The medium of print without all the resonances of orality,
seems to render meaning as a one-to-one equivalent of the written word.
The dissociation from the other senses, dumping the whole load into visual
creates a certain sense of absoluteness. Plato et al. (good old al.) were in
a kind of
war with the preceeding era of auditory creation.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Gish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: THE LINE ABOUT THE BURGLAR AND THROWING MEAT TO THE DOG
> You ask the key question, for of course the poem could only incompletely
"be" the author's meaning, were there such a thing as an author's absolute
meaning. To say otherwise is to assume there is a way to state absolutely
unambiguously a single absolutely unambiguous "meaning" in absolutely stable
words that cannot be read in other than one way. How Eliot seemed to long
for and recognize the impossibility of that, though why it seems so
attractive is another puzzle.
> >>> Marcia Karp <[log in to unmask]> 04/01/08 10:54 PM >>>
> Were such a thing to exist, wouldn't the poem be the source?
> Diana Manister wrote:
> > Dear CR: Presumably Eliot felt the author would be the source of that
> > "absolute meaning?" Diana
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.2/1353 - Release Date: 3/31/2008