Print

Print


Sorry, Diana, no sarcasm there at all. From years of teaching and being 
responsible for instructions to others, I've found that when 
communication of what otherwise seems apparent fails, the only 
reasonable way to proceed is in tiny parcels. If that is discourteous or 
sarcastic to your eye or to Nancy's, what do you then suggest for 
raising the plainly written to recognition? The plainly written in this 
case being what CR wrote, not the argument by extension that Nancy 
supplied and responded to.

Thanks,
Ken A

Diana Manister wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>  
> I'll save Nancy the trouble:
>  
> ">>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> 02/03/10 8:51 AM >>>
> Nancy Gish wrote:
> > Why do you ignore the fact that the word does not mean "persona" in
> > Italian
>  
>
> 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 "
>  
> Asking an Eliot scholar if she is capable of close reading is hugely 
> disrespectful. Note that Ken's "style" as you call tone, is sarcastic.
>  
> Diana
>
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 04:30:47 -0800
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Prufrock question
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Ken frequently disagrees with you.
> Is that rudeness?
> As I requested once before, would you kindly
> cite the instance of rudeness that you have found in his remarks?
>  
> Thank you.
> Peter
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Nancy Gish <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     *To:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:44 AM
>     *Subject:* Re: {Disarmed} Re: Prufrock question
>
>     You are always rude to me.  I have no idea why, since you do not
>     know me.  But that has nothing to do with "seeing"  anything about
>     the facts, and what you wrote was not difficult to see or
>     understand.  I just do not agree with it.  I assure you I never
>     expect you to support or even treat with respect anything I say.
>     Nancy
>
>     >>> Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> 02/03/10 12:15 PM >>>
>     Nancy Gish wrote:
>     > Do you think it courteous to thank Ken for being discourteous to
>     me?
>     > I think that an odd idea of politeness. And this still does not
>     > address the whole issue of why it would take a specific instance in
>     > all of the/ Divine Comedy/ (Dante encounters _persons
>     _throughout) to
>     > suggest to Eliot a common poetic technique.
>     >
>     > These parallel monologues serve no purpose. Unless you answer a
>     > direct question about facts,
>     Sorry, Nancy, but it is you who ignores the facts. I tried to
>     simply and plainly put them before you regarding CR's rather
>     innnocent
>     thought, but you choose not to see them. That's your choice, but
>     don't
>     expect me to support it. I do not.
>
>     Ken A
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. 
> <http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/>