You weren't wrong really. There was a missing cue to suggest
the appropriate reading, since several (at least two) were possible.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dunja Seselja" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: 'The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock' was Re: OT: USk Castle
> Heh, I must have written that part completely wrong
> when you also got me wrong. My point was that
> something like the "full meaning" cannot be reached
> with any interpretation, since there is no such a
> thing like a "full meaning".
> --- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > From: "Dunja Seselja" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > As long as we expect from an interpretation to
> > give us
> > > the "full meaning" of the poem, I completely
> > agree
> > > with you.
> > =======================
> > If that full meaning is arrived at through a long
> > spaghetti noodle
> > of prose, on step at a time, then I can't see how it
> > is the
> > full meaning. The fullness implies multilevels
> > interconnected
> > like hypertext. Standard prose is much to prosaic to
> > get the
> > job done.
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/327 - Release Date: 4/28/2006