[Quincy Lehr]

Well put, Janet!

And Rogerbob, Paul, and Janice--I don't think I was making any claims that Eliot's views were not deeply hateful in many regards--I read After Strange Gods to see if it was as bad as all that--and it was. However, at this point it's hardly news, is it, any more than Larkin's pornography fetish is (which, unlike Motion's notoriety for chasing female students, was at least a private fetish). But what got me incensed was Rogerbob's claim that Eliot's anti-Semitism (and hatred more generally) was at the center of his being, and thus (implicitly) his poetry. One makes no excuses for such things, but it only brushes Eliot's poetry, which is, on balance, deeply humane.

And Paul, if I got a bit cross with you (and it was only a bit), it's because you at the same time seem to be making good points and then copping the insanity plea. "All poets are mad," etc. Sure, there's a degree of eccentricity and Behaving Badly inherent in the enterprise, but most of us, personal comfort zones aside, know the difference between honest and dishonest dealings. Including you, by the way.

I suspect that at this point, we're probably all talking past one another a bit, and we all agree that anti-Semitism and the like are not things to be lauded or excused.

Janice, you weren't in my line of fire at all, really.

Quincy

[John Whitworth]

Paul, you are quite right about the jewels. Rochester is perhaps the nastiest poet I can think of, I mean as a human being. Good poems though. We all know Ben Jonson was a murderer. Wasn't Villon one as well? Great poems though in both cases.

I think the schoolgirls were over age. I think that's the point. I mean Larkin et al had a considerable thing about breasts. Children as a rule... well you catch my drift.

[Roger Slater]

Originally Posted by Quincy Lehr

But what got me incensed was Rogerbob's claim that Eliot's anti-Semitism (and hatred more generally) was at the center of his being, and thus (implicitly) his poetry. One makes no excuses for such things, but it only brushes Eliot's poetry, which is, on balance, deeply humane.

Quincy

I certainly never intended to imply that his hatefulness as a human being should affect the way we read his poetry. In fact, I wrote:

I didn't see anyone here claiming that our assessment of Eliot's poems should depend on our assessment of the man. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be simply curious about the man behind the poems, the way we are generally eager to read biographies about famous people from all walks of life and it is generally considered entirely proper to have such interests.

I am more concerned with allowing one's admiration for his poetry lead to excusing his hatefulness as a human being, which (rightly or wrongly) I understood some people here to be doing as they pointed out that he later tried to suppress his own hateful utterances or that some of his best friends were gay or Jewish and he was always nice to them.

I don't attack Eliot the person in order to demonstrate anything about his poetry. By the same token, I wouldn't use his poetry to defend Eliot the person.

John, in my neck of the woods, as I understand it, sexual relations with those under the age of consent or minors is considered as paedophilia by the law. The sources didn't specify whether or not the particular characteristic you mentioned was present. But it was all done via pictures and fiction: there is no suggestion that L actually pursued the objects of that particular fantasy in real life, though he was mightily interested in the subject. There's plenty in Motion's biography and Thwaite's selected letters to justify a total boycott of Larkin's work if you are of the school of thought that says that racists, homophobes, misogynists and other degenerates should have their poetic artifacts denied publication.

Quincy, when I read about Eliot and Larkin being like that it depresses me in terms of lamenting the fallibility of humanity, but it in no way diminishes my response to the poems that these fallible humans produced. Like you probably do I have an ambivalent attitude on those grounds towards poems like Eliot's 'Gerontion', but not towards the main body of his work; and I like Larkin's writing very much indeed -- apart from such references as "black scum" and "the scum of Europe".

My "all poets are mad" comment was supposed to be along the lines of "there's nowt so queer as folk -- all the world's queer save thee and me, and even thee's a little queer!" -- ie we're all on a spectrum of beastliness, we can all be banged up good to rights if someone takes a mind to sift through our doings and sayings and paint us as this or that. I think poets are often particularly prone to extreme or bizarre psychological states all along the spectrum, and to shooting off their mouths, and so make good subjects for vilification.

Furthermore, every individual of us has her own particular set of buttons that make the behaviours of one person problematic and those of another not. I guess it is selective outrage that bemuses me: why individuals pick one set of bad behaviours in one particular evil-doer to be unforgivable, beyond the pale, and representative of absolute evil incarnate, and yet a very similar (perhaps to other observers even worse) set of behaviours in another evil-doer (or even in themselves) to be regrettable perhaps but not defining. In my opinion it finally gets down to personal dislike or animosity, not high principle. And I'd like to see a little room for the possibility of redemption in there as well, and the possibility of moving on to more interesting matters.

[Mark Allinson]

Ham. Gods bodykins man, better. Vse euerie man
after his desart, and who should scape whipping ...

The selection or rejection of art according to the extra-artistic thoughts or behaviour of the artist is a sign of dilettantism.

Any reader who would reject, say, Eliot's Four Quartets because of some non-PC statement he made in a lecture is a poseur - pure and simple: a political beast posing as an art-lover.

It seems equivalent to me as rejecting a pearl on the basis that it formed in slimy guts of an oyster. Such a person is incapable of actually seeing a pearl.

Who cares WHERE or HOW great art comes into being - the fact of it is enough for me.

[Roger Slater]

Mark, I didn't catch the part where anyone here rejected Eliot's work based upon the views he expressed in the essay. Maybe I missed it. Or maybe you just launched one of your set pieces prematurely?

I will say, though, that your referring to hate speech and anti-semitism as mere un-PC speech, as though the anti-semites themselves are the innocent victims of thought police, is offensive, even though it does not affect my view of your poetry.

[Mark Allinson]

I will say, though, that your referring to hate speech and anti-semitism as mere un-PC speech, as though the anti-semites themselves are the innocent victims of thought police, is offensive, even though it does not affect my view of your poetry.

Well, if you are offended Bob, you have a duty to report this post to the moderators so they can exclude me from the site - we can't have people being offended by words on poetry sites.

[Roger Slater]

No, it's enough to call you on it. Don't make out like you're the only one who believes in free speech.

But I know my point registered, since you have resorted to the fallback tactic you use whenever you are trapped by logic and facts. Sarcasm.

Tell me again, who was it here who rejected Eliot's poems based on his non-PC views? The ones who prompted your familiar canned denunciation of those you consider to be dilettantes? The ones who are not as exquisitely deep and artistic as you and on whom you would impose your own correctness?

Do you actually read these threads, or do you have bots that pick out key words that trigger your computer to post pre-written screeds?

[Janet Kenny]

Children, children! Play nicely or I'll remove your toys. You're both fine poets.

We can all agree that some of the best poetry is written by very dodgy individuals. We'll ask their poetry into our living rooms but the poet must stay in the kennel.

[Richard Epstein]

There is some truth to what Mr Schechter is saying here. That we all agree that views external to a poem should not be read into the poem or used as an excuse to reject the poem itself should not be allowed to slide into tacit approval of the views. Gerontion must be read, understood, and judged all on its own, as an independent, stand-alone object; but that doesn't somehow make Eliot's views more palatable. And a dislike of political correctness--as to which I yield not a whit to Mark--is not a justification for excusing nastiness. If I do not care for affirmative action, I am not thereby obliged to palliate racial bias.

RHE