Who was it on this listsrv who recently asked, "But is it accurate?"
Interpretations should cling loosely to the actual text, don't you
think? Speculating that a Prufrock speaker is projecting a future with
the words "would it have been" simply ignores what Eliot wrote. If I
did that you would not excuse me!
Sent from my iPod
On Jan 28, 2010, at 9:31 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> My post was not really a "reading" of Prufrock; it was a suggestd
> starting point for a reading.
> But what Tom gives is an alternative narrative. It's an interesting
> narrative no dubt, but it makes the poem as a whle rather dull; so
> effort goes to constructing and "proving" a hidden narrative that
> nothing is left over as it were to ask interesting questions about the
> _poem_ rather than detective style questions about this hidden
> On the other hand, if you take a limited act as the starting point,
> you can begin to focus on all the things that _this_ sort of unusual
> "love song" makes visible, and not just about the character but about
> his world. Moreover, much of the imagery (e.g. "one-nigh cheap hotels"
> or the merman/mermaid suggestios are really more interesting in this
> focused but larger context than as "evidence" to "prove" a narrative
> that isn't there in any obvious way.