Print

Print


Words and lines are defined by the context in which they're placed. And
I've given context enough, I'm sure.

CR

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Carrol,
> It's the Fluellen school of theory.
> Nancy
>
> >>> Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>>
> 04/16/14 10:22 AM >>>
> Perhaps if you read the play, you would rethink Hieronymo: he wants to
> kill people. And he does. Their voices are all in different languages so no
> one in the play he's arranging will know that it is a kind of snuff play.
> That this is divine madness is a bit hard on the divine.
>
> The notion that the poem must, somehow, be fit into "a pattern of order"
> has been in question for decades. So I question why making murder into
> divine frenzy is an apt way to do it.
>
> ------------
>
> One might see the reference to Hieronymo, like the reference to the
> Versailles Treaty in the last line, is an implicit recognition that Order
> is a delusion. CR's ruminations remind me of a student in an 18th-c lit
> class who thought The Modest Proposal was evidence of cannibalism among
> Irish peasants. The "logic" is the same: take one element, even one word,
> ignore context, spin a fantasy around that one isolated 'fact,' and then
> see that fantasy as part of the text.
>
> For example: an interpreter interpreting this post could note the word
> "Irish" above, note that there is such a thing as Irish coffee, then use
> the word coffee to arrive at the interesting conclusion that Cox has
> written a comparative study of the economies of Brazil and Cuba: they both
> grow coffee. THEN that same adventurous interpreter could note that this
> post occurs in a thread on TWL and triumphantly announce that TWL is an Ode
> to Decaf.
>
> It's a promising technique.
>
> Carrol
>