Dear Diana,
This began because of treating "Gerontion" as a verbal.  "Proportion" is not a verbal either.  So in both cases, you are now treating them as nouns.  But the difference in this case is that "proportion" is an abstract noun and a concept, not a name or a specific designator, as is "Gerontion."  And there is no evidence I can see anywhere in Eliot's poem to suggest he intends a concept as a speaker.  That is my point about context and syntax.  All kinds of play are possible, but all have to work together; any single word is not an isolated unit.  He calls himself  "an old man."  It think that is precise, and I do not see any place in the poem where there is reason to see an abstraction instead.  Where do you see it?

>>> DIana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 02/23/10 3:50 PM >>>
Dear Nancy,

Why can't Gerontion be the name of the speaker and a noun like
"proportion"? The latter meaning would suggest that the speaker is
voicing in his way the experience of being superannuated or failed
that is not unique to him. Since gerontology is built on the same stem
it's not impossible that a poet could play with a suffix so that a
double meaning would accrue to the word to broaden the meaning beyond
the personal feelings of the speaker.


Sent from my iPod

On Feb 23, 2010, at 2:56 PM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Putting aside all mutual rebuttal, there are two key points in
> Carrol's message that are central to what I have been saying.
> First, if Gerontion is not a person, it is difficult if not
> impossible to make the text work at all. If the word is a verb or
> verbal, it makes no sense to try to imagine it as something/one that/
> who thinks and feels futile and remembers a life. And this leads to
> the second point: no word can be shifted in isolation. The minute
> one word shifts, all the words before and after are affected. So to
> address the title, which is a name in a poem that opens with an "I"
> who speaks, is to make all the rest call for a totally changed way
> of approaching any of the language. That is why I keep blethering
> on about syntax.
> This in no way disagrees with the claim of poetic transformations of
> words, about which Diana is clearly right. But they occur in a
> whole text and they follow some known codes even when seemingly not--
> only the contrast to the usual code allows any recognition of a
> change or altered meaning. It is only because we know the
> conventionally coded meaning of "etcetera" that we can slot it into
> the changed position and only because it has a form that can fit a
> noun.
> Cheers,
> Nancy
> >>> DIana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 2/23/2010 2:23 PM >>>
> Dear Carrol,
> Marcia asked you the question as a way of mocking
> Sent from my iPod
> On Feb 23, 2010, at 1:52 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > That is a very profound and searching critqiue: the non-literal is
> > different from the literal, but to ask what the literal is is
> "silly."
> > You were wandering on abut Derrida some time ago but apparently you
> > were
> > just spoofing us. I is precisely the difficulties of the _literal_
> > (which exists only in quoted texts) that was the point of departure
> > for
> > that "radi al uncertainy" you bloviated on. Now the very first time
> > that
> > someone seriously approaches a text in that "postmodern" fashion,
> > recognizing the radical uncertainty of the text (as contrasted to
> the
> > metaphysics of presence in oridnary speech) you retreat the most
> naive
> > and silly of all the complaints abut "postmodernism" -- it's SILLY.
> >
> > A text (written rather than spontaneously spoken) is _encoded_ and
> has
> > to be decoded by the reader. (See any of the studies in semiotics
> > published in the lat 60 years and you will find that matter
> > discussed at
> > some length.) Literal cannot mean anything else that what is
> _thee_ on
> > the page, and what is on the page is a cdoe which is meaningless
> until
> > painfully decoded. That this process is not automatic is shown, for
> > example, by the phenomenon of dyslexia. Most dyslexics have a good
> > comand of English; they can follow complex oral staatements and they
> > can
> > formulate complex arguments in flexible and precise Enlish, but they
> > cannot decode those inscrutable marks on the page. You recently
> > yourself
> > sufferered from a tmporary attack of dyslexia when you consturd
> _tion_
> > as _ing_, and have been digging a deeper and deeper hole for yurself
> > as
> > you stubbornly try to defend this error in decoding the literal.
> >
> > (Incidentally, the radical uncertainty that Derrida focuses on has
> > nothing whatever to do with quantum mechanics, which is why the
> phrase
> > is in scare quotes above. That uncertanty was one of the discoveries
> > of
> > modernism, not postmodernism. And of course the really serious
> > uncertainty is the subect of the opening line of the oldest complete
> > document we possess, neither modern nor postmodern, the Iliad
> which is
> > all about what are sometimes now called "unintended consequences,"
> > i.e.
> > the toatl inability of humans then and now to know what _all_ the
> > consequences of any act will be, however simple that act.)
> >
> > "Gerontion" on the page has no meaning whatever -- literally it is
> > unintelligible, and in gaily disregarding that and pursuing the
> > figurative meanings of a non-existen literal meaning you show
> yourself
> > utterly blind to all the tough issues of the hermeneutic circel.
> >
> > So let's rehearse. You cannot begin to speculate on the non-literal
> > meaning of a word until you have (at least provisonally) construed
> the
> > inconstruable, the word's _literal_ 'meaning,' that is, until you
> have
> > somehow decoded thos strange marks on the page. For example, I'm a
> bit
> > confused aboaut the lemon juice your refer to in the first line of
> > your
> > post. It makes little s ense to say that the literal was not lemon
> > juice. Perhaps another example hypothetically contrasting the quoted
> > from the unquoted will help here. (You have to remember that Derrida
> > analyzed _some_ spoken language as "written," that is, as text.
> >
> > Suppose you were to hear someone in an auditroum or perhaps off to
> one
> > side in a park singing one of the old Civil-Rights/Union songs --
> say
> > the one with the puzzling lines (when quoted in a text) "Like a tree
> > that's standing by the river / We shall not be moved." It's really a
> > pretty dumb song WHEN QUOTED, AS TEXT -- quoted either on the page
> > or by
> > the group singing it in the park. It not only is pretty banal and
> > unintesting but it is nearly uninntelligible. To make sense of it we
> > are
> > thrown back in the hermeneutic circle of understanding the part
> before
> > we understand it so we can understand the whole so then we can
> > understand the part which we understood before without understanding
> > it.
> > But now let's (in our imagination) move to a location/time when the
> > words were not quoted (even though they were not new but merely
> > recited
> > an older song they were still not text, not quoted) but were mouthed
> > in
> > the fac3 of the fire hoses and the police clubs and dogs by those
> who
> > were, albeit stubbornly, moving, being moved, but continuing to sing
> > "we
> > shal not be moved," like a tree. Now the words are NEITHER litral
> nor
> > metaphorical. There is nothing to construe, no 'literal' and
> > 'non-literal" "meanings" to link together someohow, but an idividble
> > unity of people, firehoses, police dogs, clubs, excited radio
> > reporters,
> > photogrpahers, water running down the gutters, bleeding
> foreheads. . .
> > No text. Nothing quoted.
> >
> Andthereareincidentalllynospacesbetweentheordsforspacesexistonlyintextnotinspeech.
> > I guess you may not have realized that spaces were a code and like
> any
> > code meaningless until the code is broken as it were.
> >
> > The genre of the word "Gerontion" is a title, and titles are empty
> > until completed by the text of
> > which
> > ther are the title. (What is the 'literal' meaning of "his" in the
> > title, "To His Coy Mistress"?) What is the literal meaning of
> > "Paradise
> > Regained" when the story ends with the hero merely returning
> > unobserved
> > to his mother's house. I inquired some weeks ago if anyone cudl link
> > the
> > varus pasages in 4Q to the instruments in a qurtet. Is it a violin,
> > viola, or cello that sounds in theopening lines of Burnt Norton or
> > is it
> > some combination of two or all three of the instruments? No one
> > responded: that is, none of us kows the literal meaning of the title
> > under which the four poems were pbulished. And I've slipped into
> your
> > vocabulary here, for obviously the printed marks (nine of them
> > altogether including the spaces on both sides) don't refer to any
> > instruments but to the quoted word "quartet." I believe Northrop
> Frye
> > called this level, the level in which we have departed from the
> > literal
> > and are focusing on the sign theliteral refers to, as the historical
> > level. So none of us is very sure abut eithr the literal or the
> > historical meaning of this title, and probably before we start
> talking
> > about the symbolic meaning of the phrase we should be a bit more
> > certain
> > aboaut those 'lower' levels.
> >
> > I would suppose the historical meaning of "Gerontion" (looking
> back on
> > it from a prelinary 'reading' of the rest of the pome) has to be a
> > person rather than some unkown speaker Geronting whatever that might
> > be.
> > The text retains its radical undecidability but at least we have a
> > provisonal basis for talking about it with each other. If we start
> > with
> > neither the literal nor the historical meaning and plunge into some
> > alleged symbolic meanign we are poor little sheep who have lost our
> > way.
> > Nothing connects. And while it is true that we will never have more
> > than
> > a provisional and uncertain understanding of the (historical and
> > symbolic) meanings of the whole, we really can't talk abut the
> > (historical) meaning of any one word, including the title) except by
> > referring back to that (provisioal and undecidable) symbolic meaning
> > of
> > the whole. And unless we wish to launch into complete originality
> > (which
> > Eliot notes would be hpelessly unitelligible), we need to start with
> > somethning fairly simple (unlie the quite unimple literal meaning
> and
> > the onl slightly less complex than the historical meaning) -- which
> > wuld
> > seem to be an old frustrated man remembering his many failures to
> act.
> > That's pretty simple, and quite unsatisfactory as an end point of
> our
> > discussion, but it does enable discussion, which any attempt to move
> > from the literal to the symbolic of the title word in isoaltion
> > frustrates.
> >
> > And of course this is what Nancy has been trying to hammer into
> closed
> > ears -- we need a place to start, and playing around with the
> > unintelligible literal meaning of the title by itself frustrates
> even
> > beginning to talk abut the poem.
> >
> > And now you should answer Marcia's quetion: "The chair's leg. A
> > metaphorical usage, don't you think?"
> >
> > Again, a failure to grant the complexity of the literal and
> historical
> > meanings can frustrate discuusion. If we focus on the historical
> > meaning
> > of "chair" by itself we cannot tell whether we are referring to an
> > article of furniture or the Vice President of the United States
> > while he
> > ispresiding over the Senate. If that is the historical meaning here,
> > then, I guess, Marcia is wrong and "leg" is quite non-
> metaphorical. So
> > before we deicde the "literal" or "non-litereral" status of leg we
> do
> > need to decode "chair," which taken by itslef we could not do.
> (Note,
> > there is no problem in speech, with its metaphysics of presence: we
> > are
> > all standing in a room togeher and oneof us points to the chair and
> > notes that the chiar'sleg is scratched. No problem with the Vice
> > President here.) I'll stop here because I can't quite figure out
> even
> > the correct question to ask of "leg." But before say8ing it's all
> > simple, I really think you shouldanswer Marcia's question.
> >
> > Carrolu
> >
> > P.S. I advixe against anyone trying to show familarity with
> Derrida or
> > decosntruction on the basis of my remarks, since I haven't really
> done
> > the homework to cosntru "metaphysics of presence," "radical
> > undecidabilty," "qutation," and "text," which are all technical
> > terms I
> > haven't myself fully mastered at all.
> >
> >
> > DIana Manister wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Carrol,
> >>
> >> Granted that "literal" was not le mot juste for what I was trying
> to
> >> say, but your explication is silly. Being literal does not mean
> >> focussing on the letters in a word. A literal meaning is simply
> >> different from a metaphorical or symbolic meaning.
> >>
> >> Diana
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPod
> >>
> >> On Feb 22, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Diana Manister wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear Nancy,
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it's counterproductive to be strictly literal about
> >>>> meanings
> >>>> in poetry.
> >>>
> >>> Probably not possible. And if one wants to try to be literal, the
> >>> place
> >>> to start is with "literal," which if understood literally means
> >>> focusingon the letters, their sounds, the progression of those
> >>> sounds,
> >>> etc etc. It would be the equivalent of geting so close to Picaso's
> >>> Gurnica that all the lines and shapes disappeared and all one was
> >>> examing were the brush strokes. As soon as you go by that 'level,'
> >>> youcan no longer be literal, for words literally focused on are
> >>> literally unitelligible. Look at "strokes" above. Does it refer to
> >>> strokes of an oar, a medical condition, parts of love-making,
> parts
> >>> of a
> >>> lashing abut the fleet in the Royal Navy of the early 19th-c,
> >>> instances
> >>> (as in "strokes of luck"), a misprint for "sokes" as in "stoes the
> >>> fireplace") or for "spokes" (as in a wheel), and so forth. (These
> >>> are
> >>> the kinds of difficulties, incidentally, that those who cry for a
> >>> "literal" interpretation of the Constituion purposely ignore,
> for to
> >>> take them into consideration is to show their hypocrisy.) To
> escape
> >>> the
> >>> trap of literalism means putting the letters, and thus the word,
> in
> >>> some
> >>> context, that is to identify the genre of the sentence, or larger
> >>> unit,
> >>> in which the word appears. (This is one version of what is called
> >>> the
> >>> hermeneutic circle: one must understand the whole to understand
> the
> >>> parts but the whole can only be understood by understandin the
> >>> words. It
> >>> can be either a vicious or benevolent circle. And at that point it
> >>> really becomes complicated.)
> >>>
> >>> Carrol
> >>>
> >