well, eliot loved some marvellous works with pederastic
or lesbian content, such as petronious' satiricon or
djuna barnes' nightwood.
though he certaily didn't put ambiguous sexuality as
centrally as you do, his reservations with these
matters had more to do with care about society's
"order" (i'm not saying these kind of order is not
based on infinite disorder) than with his notions
of form (and i'm also not saying that it didn't affect
**at all** his notion of form, only much less than
most people think).
best ana
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Jones" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: Bruce Andrews interview at The Argotist Online
Sorry, we will have to disagree on this. Eliot reflects with an external
stance a traditionally masculine image. (This is his confusion of the
two multiplicities, read as magnitudes, in Bergson) It is this
homophobic appropriation of form which then invokes Kant and dismisses
queer/gay/ homosexual as merely kitsch.
.
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 18:51 -0300, Ana Olinto wrote:
> chris, i agree about the greek gods, only i think deep
> care and attention to the body, and some post-
> structuralist concerns can only be enriched by
> some rigorous formalism à la eliot.
--
I have chronic fatigue syndrome so I may be delayed in my reply. Just to
let you know, that's all. Chris Jones.
Blog: http://abdevpoetics.blogspot.com/
|