Can anyone clear this up for me? Thanks.
― a student, Monday, 25 April 2005 20:54 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 25 April 2005 21:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― Aimless (Aimless), Monday, 25 April 2005 21:28 (eighteen years ago) link
There is certainly evidence that he's anxious about growing old. (HINT: It's somewhere in the line that goes "I grow old, I grow old"
― Hurting (Hurting), Monday, 25 April 2005 22:25 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ken L (Ken L), Monday, 25 April 2005 22:49 (eighteen years ago) link
― jed_ (jed), Monday, 25 April 2005 23:34 (eighteen years ago) link
― a student, Monday, 25 April 2005 23:50 (eighteen years ago) link
2) If so, are you an English major?
If so, you need to work a little harder on the dang thing instead of asking us to tell you the answer. I'm not your TA, I'm just a guy who went to college a couple of years ago and majored in English. I'm happy to help, but I'm not going to give the whole thing away. Give me something more specific here. Just telling you whether or not the guy is "insecure" isn't really going to help you understand the poem that much better anyway.
― Hurting (Hurting), Monday, 25 April 2005 23:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 00:14 (eighteen years ago) link
(But if you can argue that you're right, you win, which is really the point anyway)
― Jordan (Jordan), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 00:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 00:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― Jordan (Jordan), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 00:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 00:40 (eighteen years ago) link
― a student, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:06 (eighteen years ago) link
i think you should maybe take an engineering course or something.
― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:16 (eighteen years ago) link
-- a student (blahblahbla...), April 26th, 2005.
Dude, it's "in THE room" not "in MY room." And why would all these chicks be talking about Michaelangelo while he bones them?
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:17 (eighteen years ago) link
1997: "Boom boom boom, let's go back to my room."
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:22 (eighteen years ago) link
― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:22 (eighteen years ago) link
― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:34 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ken L (Ken L), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:54 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 02:03 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ken L (Ken L), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 02:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 08:20 (eighteen years ago) link
I think that this discussion of the poem is too naturalistic or narrative-based. Much more is going on in its language. Perhaps I am stating the obvious, or occluding the necessary.
― the bluefox, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 14:39 (eighteen years ago) link
The pinefox is correct, yes.
― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 15:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 15:43 (eighteen years ago) link
Well, I don't think there's much of a "discussion of the poem" going on here, but I think I do know what you mean. But I am a staunch believer that one has to firmly grasp the narrative elements before one can examine what else the language does. For example, I think it's essential to realize that the line "Do I dare eat a peach?" is about growing old and worrying about teeth (or false teeth? I forget if that would be accurate for the time) falling out when one eats a peach. But the peach seems to have symbolism beyond that.
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 20:50 (eighteen years ago) link
Wow, I have never thought about any potential "symbolism" in the peach; I certainly hope none was intended. Even going so far as noting the similarity between a peach and certain parts of the body reduces the power of that line.
― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 22:12 (eighteen years ago) link
(kidding)
― all man, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 22:16 (eighteen years ago) link
-- Casuistry (chri...), April 26th, 2005.
Maybe "symbolism" is going too far (I don't mean peach=vagina), but eating a peach does at least seem to embody youthful pleasures, lust, etc.
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 22:36 (eighteen years ago) link
I don't know, I still find the line works best if means he's so waif he's worried about being brought down by a simple piece of fruit. But maybe there is a great "youth"/"peach" connection I'm not thinking of. (I mean, it's not hard to invent why there might be one, but was the connection actually there, or did Eliot make us consider it?)
― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:32 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:38 (eighteen years ago) link
but also the peach skin maybe refers back to
and i have known the arms already, known them all--arms that are braceleted and white and bare(but in the lamplight downed with light brown hair!)
― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:44 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:54 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:56 (eighteen years ago) link
― jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 00:00 (eighteen years ago) link
I've always assumed he's about Eliot's age was when he wrote the poem: 22.
― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 02:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― debden, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 07:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― debden, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 07:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 07:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 07:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― the bellefox, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 09:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 09:27 (eighteen years ago) link
I'm sure there's a whole dissertation to be written about peaches in literature/popular culture cf Prufrock, Jimmy Corrigan, James and the Giant Peach, The Stranglers, um, the Presidents of the United States of America. Etc.
― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 09:42 (eighteen years ago) link
― k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 11 August 2005 16:34 (eighteen years ago) link
Mark Adkinsmsadkins04@yahoo.com
― Mark Adkins, Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 11 August 2005 19:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 11 August 2005 19:20 (eighteen years ago) link
― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 11 August 2005 19:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 20:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 11 August 2005 20:24 (eighteen years ago) link
In a recent interview, noted contemporary poet David Berman claims that TS Eliot's seminal modernist poem "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" is the "Stairway to Heaven" of twentieth century. In fact, the ontological intention behind the poem could be nothing further from this assessment. While Berman's rockist assertion aligns Prufrock with the more or less progressive rock band Led Zeppelin, Eliot instead meant his poem to stand as orphic warning about the evils of progressive rock. Eliot offers Prufrock as a prophetic allegory of the aging prog rock movement whose increasingly banal self-regard betrays the moral bankruptcy of their chief appeal: arrogant virtuosity. In this article I demostrate that Eliot's elliptical lines forecast the minimalism of punk even as Prufrock himself is autopsized as a somnambulent dinosaur prog rock corpse.
― Nobodaddy, Thursday, 11 August 2005 23:56 (eighteen years ago) link
In a recent interview, noted contemporary poet David Berman claims that TS Eliot's seminal modernist poem "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" is the "Stairway to Heaven" of twentieth century American poetry. In fact, the ontological intention behind the poem could be nothing further from this assessment. While Berman's rockist assertion aligns Prufrock with the more or less progressive rock band Led Zeppelin, Eliot instead meant his poem to stand as orphic warning about the evils of progressive rock. Eliot offers Prufrock as a prophetic allegory of the aging prog rock movement whose increasingly banal self-regard betrays the moral bankruptcy of their chief appeal: arrogant virtuosity. In this article I demostrate that Eliot's elliptical lines forecast the minimalism of punk even as Prufrock himself is autopsized as a somnambulent dinosaur prog rock corpse.
― Nobodaddy, Thursday, 11 August 2005 23:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― Nobodaddy, Thursday, 11 August 2005 23:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― as it clung to her thigh I started to cry (pr00de), Friday, 12 August 2005 00:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― as it clung to her thigh I started to cry (pr00de), Friday, 12 August 2005 00:29 (eighteen years ago) link
― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 12 August 2005 02:33 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 12 August 2005 03:11 (eighteen years ago) link
I think, like others above, that this is only one (probably 'wrong') interpretation. To me the exclamation mark is revelation, not dismay. And yes, nabisco, I totally associate the peach with the fuzz of arm hair too. It's not so much a defect as something that is always there but not always revealed, it's the exciting and tactile reality/corporality as opposed to the mere surface.
― Archel (Archel), Friday, 12 August 2005 08:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 12 August 2005 09:44 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 12 August 2005 11:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 12 August 2005 12:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 12 August 2005 18:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 12 August 2005 21:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 12 August 2005 21:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Saturday, 13 August 2005 03:31 (eighteen years ago) link
Hurting, do you have your "show LoChris, If it is obvious to me, then it is obvious to everyone that your educational credentials are woefully inadequate for the moderation of this board. I suggest you resign immediately and turn over the keys to one of the recently arrived eggheads.
Hurting, do you have your "show Username" option checked?
― k/l (Ken L), Saturday, 13 August 2005 03:48 (eighteen years ago) link
Anyway, just joshing, Chris.Just kidding, Josh.
― k/l (Ken L), Saturday, 13 August 2005 03:49 (eighteen years ago) link
― the bellefox, Monday, 15 August 2005 12:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― John (jdahlem), Monday, 15 August 2005 12:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― John (jdahlem), Monday, 15 August 2005 12:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― David A. (Davant), Wednesday, 17 August 2005 05:27 (eighteen years ago) link
"The poem seems pretty obsessed with 'mundane existance', and thisseems to be where many of the narrator's anxieties lie: There are ...oyster shells...standing water, soot-filled chimneys, make up, toast and tea, stairs to walk down...coats, neckties, and tie pins..."
What an amusing misrepresentation. It's as if a robot, asked to comment on the meaning of a play, reeled off a list of the props.
Casuistry: "[These things are] much more present in the poem than a few tossed off allusions to Dante."
Those things are the outer trappings, the background, like props in a play. The quote from Dante occupies a prominent place at the start of the poem precisely because it foreshadows the poem's content.
The rest of your comments are equally inane and I shall ignore them.
― Mark Adkins, Friday, 14 October 2005 14:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 14 October 2005 16:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― tom west (thomp), Friday, 14 October 2005 17:27 (eighteen years ago) link
Hm, I'm beginning to understand why this interpretation appeals to you!
Anyway, mostly I'm pleased that you took the time to elide my quote in a seemingly random but time-consuming fashion.
― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 14 October 2005 17:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― tom west (thomp), Friday, 14 October 2005 23:49 (eighteen years ago) link
― the pr00de abides (pr00de), Saturday, 15 October 2005 01:11 (eighteen years ago) link
http://www.videovista.net/articles/starman.jpg
― Josh (Josh), Saturday, 15 October 2005 03:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hurting (Hurting), Saturday, 15 October 2005 03:21 (eighteen years ago) link
― Kal-El 9000 (Ken L), Saturday, 15 October 2005 07:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Wednesday, 22 February 2006 15:54 (eighteen years ago) link
― Paul Eater (eater), Wednesday, 22 February 2006 22:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Wednesday, 22 February 2006 23:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 22 February 2006 23:25 (eighteen years ago) link
― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Wednesday, 22 February 2006 23:42 (eighteen years ago) link
― Rockist_Scientist (RSLaRue), Friday, 24 February 2006 02:47 (eighteen years ago) link
― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 27 February 2006 11:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 27 February 2006 15:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Monday, 27 February 2006 19:37 (eighteen years ago) link
― James Morrison (JRSM), Thursday, 7 September 2006 06:02 (seventeen years ago) link
― tom west (thomp), Thursday, 7 September 2006 10:00 (seventeen years ago) link
I was lead here by the Random Homework Googler Memorial thread.
Beth's discussion of the dead things on the beach seems more interesting than the entire preceding discussion of Prufrock. She was one of the good ones.
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Sunday, 20 November 2016 00:44 (seven years ago) link