Print

Print


You don't see it?

It is not about what he said; it is about how she felt. Emotional cruelty is really not defined by the claims of views of those who do it. His "position" is not what is at stake really.

If you can't see, well then you can't.

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:23 PM Chanan Mittal <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I for one don’t see any cruelty on Eliot’s part anywhere. 
He made his position clear after Vivienne ‘s demise. 

CR 

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 8:09 PM Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I don't know how that got cut off. I said that I see no point in trying to justify his cruelty to Hale.
Nancy

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 8:07 PM Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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. He was a mixed figure, and he was often disloyal and/or unkind to people who loved him.

I see no point in



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