In a message dated 4/18/03 12:39:00 PM EST, [log in to unmask] writes:

> the streets are immediately compared to
> the 'argument', they can indeed 'follow' in the
> way an argument would 'follow' (intransitively).
> What the argument follows from is not made explicit -
> something has been said before the poems starts
> (cf. the 'then' in 'Let us go, then'),
> but it remains a mystery.

   You're right. I hadn't paid enough attention to the "then" -- it does
imply something was going on before the poem starts. It would be quite
different if the opening line was "Let us go, you and I", which would not
imply anything about prior conversations and/or prior actions. Those little
words in TSE's works (such as the 'then' in Prufrock and the 'yet' in the
hyacinth garden) are packed with implications that are easily overlooked.
Thanks for pointing it out.

> What the argument follows from is not made explicit -
>  . . . it remains a mystery.

True, but we know some key characterizations about the nature of the argument
(and by implication, the nature of the streets): they are characterized as
'tedious' and of 'insidious intent', hardly neutral terms. And, most
importantly of all, they LEAD to the overwhelming question. If you want to
learn about the nature of the overwhelming question, follow the half-deserted
streets.

-- Steve --