We can say Prufrock is an aardvark too, according to your laissez-
faire approach. But why not apply those wild imaginings to a poem of
your own, if Eliot's text is being ignored?
Sent from my iPod
On Feb 3, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]>
> Nancy Gish wrote:
>> Why do you ignore the fact that the word does not mean "persona" in
> CR says explicitly "*a person who could/would/might..." etc.
> Do you see it? "Persona" he uses in reference to Prufrock. Can we
> not say Prufrock is a persona? "One can visualize," not
> "one can confirm that"...it is as legitimate a way of grasping (at)
> Eliot's poetry as any.
> Ken A
>> and that Eliot did not use that epigraph when he first wrote the
>> poem? It was not, chronologically, a starting point: the poem was
>> written with a different epigraph. So it is not clear what point
>> you are making.
>> >>> Chokh Raj 02/02/10 10:00 PM >>>
>> Words that struck a chord in Eliot One can visualize Eliot reflect
>> on Montefeltro's words and make them into a starting point for a
>> confessional monologue of * (conversely) never return to the world*
>> -- a persona that lives out this philosophy of indifference to "the
>> world" not just in 'Prufrock' but in the rest of Eliot's poetry.
>> --- On *Mon, 2/1/10, Chokh Raj /<[log in to unmask]>/* wrote:
>> Peter, going by Eliot's habits of mind (ref. Southam), the
>> epigraph may have provided him with a clue, the
>> all-important starting point, for conceiving this dramatic
>> monologue as a disguised mode of confession [a la Montefeltro in
>> Inferno] -- putting on the persona of a middle aged man. Apart
>> from what "persona" denotes in the epigraph, it could
>> easily suggest to Eliot the technique of "persona" as a masque
>> for a character other than the poet himself.
>> Thanks & regards,
>> --- On *Mon, 2/1/10, Peter Montgomery /<venture_v@TELUS...NET>/*
>> Let us not over look Dante's use of the word PERSONA in
>> Eliot's epigraph
>> of the poem.