As the grave digger said to the anthropologist,
my sediments exactly.
I think the whole aim of these trolls is to get under the
skin, and extract outbursts of frustration from people.
I think one needn't feel guilt about filtering them out.
I think one needn't feel anything at all. They aren't
worth the effort. In fact it would probably be wrong to
make the effort.
Dr. Peter C. Montgomery
Dept. of English
3100 Foul Bay Rd.
Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
[log in to unmask]
From: D.Gregory Griffith [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 4:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: imply supply word by text word
This is about as incoherent, silly, useless, messy as a "post" gets.
The ones that follow it, though they occasionally make sense, are
as sophomoric, sloppy, and worthless. Did you sign on to the list
to be a nuisance? If not, what purpose do such posts serve? They
certainly don't do anyone any good, including you. They make you
look foolish at the very least, and they further undermine your
ability to communicate in this forum because readers have to ask
themselves if they want to take the time to open your posts at all,
since you're setting a precedent of messages that contain so
little of value or insight, and indeed, at times offer nothing at
all but garbled mess and "out of the box" icons.
I for one have had enough, and don't need to open another post. I'll
be "filtering you out" from now on, and I do not take any pleasure
in saying or doing so, despite the fact that my tone indicates an
advanced state of annoyance. I'm sorry, but it's so easy to make a
genuine contribution to this list that I can't think of any good reason
to post something like the material below. It seems to indicate you
are so presocialized to this forum that you have no idea how to
behave or even subvert or transgress it in a significant way.
deleuze oedipus rimbaud wrote:
> .ncy Giish@USM.. wrote:
> I did not imply that the words are not often carefully chosen or that
> or any writer will not re-examine a text word by word. But that does
> entail the conclusion that there is a hidden coded meaning placed
> be found. It means the piece m[Image][Image]work, be right, be exact.
> What it means to be exact may vary. In Eliot's case it may well have
> been at times to sound right or to evoke particular emotions. I am
> sure--but not sure where at the moment--that he said lines often came
> him first as a rhythm. My point is that this is not a puzzle to be
> a texte experienced.And in some cases there may well be essential
meanings involved in
> that.It seems, for example, that TWL is in some sense about loss and
> the ! horror of WWI as much as about myth. But it is not about any
> absolute one meaning. Nor will close readi[Image][Image]ng get you
such a meaning.
> You yourself make that clear in your speculations on the male--male
> desire possible in the poem. There is no way to demonstrate that the
> Hyacinth girl is male; there is no way to demonstrate that the
> is female. The former makot least
> Verdenal's lettethe sexual smell of cunt in sual beauty of an April
> landscape they had once shared and Eliot's image of the lilacs, and
> fact the Hyacinthus was a beautiful youth. On the other hand, the
> of that episode can be identified with the male figure in "A Game of
> Chess," who is married, and Eliot fell in love with Emily Hale after
> in Paris with Verdenal. The scene is profound and profoundly
> either wa! y I think, but it is not a coded truth to be decoded.
> Close reading idoes not "believe in"; it is a
> way of studying a text regardless of a specific theory, despite its
> connectionalso does not entail
> the conclusion of a specific meaning to be found for any poem.
> I think the most valuable early experience I had with Eliot was
> X. J. Kennedy read TWL in a jazz rhythm in my first literature class.
> came to a poem that was a sound and rhythm and feeling long before I
> knew of Weston and Frazer (then, if not now, the dominant sources to
> studied). And hearing it read by and trying to make a particular
> shape appear. Though of course I read sources too and see them as
> revealing. AtI find the most illuminating ones, oddly enough,
> are WWI histories and memoirs. But that only means we read through
> changing lenses.
> I am reminded of Marlow's description of meaning as not like a nut
> shell that you c! an crack open and remove but a haze of light around
> course that is a symbolist claim, but it provides a distinction.
> Nancy--- kiss me qucik [Image][Image]
> daughter", why is that there? And "Rachael nee Rabinovich" -- Gee, I
> know Rachael's married name, only her maiden name. Why is he doing
> What IS her married name?
> Anyway, that's how I approach poetry in general and TSE in
> -- Steve --
> Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals