Wednesday, April 16, 2008

A Plethora of Interpretations




The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot has been deconstructed, analyzed, and interpreted several times over. There are whole articles dedicated to lines, words, or allusions in the poem and it appears that each has his own "meaning" to tack on to the poem.

Here is a page of a website dedicated solely to several different interpretations of the poem. J. Hillis Miller focuses on the contradicting cases of the verbs in the poem and interprets this as a way in which the poet has imprisoned Prufrock in "an opaque sphere." Furthermore, since tense is interchangeable this leads to the conclusion that time is frozen as Prufrock debates whether to speak or not and thus "Space must be exterior to the self if movement through it is to be more than the following of a tedious argument in the mind. In the same way only an objective time can be other than the self, so that the flow of time can mean change for that self." What does this mean to the reader? To you? If anything, Miller's convoluted way of speaking detracts from the poem and confuses the reader even more than before. 

Similarly focusing on the grammar of the poem, John Paul Riquelme focuses on the use of the words "I" and "you." He argues that the "I" alienates the reader because "In many dramatic monologues the listener is. . .not specified, and the reader is invited to take over the role of listener in a one-sided conversation." In this case, the reader is kept from doing this. In contrast, when "you" is used it addresses the reader directly and draws them into the poem while at the same time distancing them from personal connection with the main character of Prufrock. Why would a writer wish to distance the reader from his work? Mutlu Blasing speculates that Eliot's own physical and psychological identity were compacted into J. Alfred Prufrock. If this were the case and Prufrock were a representation of Eliot, does this not deter the reader from making any emotional connection with the piece? What Riquelme and Blasing fail to address is how the word "I" when used within poetry and fiction can actually draw the reader into the writing because it assigns the reader the role of being the one speaking. If "I" is not universal to the reader, but is instead T.S. Eliot himself, can the reader ever fully comprehend his state of mind, his emotions, and his thoughts that are expressed in the poem? Sure, we may get a glimpse into the mind of a famous writer, but the complete understanding of ones own mind is reserved for oneself. Thus, assigning the "meaning" of "I" to any one person, whether it be Eliot or Prufrock, denies us the pleasure of connecting to the poem on a deeper, emotional and personal level. Creations such as the following would not be possible if we limited ourselves.




Other essays focus solely on one word or concept within the poem. For example an article by Nathan Cervo analyzes the name "J. Alfred Prufrock" itself in order to conclude that the poem and the character's name allude to Shakespeare's character Touchstone, from As You Like It. He then continues on listing ways in which the words of Touchstone are alluded to in Eliot's poem. For example, he parallels the event of Touchstone rebuking the song of two pages to that of Prufrock ignoring the "mermaids singing each to each." There is no question that Eliot alludes to many different historical events, people and writings within the poem--he mentions Michelangelo, Prince Hamlet, and Lazarus as well as uses a quote from Dante to offset the poem. However, when critics delve into these different allusions, as in the above case, they detract from the magic of the poem itself. They choose to focus on one thing. Why? Maybe it is just too difficult to focus on the whole. If one were to ponder whether or not knowing these allusions existed made the poem more enjoyable to read most likely one would find that it does no such thing. I cannot say I am more able to enjoy this poem knowing the "meaning" behind Prufrock's name, but I can say that it does seem to shed some light on the writer's intentions. Maybe to those who need it, this kind of analysis makes the simple (or convoluted) beauty and genius of the poem more understandable, relatable, and operable. Personally, I find it can detract from the magic of the words. Allusions are just passing references to which one may nod in recognition if desired, but they are not the key to understanding the work and they certainly have no bearing on our initial reaction to the work. Art is meant to transmit ideas through our most basic instincts; to connect creator and viewer through a sensual and emotional experience. This experience is taken away when we focus too much on the semantics and the details rather than on the piece as a whole and our personal reaction to it. Similar to when we force a narrative on The Mona Lisa so that we may understand it, when we focus on these details in Eliot's poem we lose sight of the art because we wish to "understand the meaning behind it" and thus lose the pleasure of simply enjoying the art for itself. How one connects with the art and why is for the individual to understand.



I find that focusing on form rather than content in this case is more rewarding because it is easier to comprehend and to make a connection with. T.S. Eliot is a poet whose poetry I never quite understood. Regardless of this, he remains one of my favorite poets, and this my favorite of his poems. I connect with this poem solely on a sensual level. The flow of the piece and the imagery it awakens in my mind are so powerful that tears often well up in my eyes when reading it. Are these images the ones Eliot intended to invoke? I have no way of knowing. All I know is that they come alive because of the words he chooses and where he places them, where he breaks the line and where he breaks the stanza. Difficult to understand? Maybe. Standing alone, without analysis or interpretation, however, this poem is beautiful regardless of what it "means."

Sometimes creative genius cannot be understood or interpreted; it can only be enjoyed and appreciated and FELT.