Diana Manister wrote:
> Dear Nancy,
> I'll google these clues; maybe I can track down the 1962 interview; I
> think I have Southam among my books on Eliot. If not, I can get a used
> copy. Likewise with Lifton. Please don't spend any time locating the
> xerox; the net is faster.
Don't bother. I started myself when I read Nancy's email and found it
before I read yours.
At http://feltre.iulm.it/document_loader.aspx?idDocument=19650 is this note:
But in 1962 Eliot said: “ Prufrock was partly a dramatic creation of a
man of about forty … and partly an expression of feeling of my own […] I
feel that dramatic characters who seem living creations have something
of the author in them” (T.S.Eliot…An Interview” Granite Review, XXIV, 3
(1962) 17 (R. Bush: 241-42)
See also http://www.englishteacher.com.au/downloads/mETAphor200702.pdf
(search for 1962). The article looks like a decent one to read but I
gotten to that yet.
See also "Words Alone" by Denis Donoghue pp. 7-8
There is a minor difficulty with "you." Eliot told Kristian Smidt that
the "you" is "merely some friend or companion, presumably of the male
sex, whom the speaker is at that moment addressing, and that it has no
emotional content whatever." But in an interview in 1962 he said that
Prufrock was a man of about forty and in part himself and that he was
using the theory of the split personality. This is a better hint,
especially as it allows us to take "you" as a second self removed from
the first—as in Conrad's "The Secret Sharer"—and fulfilling another mode
of being, admonitory though silent. It is typical of Eliot to exert
critical pressure on the matter in hand by establishing another scale of
reference, another perspective. But some of the invocations to "you" in
"Prufrock" are perfunctory, they hardly mean more than "one." It is hard
to believe that the "We" at the end, "We have lingered ...," includes
more than Prufrock's sole if notional self. I take it as a last flourish
of the plural of majesty before the drowning.