Print

Print


I prefer to experience the poem rather than think about it.
It is a set of perceptions encased in words
like David (through the room) is a set of perceptions
encapsulated in stone.
Freeze dried perceptions that are brought to life by the
consciousness of the observer. What the reader experiences is the poem.

I perceive a man talking about himself in an endless loop,
over and over. I am reminded of Narcisus. (That's an
analogy, not a speculation. I am NOT saying Prufrock IS Narcissus).
The wonderful metaphysical conceit of squeezing the universe into a
ball to roll it towards some overwhelming question, reminds me of
The  David's slingshot with its stone. The stone never gets thrown.
The ball never gets rolled. Is Prufrock David? Such a speculation would
be ridiculous.Why bother? It is the parallels that are interesting, but I
don't wish to connect them. I prefer to remain with Keats in
the state of negative capability. I don't count any connection
I might make to be of any value. Such connections would dis-
continue the experience, and have me focussing merely on myself..
Thoughts are a dead end. Human voices wake us and we drown.

Peter
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dunja Seselja" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: prufrock (was: Re: OT: USk Castle)


> --- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > That's an observation, not a speculation.
> > 
> > The title says "Love Song of"; does that mean it is
> > his
> > song seranading someone else? Is it the song of
> > someone else for him?
> > Those are the logical possibilities. That is not a
> > speculation.
> > As to which of those possiilities is the correct
> > one,
> > I refuse to speculate.
> 
> Yeah, but the fact you refuse to speculate, doesn't
> mean that such a speculation would be senseless. In
> your previous post you wrote: "The character is a
> touchstone whereby the reader can assess his or her
> own awareness, by how he or she reacts to the poem,
> which means it is useless to speculate about what love
> means." I just pointed out that this is already an
> interpretation, and not a mere observation as soon as
> you say it is useless to speculate about what love
> means in the poem. I think every good poem (and this
> one is one of the best I've ever read) is like a
> pearl, and there is nothing contingent in it, just
> like there isn't one, ultimate interpretation of it
> that could be satisfying. And thinking (or if you
> want, speculating) of possible meanings of the notion
> of love in its title is equally important as
> thinking/speculating/interpreting any other idea in
> it. 
> 
> Dunja
> 
> 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Peter
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Dunja Seselja" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 3:23 PM
> > Subject: prufrock (was: Re: OT: USk Castle)
> > 
> > 
> > > --- Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > There maybe a dialectic for Prufrock, or even an
> > > > endless loop,
> > > > but for the reader time is made static, and
> > > > consciousness is the actor.
> > > > Prufrock = touch stone.
> > > > The character is a touchstone whereby the reader
> > can
> > > > assess his or her own
> > > > awareness, by how he or she reacts to the poem,
> > > > which means it
> > > > is useless to speculate about what love means.
> > It
> > > > means what it means to the
> > > > reader.
> > > 
> > > But with this ("it is useless to speculate about
> > what
> > > love means. It means what it means to the reader")
> > you
> > > have already started speculating about it. 
> > > (About the first part of your post I'll have to
> > think
> > > a bit, it sounds interesting)
> > > 
> > > Dunja
> > > 
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around 
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/326 -
> > Release Date: 4/27/2006
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.1/326 - Release Date: 4/27/2006
>