DIana Manister wrote:
> Dear Carrol,
> Who was it on this listsrv who recently asked, "But is it accurate?"
That was yours truly.
> Interpretations should cling loosely to the actual text, don't you think?
No. I think they should cling truly to the text. "Loosely" is a poor
substitute at best.
> 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!
This seems to involve what Carrol pointed to not at all, but isn't it
molehill-to-mountain stuff anyhow (though I applaud your call for
accuracy)? Prufrock is asking a question that is based on something that
did not happen. At some time he speculated that it could happen. At this
time, when he is past that moment, it is something that did not happen
and no longer could. Prufrock resigns himself to music all around but
not for him.