> Jennifer Formichelli wrote:
>> the poems
>> have no further context outside of themselves, unlike novels.
> I don't understand what goes into your thinking here. More, please?
I regret my phrasing here; what I meant to say was that the characters,
or the figures--say Prufrock & Sweeney-- have no further context (as
they do in novels, where characters are created, which is not always so
in poems; certainly not Eliot's). However, poems, with the exception of
allusions contained within them, or historical figures of which they
partake (Pound, Dante, for instance) don't offer further context. Ricks
discusses this in his writings on Prufrock in T. S. Eliot and
Prejudice, better than I can.
>> And how, most of all, could such a unity be 'constructed' by
> By getting rid of what doesn't take part in a unity. No?
Yes. Thank you. However, I think that it couldn't have been created by
excision if it wasn't already lurking there, behind the arras, which
the excision pulls away.