Print

Print


In a message dated 4/2/2003 1:48:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
>Eliot may well have written every second of his
>non-poetic writing about sex. He may have lived, eaten
>and breathed every waking, non-poetry writing second
>for lust, for all I care. That does not reduce every
>line of his poetry to a sexual meaning, or to fodder
>for someone's fanciful inclinations based on material
>outside the poem.
>
>In fact such sexual obsession need not have any
>implications for any of his poetry.

These statements are fair enough, standing alone, and I have my own objections to the particular sexual meanings offered by recent posts.  (Though I haven't thought them out well enough to contribute anything on it just now.)

But Peter, let me ask you the one big question that your comments invite but do not answer: Isn't it resonably clear, or at least reasonably likely that, whatever *else* it may be about, and whatever it may be saying about the subject, Prufrock is about sex in substantial part?  If one accepts that, then saying that Eliot's sex life is independent from his poetry doesn't change the fact that sex is a legitimate aspect of trying to understand Prufrock.  Do you disagree with any of that?

Tom K