Carrol and Peter
I cannot agree that since a subject is opaque that we should not try to
understand it. Carrol seems to assert that since the subject is opaque to
him it is of little value.
The closest I can come to genius is in attempting to understand the work of
genius. Perhaps you can dismiss what Pound and Eliot wrote as of little
value or at a Freshman poetry course level but I cannot.
Carrol mentioned the "objective correlative" and "dissociation of
sensibility" in his post. Both these concepts and the "Image" are attempts
understand how a poet can control the reader's attention and emotions. The
ideogramic method is simply the Image on steroids. Surely the efforts of
masterful poets to understand how a poem deals with the reader's intellect
and emotion is worthy of lesser students study.
"The Waste Land" is very cloudy to me. it was attempting to understand "The
Waste Land" that started me on my current explorations in modernism and
beyond. "The Waste Land" and "The Cantos" will probably occupy the rest of
my life. Although I do not seem to be alone in this pursuit my efforts seem
to be at so elementary level as to merit your dismissal.
I regret this and will attempt in the future to at least move my discussions
from the freshman level to the sophomoric level which might be more
entertaining for highly erudite scholars.