Much my own take. Interesting how E's poetry becomes a filter for each reader's perception of the whole thing. It's as if the reader is looking into a mirror without realising it. That is one reason why I like CR's quotes of various passages. They make me aware of how my reading of them has changed.

I do not have much wander lust but there were certain things, only a few, that I wanted to see. David was one of them. It helped me considerably to make sense of Prufock. Two masterpieces intertwined.

A holy & happy Easter everyone.
I recommend the Pope app. for an incredible phantasmagoria of the Joly Father. Very human!


Ken A. typed:
Interesting. I've always read it as a slam on Prufrock's stifled sensibility. Seems to me that everything in the poem is as it is there in relation to Prufrock's condition. We're not getting an objective view or Eliot's view; we're getting the world according to Prufrock, and he is threatened by the women's talk of Michelangelo. He is hugely attracted to them, but does not see them seeing him in the same light and is unable to come to terms with his attraction to them. He sees them unknowingly as separate beings from himself and therefore doesn't grasp the significance of arms downed with light brown hair. The moment he turns away, alarmed, from those hairy arms to speculations about perfume, he loses what could have been his salvation and spirals on down to his imagined integration with the arthropods. It's a comedy. But it's Prufrock who's being roasted at his own pity party.

 Ken A