In a message dated Tue, 8 Jan 2002 10:39:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Jose Pereira" <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> In no way did I intend to hurt your feelings or speak on behalf of other
> You may understand that after reading your note about the enlightening and idea-provoking way of reading FQ in this particular way I was quite naturally expecting to find these provoked thoughts (traces of enlightment?)at the end of your own posting, but failed in doing so.
> It's my own point to which I still adhere (not imposing it on anyone on this list, however), that quoting poetry without a commentary may not be quite as
useful, or thought-provoking, or enlightening, as it would have been if the commentary is attempted in the first place. As simple as that.
> Sorry again if I have involuntarily caused a misunderstanding.
> PS. For a change, could I suggest that we read EC with "In my end is my
> beginning" as an opening line? And proceed this way to the very beginning
> where it (the beginnig) actually proves to be "The end"?
> I found EC laid out in this particular way very thought-provoking lately:-))
I've addressed your sound observation that commentary -- I would add, if it rises to a certain level -- is preferable to mere text. However, the fact that I've not come up with commentary by this method for current distribution does not mean that the method is invalid. The fault may be mine, or due to time constraints.
I take your point regarding non-sequential reading of a work. Here, however, Eliot chose to regard, as a group, four separate poems, each with five numbered sections. To those who have read the poems many times in sequence, and have an abiding interest in them, the idea of reading the sections in the way I've proposed is, I believe, rather different than reading any of them backwards. I suspect, if we had a prolonged discussion on the subject, you would agree.
In any case, apologies over such things are really not necessary -- though, as they say, it never hurts to say you're sorry, even if you don't mean it. I'm not terribly thin-skinned, and was more intersted in defending my proposed method of reading than in responding to any personal attack.
Ideally, I'll be able to demonstrate the worth of my proposal by finding something terribly profound to say after employing it. If not, and more likely, someone else may. If neither, I still say, no harm done.