Print

Print


If you have not gone through this, the "grain of truth" is that we all
create a fantasy of those we love but,* in this case*, according to Lyndall
Gordon, *it is not true*:

Gordon, too, found Eliot’s statement belittling of Hale, but also said
there was a “grain of truth” to his description.

*“We have to think about the fact that all of us, when we’re in love,
there’s an element of fantasy about the beloved,” Gordon said. “And so,
what Eliot is doing is rebranding that in a belittling way — it was a
delusion, it didn’t exist. And that’s not true, when you read the actual
letters.”*
In general, I think Frances Dickey is spot on. But I don't think this is
any more "beneath" Eliot than his treatment of John Hayward; it was not an
aberration. He was a mixed figure, and he was often disloyal and/or unkind
to people who loved him.

I see no point in justifying any of that--OR in saying it diminishes the
poetry. It was not justified, and the poetry is great anyway. Poetry is
about what is or could be, good and bad, not a test of personality. But
personality can be revealing of poetry.
Nancy



On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 7:37 PM Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> *Why scholars think the unsealed T.S. Eliot letters are a big deal*
>
> By Joshua Barajas
>
> PBS NewsHour
>
> Jan 8, 2020
>
>
>
> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/why-scholars-think-the-unsealed-t-s-eliot-letters-are-a-big-deal
>
>
>
> CR
>