Print

Print


Jennifer Formichelli wrote:

>>> have no further context outside of themselves, unlike novels.
>>>
>> the poems
>> I don't understand what goes into your thinking here.  More, please?
>>
>
> I regret my phrasing here; what I meant to say was that the characters,
> or the figures--say Prufrock & Sweeney-- have no further context (as
> they do in novels, where characters are created, which is not always so
> in poems; certainly not Eliot's). However, poems, with the exception of
> allusions contained within them, or historical figures of which they
> partake (Pound, Dante, for instance) don't offer further context. Ricks
> discusses this in his writings on Prufrock in T. S. Eliot and
> Prejudice, better than I can.
>
I'm sorry, Jennifer.  I don't get it.  Emma Bovary exists in her novel;
Sweeney exists in his poem.  I know either the characters nor the works
are identical, but I don't understand the nature of the difference you
posit.  Shall I look in the index for JAP or Sweeney for CR's ideas?

Best,
Marcia