David Boyd wrote:
> 
> Diana
> 
> Wouldn't see Eugenides as a rapist at all - just as another example of
> dysfunctional / broken sexual relationships.

The usual problem for the literary interpreter is not to supply
narrattive events not specifically indicated in the text but to explore
the social, moral, what-have-you _significance_ of the narrative that is
given. Hypothesizing narrative events (and in this case a rather
dramatic one) not presented in the text seems simply off the radar
screen to me. It bears a rather exact analogy to conspiracy theories in
reference to major historical events such as Pearl Harbor, the
assassination of Kennedy, or 911. There is an obvious narrative, with
missing links as is always the case, and a need to explain that
narrative, relating it to other events  in the world. The cibsouracust
rejects this  and creates a unique narrative of his/her own invention,
then explains the meaning of _that_ invented narrative. There is not a
single word in TWL that suggests the need to expand on the narrative as
it is presented. The material presented is rich in possible connections
to other items in the poem. Invention of 'supporting' narratives seems
wholly uncalled for.

In Pride & Prejudice when Elizabeth's aunt & uncle visit, the aunt first
distributes presents. The sort of detail that occur in all novels and
have no particular signifivcance. The conpsiracist can of course decide
arbitrarily that the mention of Christmas must be of great portent, but
that to explore this one must posit  some accident in the aunt's
chldhood that must be detailed in order to establish the meaning that
she should first distribute gifts on arriving. No narrative ever has
been or can be written in which every word iss portentious. There is
plenty to talk about in TWL without inventing supplementary narrativesd.

Carrol