C> Hypothesizing narrative events (and in this case a rather
C> dramatic one) not presented in the text seems simply
C> off the radar screen to me. It bears a rather exact analogy
C> to conspiracy theories in reference to major historical events
C> such as Pearl Harbor, the assassination of Kennedy, or 911.
That's quite a sweeping dismissal of the evidence I wrote about (such as the Eugenides lines positioned between two rape scenes). Oh well: I guess one person's reading is another's assinine "conspiracy theory".
By the way, in the facsimile edition, what do you make of the lines about the ghastly hill of Cannon Street and the flying feet? Why is Cannon Street 'ghastly' (the only other reference to 'Cannon Street' being the Eugenides lines) and why is the narrator running away?
-- Tom --
> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 15:16:13 -0500 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Mr. Eugenides > To: [log in to unmask] > > David Boyd wrote: > > > > Diana > > > > Wouldn't see Eugenides as a rapist at all - just as another example of > > dysfunctional / broken sexual relationships. > > The usual problem for the literary interpreter is not to supply > narrattive events not specifically indicated in the text but to explore > the social, moral, what-have-you _significance_ of the narrative that is > given. Hypothesizing narrative events (and in this case a rather > dramatic one) not presented in the text seems simply off the radar > screen to me. It bears a rather exact analogy to conspiracy theories in > reference to major historical events such as Pearl Harbor, the > assassination of Kennedy, or 911. There is an obvious narrative, with > missing links as is always the case, and a need to explain that > narrative, relating it to other events in the world. The cibsouracust > rejects this and creates a unique narrative of his/her own invention, > then explains the meaning of _that_ invented narrative. There is not a > single word in TWL that suggests the need to expand on the narrative as > it is presented. The material presented is rich in possible connections > to other items in the poem. Invention of 'supporting' narratives seems > wholly uncalled for. > > In Pride & Prejudice when Elizabeth's aunt & uncle visit, the aunt first > distributes presents. The sort of detail that occur in all novels and > have no particular signifivcance. The conpsiracist can of course decide > arbitrarily that the mention of Christmas must be of great portent, but > that to explore this one must posit some accident in the aunt's > chldhood that must be detailed in order to establish the meaning that > she should first distribute gifts on arriving. No narrative ever has > been or can be written in which every word iss portentious. There is > plenty to talk about in TWL without inventing supplementary narrativesd. > > Carrol
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get started.