Pound vs. Eliot

[lainey]

I don't understand why you have to lock yourself into one theory or 'perspective.' At times there may be a line, a stanza, a poem, and so on, which alludes to the writer's life, and is so obvious it would be stupid to ignore. Other times the writing has nothing to do with the author's life. Can we not address both in criticism?

For purposes of discussion, it would be useful to know who you're addressing. I see myself arguing for an inclusive way of reading.

Whether or not a portion of a work recognizably or obviously alludes to a writer's life, however, is almost besides the point. For it doesn't confirm or change the fact that his or her intention formed the work. You seem to recognize this in the second half of your post, when you address the "professors."

I'm sorry, but the point I was making was that you and milo are arguing for different approaches to criticism, and so I'm asking, why can't you include both? There is no need to go off on a tangent about intentionality because really you are just arguing for a psychoanalytic approach to reading poetry.

Oh and thanks for not bothering to respond to my second paragraph and completely ignoring my third.