Talk:T. S. Eliot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Core This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri.
Peer review This article was externally reviewed on October 24, 2005 by The Guardian. It was rated 6/10.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Langlit article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Miscellaneous

--Space monkey 18:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)This page needs some information on Eliot's career as a critic. His criticism is probably just as influential as his poetry. Unfortunately I don't know much about it so I can't add anything. I think he basically invented New Criticism.

--Eliot didn't invent the New Criticism. F.H. Bradley did, for the most part, using Eliot's and other's ideas. Why isn't Eliot's well-documented antisemetism mentioned in this long article???

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bradley/ makes no mention of Bradley's invention of New Criticism. Not that I think it's something I'd like to be credited with inventing ... --Quadalpha 07:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
No, you're confusing F.H. Bradley with F.R. Leavis. ND

--Pastricide 02:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Eh, does the "well known school joke" really add anything to the writeup? I don't think so, and it really makes the site seem less professional.

Anagram comment moved to anagram. I won't shed a tear if it is removed from there too. --mav

I agree. It is more appropriate under its new heading... along with another new anagram about the father of the current U.S. President. --Dante Alighieri

The page at present says that Eliot was on the translation committee for the New English Bible. Is that really true? I haven't found any evidence that he was, though admittedly I haven't looked very hard, and he is known to have been extremely rude about the translation when it was published. He wrote

We are, however, entitled to expect from a panel chosen from among the most distinguished scholars of our day at least a work of dignified mediocrity. When we find we are offered something far below that modest level, something which astonishes with its combination of the vulgar, the trivial, and the pedantic, we ask in alarm what is happening to the English language?


[edit] Anti-semitism

I'm unsure of whether Eliot ever "expressed regret" about his anti-semitism, which is a fairly consistent thread throughout his work. Also, I'm unsure about copyright goings-on, so didn't include a quote from "Burbank...", although including a passage would be worthwhile, I think. e.g.:

"But this or such was Bleistein’s way:/ A saggy bending of the knees/ And elbows, with the palms turned out,/Chicago Semite Viennese."

--Eddy b 12:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Where is anti-semitism later in his work? There are no references to Jews in "Four Quartets", for example. The "Burbank" poem you quote is one of his earliest poems, written when he was in his 20s, yet you'd tar his whole life with a youthful indiscretion. Incidentally, the poem is no longer covered under copyright, that's why things up to "The Waste Land" are published in thrift editions. CRCulver 15:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I also removed the phrase "as a major poet" from the criticism section. It used to read "more crucial to Eliot's reputation as a major poet.", which isn't fair: the quality of his writing doesn't depend on the validity of his views. --Eddy b 13:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The wole issue of Eliot's anti-semitism should realy be placed in a wider context; a number of other first-generation English-language modernists, especially those born in the U.S., shared them. I'm thinking of Ezra Pound and H.D.. Even the Jewish Gertrude Stein supported the Vichy Government and (in 1938) petitioned the Nobel Peace Prize Committe to award Adolf Hitler. It seems that there was something in the class/social/religious/whatever background of late 19th/early 20th century New England intellectuals that led them into this position. We risk the danger of judging retrospectively by our mores when we write about them. I imagine they just saw nothing wrong with it; for both Pound and Eliot there is a more or less explicit economic aspect to their views as expressed. Pound certainly expressed regret in later life; not so sure about Eliot, but all the explicit references are early on in his work. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Eliot not only had respect for Jews after the disasterous For Lancelot Andrews lecture tour, but he had it before, as well. He had numerous friends who were Jews before and after, and Peter Ackroyd records his being uncomprehending when his Jewish friends took offense at his comments. Of all the Modernist anti-semites, TSE was the most clueless, the shallowest. His was also the most religious and least economic, and that in a very, very, very peculiar way. He really did have visions of a Christian mandate in Western Culture, I think, and, when he was an anti-semite, he was, at the same time, on a campaign to save The Big Western Core. He saw that as an exclusively Renaissance-Christian tradition. He was disabused very shortly afterward. Nowhere that I'm aware of were there any anti-semitic actions by him, any anti-semitic praising of Hitler, any Blue Shirts or donations to fascists. His very vanished-hearth Christianity prevented his liking the machine-worshipping fascists. (N.b. he always, always, always opposed the Futurist manifesto of the machine and the New Order, to my knowledge.) To condemn him for anti-semitism at this point is not merely to judge from a distance, but to judge his entire life and career on the basis of about 2 years of speaking. Geogre 02:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It was actually Pound who toned down Eliot's early racism; at least, he removed the phrase "dead jews' eyes" from the Waste Land. I hardly imagine this was the result of Pound's moral sensibilities - he really was a fascist; more likely he either a) thought this phrase is bad poetry, or b) thought it unwise to be so explicitly nasty in an early work by which Eliot's reputation would be judged. If b) then it's a bit soft to suggest that "they saw nothing wrong with it". And whether or not Eliot expressed regret, mentioning his anti-semitism isn't "tarring his life with a youthful indiscretion": this wasn't one chance remark, it crops up as a theme in much of his work. Early work, at least. --Eddy b 09:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
All examples of anti-semitism are found in his early and immature work. Therefore the attitude can be considered a youthful indiscretion. There are no examples from his later writings, and so one cannot make too much of a deal about the thing. You seem like you won't be happy until the article contains a harsh condemnation of all of Eliot's life and work, but that just wouldn't be accurate. He said some stupid things in youth (as did most of his contemporaries), but in later life, when he created some of his best-known works (e.g. Four Quartets) he was older and wiser. CRCulver 19:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
his best known work, as in most quoted, etc, would is probably Prufrock and the Waste Land - both of which feature anti-semitic sentiment. Of course the article shouldn't be a "harsh condemnation of his life and work", but his anti-semitism IS something often commented on in biography and criticism - and as such should be documented in this article. The fact that "most of his contemporaries" did "stupid things" does not either forgive Eliot his convictions or render irrelevant their existence. I'm sure it's significant that there isn't any anti-semitism in his later work, although I don't think it's merely because he is "older and wiser". I'm not v knowledgeable about his biography, but possibly after his conversion the anti-semitism vanished as the general tone of his poetry changed. This kind of biographical detail would be useful in tying Eliot's bio to the description of his works.
Would you like to back up your argument with, say, a quotation or two? Or maybe even sign your name? --Quadalpha 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning "Eliot also wrote a letter to the Daily Mail in January 1932 ..." has an implied accusatory tone. What Eliot wrote is strictly logical and pragmatic, i.e., something like "an idea should be be rejected outright because of its associations." Any objections to a rewording/moving/temporary removal of the paragraph? --Quadalpha 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why the scare quotes around the Anti Semitism subheading? Whether or not one agrees that Eliot was anti semitic for any period of his life, the text that follows is a discussion of the accusations of anti semitism, not of accusations of "anti semitism". Surely the quotes only serve to unjustifiably belittle the discussion below, and are thus POV? --Wordmonkey 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I did that because it was previously "prejudice" which wasn't very clear, and anti-semitism or some such was what it was about. I didn't feel comfortable about putting that on its own, as it seemed like an assumption that he was anti-semitic. It needs something to say what the section is about without giving POV either way perhaps. "The question of anti-semitism" or some such, maybe?

Tyrenius 17:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Something like "Allegations of anti-semitism"? --Quadalpha 22:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to "Charges of anti-Semitism" as this quotes existing article text.

Tyrenius 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's much better - thanks. --Wordmonkey 14:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T.S. Eliot, Anti-Semitism and Literary Form

I have partitioned this particular topic apart from the previous for an obvious reason. The anti-semitism of T.S. Eliot can not be discussed meaningfully without at least referring to the work with the above title by Dr. Anthony Julius. None of the above posts seem to have addressed this issue so I am trying to highlight it here. Rather than arguing over the semantics of "charges" / "allegations", the substantial issue of the role of anti-semitism in a body of work as venerable as T.S. Eliot's should be looked into. Summary: The book seems to posit that T.S. Eliot's anti-semitism was not merely a reflection of the anti-semitism of his time, but it actually added to it and nourished it. The anti-semitism was not peripheral to the art, while infact, the latter could not be understood without the former. So obviously we should allot some space for it when we bring up T.S. Eliot's anti-semitism. -Samson 2:23, 23October 2006

[edit] some fiddles to The Waste Land discussion

I've slightly improved the bit on "The Waste Land" & made a few minor fixes elsewhere. The "Waste Land" stuff still needs improvement--e.g. a mention of Eliot's use of Frazer & Weston. (I personally think that the importance of them to the poem is vastly exaggerated, not least by Eliot, but they still should be at least mentioned.) Also, details of his two marriages need to be added, as both wives played major roles in his personal life & his writing life.

I have no idea if Eliot had anything to do with the New English Bible--someone ought to check the available biographies. Doesn't seem likely, but you never know.

There also needs to be a much better (fuller) account of Eliot's first two books (the short poems).

[edit] Apocalypse Now

Actually, the poem quoted in 'Apocalypse Now' is 'The Hollow Men', not 'The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock'. If there is any reference in the movie to the latter, I have yet to see it...

How about mentioning Eliot's Order of Merit awarded to him by King George VI

You're incorrect - according to the IMDB Quotation Page for Apocalypse Now, the quotation in question reads "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you - I mean I'm no, I can't - I'm a little man, I'm a little man, he's, he's a great man. I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas... ". This is from 'The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock'. Perhaps 'The Hollow Men' is also quoted, but Prufrock is in the film. Nick04 16:19, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Both poems are quoted...Prufrock by the Photojournalist (also quotes Kipling's 'If') and Hollow Men by Kurtz

When does Kurtz quote from the Hollow Men? (aside from the fact of his name) --Eddy b 12:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Marlon Brando (Kurtz) reads 'The Hollow Men' in a scene in the temple, when Dennis Hopper speaks to Martin Sheen about dialectics (which prompts Kurtz to throw a book at him because he is making noise).

Not sure that being quoted in an overblown Hollywood epic constitutes "recognition" as such, but if this list has to be appended to the article, how about adding Evelyn Waugh's novel A Handful of Dust, where the Eliot reference is as clear and explicit as can be. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hollow Men

Contrary to what the article stated, "hollow men" was NOT during his anglicanism period; it was two years before his '27 conversion, in 1925. I've removed the incorrect reference, but don't know where to reinsert a link to Hollow Men. There needs to be some reference in the article to Hollow Men, even though there's no article on it yet, because someone might write an article on it in the future. But I'm not sure what to say about the poem; I don't know very much about it, other than the fact that it is definitely written before his conversion, since everything he wrote after the conversion sucked so badly, and Hollow Men is awesome. But I guess that's too POV to put in the article itself, even though Orwell said the exact same thing when he wrote about Eliot. But whatever. Eric Herboso 02:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I wanted to add something about the Hollow Men - I seem to remember that it was originally the last part of the Waste Land, and then got moved out to stand alone. The Hollow Men represents the lowest point in his life before his conversion, and Ash Wednesday illustrates how he converted, and found hope. Some mention should probably be made of "not with a bang but a whimper" as one of the most often quoted lines of all Eliot's poetry? Vhata

Some scholars during Eliot's lifetime theorized that it was the last part of "The Waste Land", but the discovery in 1968 of the original manuscripts for "The Waste Land" (subsequently published and available in paperback) show that none of the material from "The Hollow Men" was ever in it. Crculver 23:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


  •  !! Please, do not say everything after his conversion sucks. I used to be of the same opinion when I was a completely ignorant young atheist. However, the greatness of some of his later poems is readily apparent even to those who disagree with his religion. Even parts of Ash Wednesday, atleast the first and last sections mostly, are mindblowing. But really, Burnt Norton ranks 2nd or 3rd in my mind after the Wasteland and Prufrock. The entire poem is just utterly bananular. Not to mention The Cocktail Party, which reads like an anthology of the most eloquent and heartbreaking thoughts ever put to words. I beg you, reconsider. --B. Phillips 02:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • For that matter, Choruses from The Rock is unbelievable and shows Eliot making a Brechtian sort of verse drama (which he never finished). "And the wind shall say,/ Here were decent, godless men/ Their only monument the asphault road and a thousand lost golf balls." Little Gidding is about as good as it gets. Honestly, anyone dismissing the post-conversion stuff is a person who has no taste for poetry. (Also, anyone who sticks to a "conversion year" for his conversion is a fairly shallow reader. It isn't just that everything prior is religious and Christian, it's that a great deal of it is very explicitly Christian -- and not in the "making a passing quote" way, either. Eliot was no Calvinist: it wasn't a single day's conversion.) Geogre 02:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] outrage

Please, we do not need a reference to an abysmal and unfunny "comedy troupe" prefacing this entry about the most beautiful human of the last century, whom I love more than anything else in the world. The reference is also awkward- a disambigation from a title of one of Eliot's many poems, and can serve as nothing but a strage promotion of this horrid group of lame "comedians". --B. Phillips 10:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harvard degrees

Does anyone know what Eliot got in terms of Latin honors (I'm guessing summa), or were they not in use in those days? ZephyrAnycon 21:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I don't think they had Latin honors in them days. The Ackroyd biography says he got something like 4 As, 3 Bs, a C & a D (!) in the courses he took for his A.B. He stayed on a year to do a Master's, which is not graded. They were very complimentary about his Bradley thesis, written largely in Oxford, and accepted it without the usual viva exam. -ZA

But they never gave him his doctorate either. --Quadalpha 07:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Four Quartets

The description of "Burnt Norton" works well here but I don't think it should stand on its own. It might be better to remove it altogether and keep the analyses on the Four Quartets page, or else add summaries of the other three quartets to complement it. --Pastricide 02:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British or American spelling?

This article has "etherised" in the famous opening lines of Prufrock. The The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock article has "etherized". Which did Eliot actually write? MCB 00:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Eliot had "etherised." --Quadalpha 07:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guardian article

From this article:

It's not terrible. But then I wouldn't have thought of using Wikipedia as a serious reference source.
No glaring inaccuracies jump out at me. It doesn't list my book in the bibliography, but there are plenty of other useful links. The Waste Land is highlighted and when I click on it, a separate entry for the book pops up. There's a Four Quartets bit, too, and all the plays. And when I click on the year 1922, I get a page telling me what else happened that year. Eliot is at the centre of a whole web of other references.
It's purely factual and not in any way analytical, but then that's all you want from this sort of thing.
Overall mark: 6/10
Anthony Julius is author of TS Eliot, Anti-Semitism and Literary Form

I think he's a bit mean with the 6/10, given what he says. Anything useful we can take from his comments to improve this? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Other than his negative tone, this is a compliment. I don't honestly know what this article can contribute. Sweetfreek 01:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
What it can contribute, according to Julius, is not what Wikipedia is designed to do. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; "critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties." It appears he wants more original, intelligent contributions to the body of analysis of Eliot and his work, some original research or insight to go with the facts and useful links. The Wikipedia article is a 10/10, applying his judgement to Wikipedia's own standards of design -- at least, as those standards are written now. Julius wants more than that, and he won't get it, so he'll give us a 6. 207.191.23.56 05:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
(oops)
Adding his book to the Bibliography probably increased the mark ;-) --Philip Baird Shearer 10:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Who cares about Julius? He's only a barrister; not a proper scholar. I recommend you read Tom Paulin's essay on his book in Writing to the Moment if you haven't already. -ZA

[edit] Prose works, Lit Crit, Political, and Religious

There could stand to be more here on Eliot's part in Bloomsbury and (high) modernism + his falling out with people like the Woolfs after his conversion. There is essentially nothing in this entry on critical matters, such as Eliot's interaction with people and ideas such as Charles Maurras and later on Jacques Maritain with other Christian intellectuals who created a group between/during/after? the wars to address the crises of European culture from a distinctly Christian bearing. This also gets into the need for coverage of his numerous prose works pertaining to these cultural-religious-political subjects and Eliot as a critic of modernity. Nothing on "dissociation of sensibility" and the famous Oxford lectures that came from. Nothing on his dissertation on and influence from F. H. Bradley. Dan Knauss

I think the "dissociation of sensibility" would either be presented over-simplistically or would deserve a page of its own. --Quadalpha 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] http://www.olimu.com/Notes/hillier-eliot.pdf

That's in the links section. It seems somewhat dogmatic and narrow-minded. Remove for NPOV?--Quadalpha 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is not relevant as it is not a Wiki entry. It is a link to someone else's point of view. It may be dogmatic and narrow-minded (or not), but it is a published opinion and therefore a valid link. Wiki entries are from NPOV. It isn't up to contributors to monitor external opinions to make sure they all conform to a NPOV. Tyrenius 00:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. :) --Quadalpha 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-semitism

The criticism section, specifically it's discussion of anti-semitism, should be improved. The current scholarship on this subject draws a strong connection between Eliot's anti-semitic writings and the philosophical underpinnings of Eliot's, and Ezra Pound's poetics. It may be that Eliot, like Pound, viewed his life's work as countering the corrupting influence of Jews on western culture. His primary influence on this subject was Charles Maurras, the reactionary French writer and monarchist activist. Louis Menand has an essay on this subject in his book American Studies. His upcoming book Discovering Modernism : T.S. Eliot and His Context will undoubtedly deal with this subject as well.

There's an interesting assortment of evidence relating to his fascism at the beginning of Paulin's essay on TWL & Keynes in Crusoe's Secret. Maybe this shd be included in the interest of NPOV?
I in my unregistered persona have now expanded the Prejudice section with material from Ackroyd and Paulin. ZephyrAnycon 02:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Reading

There are a few titles in the Further Reading which seem rather trivial, in my opinion, compared to such key works of Eliot criticism that have been left out, such as F. O. Matthiesen's The Achievement of T S Eliot. Any comments? -- Simonides 00:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC) I think you should amend the links in line with your ideas and see what happens. Tyrenius 00:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] audio link

What was objectionable with the link to The Waste Land audio? --Quadalpha 21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I wondered about that and have left a message on the talk page of Eurekalott who did the rv. Tyrenius 00:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently a bit of wider promotion of that site on Wiki. Nothing wrong with it in itself. Eurekalott is happy for it to be reinstated, but I'm not fussed. Tyrenius 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italics

We should get the italics consistent in this article. MOS says plays can be italicised, but I'm not so sure. Longer poems, and many of Eliot's are longer, should likely be italicised. --DanielCD 21:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 31 June 1917?

There are only 30 days in June; that review must have been misdated. --OliverTraldi 00:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T. S. Eliot Family Life

Did he ever have any children? What are some name of his family members? Cousins, uncles?

T.S. Eliot had no children by either of his marriages. - Nunh-huh 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

  • probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswatt (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that page has Google Ad links on it, so it may not be an acceptable external link. This page notes that "sites with objectionable amounts of advertising" should not be linked to, in general. Of course the term "objectionable amounts" is subjective. But I've seen people remove external links based on those sites' use of Google Adsense in the past.
It's also worth noting that the fact that you suggested the Dickens biography from the same site as an external link to Charles Dickens here. Adding a bunch of external links to the same site (in this case, essentially the same site) in multiple articles could be considered spamming. From a quick look at these biographies, I'd say that they don't look any more original or insightful than most biographies that you could find on the web, so given the combination of Google Adsense and the leaning toward spamlinking, I say don't add the link to this page (or an equivalent link to any other page).
Hbackman 21:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be added, but because it is simply too slight in content.
Tyrenius 21:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah? 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

This article has been one of favorites on Wikipedia for a long while, though one thing, the picture heading it, I've never really liked. It's a bit small and with the awkward white circle border. Perhaps we should change it to a larger one, from when Eliot was better-known. Or maybe, if those rascals on the Virginia Woolf page can get away with that breathtaking photo of her from before she'd published anything, we could use the sexy one of Eliot in Paris smoking and reading when he was younger. Suggestions? --24.131.209.132 22:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Hoppe portrait of Eliot may have been chosen because the date of it falls before 1923 and thus the picture may be in the public domain. This one is my favorite picture of TSE (although I dislike the addition of the cropping oval that was not in the original portrait.) The Hoppe picture is certainly the photo to use for the Waste Land article but I would like the addition of a picture of an older Eliot added to the T.S. Eliot article (maybe down around where his plays are mentioned.) Getting one free of copyright restrictions could be a problem. WikiParker 02:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Catch-22 reference

I considered adding this item under the "Popular Recognition" section, but I couldn't decide for myself whether it was appropriate:

  • In the novel Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, Eliot is noted as a "poet who makes money", leading to a farcical round of characters telephoning each other, shouting "T. S. Eliot!" and hanging up.

-- Jonrock 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please leave it out. It doesn't really say anything about Eliot. Substitute any made-up name in place of Eliot's and there is no change in meaning. WikiParker 22:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
This seems entirely appropriate to indicate the popular recognition which Eliot has achieved and I can't see any reason for not including it. Tyrenius 23:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eliot's Contribution to Literary Theory and Criticism

I have reverted a large block of text recently added under the title Eliot's Contribution to Literary Theory and Criticism on the grounds that it seemed like original research. (It was also put under the heading of 'Charges of anti-Semitism' which doesn't make sense). However it does I think highlight a gap in the current article. The added and now reverted block of text is here. Stumps 20:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat lovers

Eliot should not be in the 'cat lovers' category (I'm not even going to try to spell it) without sources to back the statement up. DJ Clayworth 03:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Eliot is placed in that category because he wrote Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats. Still, I think the category is lame, and don't mind it's deletion. CRCulver 03:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Recognition

I added the following information in the Literature section, under the Popular Recognition sub-heading. The editing has since been removed. Any feedback as to whether or not this is worthy of inclusion and, if so, what changes might enable its replacement on the page? (The quote itself can be verified by viewing the show’s video archives. Would an external link be helpful?)

  • The July 18, 2006 episode of The Colbert Report featured host Stephen Colbert interviewing NFL linebacker Dhani Jones. During the course of the interview, Colbert and Jones discussed the latter’s interest in poetry. Host Colbert questioned Jones about his tendency, if any, to appropriate his favorite poets or poems while on the playing field. Specifically, Colbert quoted Eliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” and “The Hollow Men” by asking if Jones had ever composed an impromptu poem along the lines of, “This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a sack, motherfucker...you are The Hollow Man! Let us go then, you and I, when the evening is spread out [against] the sky, like a patient etherised upon a table.”

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarasvati (talk • contribs) .

A link is essential so the content can be verified. Just put a square bracket each end of the URL to turn it into a link. I suggest also shortening the passage to the essentials. Tyrenius 00:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the above information belongs in the article on Dhani Jones?? We can always find it by seeing "What links here" from the Eliot page (the traditional way to find 'references'). These explicit lists of "references in popular culture", are - in my opinion - one of the weakest points of Wikipedia. About 15% of the current article on Eliot is devoted to these trivial and generally uninteresting bits of information. Have we really nothing more intelligent or insightful to say?? I would prefer to see the whole section boiled down to two or three sentences with some footnotes. Imagine if we took the same approach with Shakespeare, listing any time any celebrity used a phrase from one of his plays! Stumps 08:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you have a very good point. However, I see it as worth keeping, but not as something to take up so much of the main article, and I propose moving it to its own article, where the subject can be explored more fully. The permeating of seminal works through culture is a fascinating study. Tyrenius 09:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] His first wife

Is she Vivienne or Vivien? I can't work out how she should be spelt--Cunningham 14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember that Ackroyd refers to the name Vivienne as being the "official" one and that she later chose to make it shorter. --Dada 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Side of the Moon

I stumbled upon a book Dark Side of the Moon by T. S. Eliot [1] anyone know more about it? --Salix alba (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of T. S. Eliot

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I strongly support this. Stumps 11:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a brilliant idea. I strongly support it as well. ---Charles 15:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British or American?

The line "... was an American (naturalised British) poet, dramatist and literary critic" seems a bit odd, since all his works were published while he was in the UK. I'd say that he was British, but was previously a US citizen. 82.3.196.17 17:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of his youthful poems were published while at high school and at Harvard. These have since been collected. And I believe that many of the poems in Invention of the March Hare are from before his settlement in Britain. And in spite of his ultimate comfort in Britain, Eliot retained an attachment to the U.S. for many years. His letters, for example, show that he was desparate to enlist in the U.S. Navy during World War I, and The Dry Salvages is clearly influenced by the places he knew from youth. CRCulver 17:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope we can consider the nationlity problem fixed by leaving it to the end of the introduction (by-the-way, in 1927 he would have been considered a British subject, not a British citizen.) As for the dates and ages Ackroyd's T.S. Eliot: A Life on pages 55 and 165 says: (1) Eliot arrived in England in August, 1914. This was before his 26th birthday. (2) Eliot was naturalized in November, 1927. This was after his 39th birthday. WikiParker 23:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Frivolous Nature of Eliot's Antisemitism

Is it a veritable necessity to dedicate virtually two paragraphs to the alleged anti-semitism of this particular poet? I have the ability to ennumerate a score of incontrovertible reasons regarding precisely why it is, indeed, a fruitless facet of this article. Namely, considering that prejudice was, without doubt, hackneyed in the past (though may not have been properly insinuated or divulged). As time elapses, racism shall dwindle--although I am almost certain that a chief facet of notable individuals throughout history have, indeed, possessed some degree of prejudice (though we neglect to state such allegations in their articles). Shall we also affix accounts of racism to the articles of George Washington, Albert Einstein and Henry Purcell? If, by chance, T.S. Eliot held a political post or even voraciously denounced Jews (such as Bobby Fisher) then, such a cateogry may have possessed an iota of merit. Although nevertheless, this is not the case. I wish to claim this article as an article considerably devoid of neutrality on the presumption that that particular facet of the article was, indeed, contrived by an individual who was personally offended by the evasive insinuations on the poet's behalf--Nalco 04:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Most current scholarship on Eliot considers anti-semitism a large part of his persona. Eliot researchers I'm acquainted with consider this aspect of his life vital to understanding the poetry. WP must mirror current scholarship, it's how things work here. CRCulver 05:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
One must not be apprised thereof with an overabundant two-paragraph description of the poet's alleged Anti-Semitism in order to fathom (even the most profound depths) of his work. And I do, indeed, understand quite lucidly how 'things work around here'--in a manner that is gravely flawed. This is also coming from the mouth of an unbiased individual who will earnestly confess personal contempt for the poet of our discourse. (I do hope those scholars aren't as underqualified as yourself).--Nalco 08:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/2E/_/Talk%7ET._S._Eliot_3dee.html"