DIana Manister wrote:
> Dear Carrol,
> Who was it on this listsrv who recently asked, "But is it accurate?"
> Interpretations should cling loosely to the actual text, don't you
> think? Speculating that a Prufrock speaker is projecting a future with
> the words "would it have been" simply ignores what Eliot wrote. If I
> did that you would not excuse me!
Did you read my text -- or are you confusing my point with Tom's poing?
> Sent from my iPod
> On Jan 28, 2010, at 9:31 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > My post was not really a "reading" of Prufrock; it was a suggestd
> > starting point for a reading.
> > But what Tom gives is an alternative narrative. It's an interesting
> > narrative no dubt, but it makes the poem as a whle rather dull; so
> > much
> > effort goes to constructing and "proving" a hidden narrative that
> > nothing is left over as it were to ask interesting questions about the
> > _poem_ rather than detective style questions about this hidden
> > narrative.
> > On the other hand, if you take a limited act as the starting point,
> > then
> > you can begin to focus on all the things that _this_ sort of unusual
> > "love song" makes visible, and not just about the character but about
> > his world. Moreover, much of the imagery (e.g. "one-nigh cheap hotels"
> > or the merman/mermaid suggestios are really more interesting in this
> > focused but larger context than as "evidence" to "prove" a narrative
> > that isn't there in any obvious way.
> > Carrol