Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Tom Walker says:
>
> > > Sexism & commodity fetishism make many men unable to distinguish
> >> human beings called "women" from dolls & bachelor machines.
> >
> >The obverse of this true observation is the emasculation of the man
> >without money. There are no "innocent" positions outside the infernal
> >circle of sexism and commodity fetishism, nor is it by any means a feature
> >peculiar to heterosexual relationships.
>
> [snip]
>
> And also think about the predicament of artists in the market:
>
> ***** Plaint
>
> Money and art
> Are far apart
>
> Langston Hughes *****
This off the top of my head, but the exchange above
seems to cast an oblique light on some lines I hadn't
read in decades:
After such knowledge, what forgiveness? Think now
History has many cunning passages, contrived corridors
And issues, deceives with whispering ambitions,
Guides us by vanities. Think now
She gives when our attention is distracted
And what she gives, gives with such supple confusions
That the giving famishes the craving. Gives too late . . .
("Gerontion" 1920)
At about this time Pound tried to collect a fund
to provide Eliot a 'sabbatical' from the bank he
was working at -- & not long after he had a
"nervous breakdown" if I remember correctly.
History / Money / Cleopatra / Muse . . .
But since the passages are "contrived" the enchantress
may be a doll -- but one which (unlike Lamarr's ex)
he didn't make and doesn't control.
Carrol
