All I am saying is that we know a whole lot more about Emma Bovary than
we do Sweeney, including both her names, much of her background, some
of her thoughts, her motives, etc.
As for unity existing when it is created, I can agree with that.
On Friday, October 22, 2004, at 08:44 PM, Marcia Karp wrote:
> Jennifer Formichelli wrote:
>>>> have no further context outside of themselves, unlike novels.
>>> the poems
>>> 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
>> or the figures--say Prufrock & Sweeney-- have no further context (as
>> they do in novels, where characters are created, which is not always
>> in poems; certainly not Eliot's). However, poems, with the exception
>> allusions contained within them, or historical figures of which they
>> partake (Pound, Dante, for instance) don't offer further context.
>> discusses this in his writings on Prufrock in T. S. Eliot and
>> Prejudice, better than I can.
> I'm sorry, Jennifer. I don't get it. Emma Bovary exists in her novel;
> Sweeney exists in his poem. I know either the characters nor the works
> are identical, but I don't understand the nature of the difference you
> posit. Shall I look in the index for JAP or Sweeney for CR's ideas?