.Ha bloody men full of themselves every damn one of em"She said she loved me for the dangers I’d survived, and I loved her for feeling such strong emotions about me”Cheers PeteOn 4 Jan 2020, at 3:37 am, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I haven't been following the Hale and letters threads as closely as maybe I should have, having just started this morning to look at some of the pages for which CR and Rickard have provided links. And I'm not sure I've fully comprehended your definition of sex as seen from a certain Democratic angle, or which Eliot statement you refer to, but am wondering if it comports with the Guardian Jan. 2 quote from Hale: “We were congenial in so many of our interests, our reactions, and emotional response to each others’ needs – the happiness, the quiet deep bonds between us and our lives, very rich ... And the more because we kept the relationship on an honourable, to be respected, plane.” That last does sound as if it might have morphed into the beginning of "Burnt Norton."
Ken AOn 1/3/2020 12:17 AM, Peter Dillane wrote:Hi CRJust reading the Eliot statement.
What do men mean when they tell you “I did not have sex with that woman”.At least when Billy Clinton did this it was a lie or a pretty analytic way of talking. A bit like the Hollywood code of one foot on the floor.Clinton was working from self interest at least. But old TSE seems to have thought it a justification . I cant bring myself to consider he had the same punctilious exclusive oscillatory definition of sex as a Democrat.I’m still a bit shaken by his endorsement of his second wife as a goody because she really loved him. My wife would have said “I’m glad its about you”PeteSent from Mail for Windows 10An abstraction“Perhaps I could not have been the companion in marriage he hoped ... Perhaps the vision saved both of us from great unhappiness – I cannot ever know.”CROn Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:43 PM Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Edward Helmore from PrincetonThe Guardian2 Jan 2020, 14.50 EST