Talk:The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock/Archive 1

Archive 1

The New Version

I have rewritten the article's section of interpretation of the poem from a more NPOV, with numreous citations. I have also added a section on the poem's use of literary allusion. It could still use some work, but I think it is definately an improvment. --Samael775 02:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job. Well done! Stumps 08:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

RV POV

I have removed the following text from the page, as I felt that it was POV. "There is irony in the name "J. Alfred Prufrock" as it starts out somewhat pompous but "Prufrock" lends a comedic element to the name rather than one of dignity.

The is further irony in the "Love Song" portion of the title as Prufrock never states a love nor does he imagine the mermaids at the end of the poem singing to him." --Samael775 18:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

wikisource

im sorry, this is probably a stupid question which has already come up, but, is it possible for us to post the entire poem on wikisource? i imagine any copyright on it would be expired, and obviously a link to the entire text would be very relevant to the article. Benji64 01:36, 21September 2006 (UTC)

The copyright has expired in the U.S. at least. Also, for confirmation, Project Gutenberg has published the poem and they are very careful about copyright infringement. WikiParker 10:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

gahh im sorry, i was the one who made the ill-fated attempt to link the article in wikisource...i just couldnt get the damn thing to work right, and i dont know why. perhaps someone more knowledgeable in these matters could set the link up, because the text is definitely available in wikisource. Benji64 01:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Eliot died in 1965, meaning the copyright don't expire until 2035 in Europe.

Middle-aged ??

Do virtually all commentators agree that the character is middle-aged?? I dimly recall reading a good case for the voice being that of a young man as Eliot was, frustrated amidst the stifling conventions of the society of his time. Dylan Thomas says something in one of his letters about feeling old as only the young can. We at least need some citations to back up a statement like "Virtually all critics agree". Stumps 08:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I seemed to think that that was a given, and I didn't read anything contesting it, but I guess there is really nothing about the poem that is not debated. I will try find sources for different arguments about this when I get back from Minnesota next week. --Samael775 17:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pound wrote a poem at thirty memorializing his youth. This one is Eliot's. Lifespan was shorter then and perceived to be shorter still, especially by a newly thirty year old boy who thinks he's smarter than everyone he meets. I think it's absolutely clear where Eliot stands in this poem as regards his age.

I don't know that the consensus is wide enough to make a statement like "virtually all critics agree". I'd also be curious to know whether Eliot ever addressed this question, or whether this view is built up solely out of internal evidence from the poem -- the bald spot, "I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker", "I grow old" etc. --Rrburke 17:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any sources which refute that he is middle aged, but I have toned down the language a bit. --Samael775 03:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

As this text is completely unsourced, as well as reading like an essay, I am removing until it can be cleaned up and sources provided:

Eliot managed to place so many literary and philosophical allusions to his poem that it is impossible to even count them, let alone to take down on such a small space. The poem is in the form of a dramatic monologue, which might be the first allusion, while the master of this style was Robert Browning, whose most famous work is “My Last Duchess ”. The original title of Browning's poem was “Italy”, which is one of the first references to this country and its art indicated in Eliot's poem. Next important thing is that the speaker of the monologue is very probably Alfonso II., the 16th century duke of Ferrara . The name Alfonso cannot but remind us of the name Alfred, who speaks in The Love Song.

Alfonso talks to a messenger of a Count, whose daughter he intends to marry, about a picture of his former wife. During the whole poem, nevertheless, the reader has the idea that the duke speaks to him and only near the very end he realizes that it is the messenger whom Alfonso speaks to. On the other hand, Alfred also speaks to someone, as in the very first line of the poem he says “Let us go then, you and I”, but we do not find explicitly said who it is.

This question brings us to the epigraph of the poem, a passage from Dante's Divine Comedy, left in in Italian. Guido da Montefeltro says in this passage that if he thought Dante was able to return from the hell to the earth, he would never say a single word to him. Guido, however, supposes that it is impossible to go back, so he will answer his questions without fear of disgrace.

We can take this allusion as a metaphor and the answer to our question. Prufrock might state by using this quotation the definition of his ideal reader or companion, who can listen to his 'love song' and not tell anyone what he heard. It also suggests that what we are going to hear is something very personal and that Alfred would be embarrassed if it was heard by foreign people.

In The Divine Comedy it is clearly Vergil who tells Dante to follow him to the hell, nonetheless the situation is complicated by Eliot. It might be a friend of his who Prufrock wants to share his desperate feelings with, it can be the lady whom he would like to express his devotion to, his schizophrenic ego , which would correspond to the definition of the ideal listener or a combination of these. Each would make sense, but a clear proof of one possibility can be found with difficulty. The scheme of The Divine Comedy can be seen even in the vertical direction of Prufrock. We start “...When the evening is spread out against the sky...” and finish on the bottom of the sea when “...we drown.” Although Dante also finishes on the bottom (though of the hell), he then climbs up to the purgatory and finally reaches the paradise, which is a diametrically different ending providing his protagonist with endless hope. There is nothing like this waiting for Prufrock in the end. The second biggest group of allusions are those deriving inspiration from Shakespeare. When Eliot says “..No! I am not prince Hamlet...” in the second half of the poem, it is one of the rare allusions expressed very explicitly and the similarity of hesitation and indecision is unexceptionable. Nonetheless, Hamlet was at the end forced to decide and to act, even though improvising, while it is still something Prufrock was unable to do and that is may be, why he likens himself rather to Polonius. He names all his characteristics, which truly correspond to Alfred too. The difference is that Polonius would never honestly characterize himself so accurately, whilst Prufrock, on the other hand, might see himself in a too bad light. Hamlet's greatest question is reminded to us twice by an unobtrusive echo of his famous statement: “To be or not to be... ” , when Prufrock says close to his explicite reference “...nor was meant to be..” and “..glad to be of use...” as well as when he mentions his “overwhelming question” several times throughout the poem.

When we then look at lines 52-53, we find a beautiful allusion to another Shakespeare's play – Twelfth Night or, What You Will . It is right in the opening scene when Orsino, the Duke of Illyria says: If music be the food of love, play on, Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting, the appetite may sicken, and so die. That strain again!It had a dying fall; (...) O spirit of love, how quick and fresh art thou, That, notwithstanding thy capacity, receiveth as the sea .

Eliot made of it: “I know the voices dying with a dying fall/ Beneath the music from a farther room.” The similarity is almost surprising – the themes of music and the “dying fall” repeated in such a close distance. In Shakespeare's play love lives from illusions for such a long time that in the end, it becomes an illusion itself . We can assume that Prufrock also believed for a very long time that he was in love with someone, but once he was not able to tell her (if he really loved her, which is a different question), his love has actually become just an illusion as such. As for the image of the sea in Orsino's speech and in the whole play in general, it is again very akin to Eliot's poem. The sea represents a greedy creature which gluttonies everything and leaves nothing behind , which is exactly where Eliot's poem heads – to the bottom of the ocean. Other reference to Shakespeare can be found near the end of the poem when Prufrock says:

I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think that they will sing to me.

I have seen them riding seaward on the waves Combing the white hair of the waves blown back.

While in the Midsummer night's dream Oberon says to Puck: ...Since once I set upon a promontory and heard a mermaid on a dolphin's back uttering such a dulcet and harmonious breath that the rude sea grew civil at her song and certain stars shot madly from their spheres to hear the sea-maid's music.

In Elizabethan England, mermaids were generely connected to prostitutes so what Eliot might be hinting at are the female attributes, which are linked to a mermaid. She used to be a goddess of fertility and was later united with the goddess of love, Aphrodite, born from the wave foam. Her attributes were mirror, the symbol of vanity, long hair as an abundant love potential and a comb, which carried sexual connotations for the Greeks, as their words for comb, kteis and pecten, also signified the female vulva . While Shakespeare did not use the image of the comb in his text, Eliot did so, and thus the mermaid can be seen as a link between passion and destruction and it, therefore, fits perfectly at the end of the poem. Prufrock finally realized that he would simply never belong to the women's world, that he will be never able to express his feelings and somehow drowns in the sea. This is actually again an allusion to Shakespeare, since also Ophelia dies by drowning partly due to her unrequited love to Hamlet.

Quite interesting is also the change of a dolphin in Shakespeare to a wave in Eliot. In mythology, the dolphin was a symbol of fair sailing and a sacred companion of goddess Aphrodite . Waves, on the other hand do not have any sacred meaning, so the possible hope for Prufrock is not left there and so even this circumstance says he is doomed to fail.

Another work of art which Eliot used as his inspiration is Andrew Marvell's To His Coy Mistress . Marvell is trying to persuade his lady to make love to him because their time on the earth is limited and they should, therefore, make the best of it. Marvell's speaker says: “Had we but World enough, and Time” which Eliot echoes in his various statements about time. Prufrock is convinced that he will have enough time to express his feelings, and postpones the moment when he should act, which is a great ironical echo.

Another proof that Eliot was influenced by To His Coy Mistress can be seen when Alfred says: “Would it have been worth while, (...)/ To have squeezed the universe into a ball/ to roll it toward some overwhelming question”, while in Marvell we read: “Let us roll all our Strength, and all /our sweetness, up into one Ball;” Marvell's speaker is very confident that rolling everything he has, thereby his very own universe, into a ball will help his mistress to decide and act. Prufrock, however, again hesitates, asks for justification and once more finishes with his overwhelming question without any resolution. Then, there is a beautiful allusion to Jules Laforgues's poem Sunday . The images of water, loneliness, indifference, dullness and a suicide by drowning of an anonymous ward are undoubtedly very similar and beautifully echoed in Eliot. Laforgue managed to state the great seclusion on a minimal space, also starting in the sky and finishing in the river.

The difference between them, among other things, lies in the point of view of the narrator: Laforgue describes the girl's action quite indifferently through his eyes, while Eliot uses the ich form to narrate. Then there is the question, which of them evokes more sympathy in the reader? In my opinion, the rigorous poem by Laforgue succeeded in this more then Eliot's speaker. Firstly, we do not know why the ward was so desperate, but her reasons would obviously be quite understandable. On the other hand, we are familiar with Prufrock's situation but he is not described as a very attractive protagonist. His passivity in fact creates quite negative reactions in the reader, which was very probably Eliot's aim but also something Laforgue did not want to achieve.

In another Laforgue's poem, Derniers Vers IX , the aspect of fictitious imagination corresponds to that by Eliot. The lyrical subject imagines that an attractive girl comes to his apartment to express her hidden feelings for him and is terrified by the possibility of his rejection, which is the exact opposite of Prufrock, where he imagines himself expressing his feelings. Laforgue stresses here the image of eyes, as the girl watches the speaker all the time almost in a mad way. Eliot does actually the same to Prufrock, but the eyes that watch him are even more aggressive, as they are able to “fix you in a formulated phrase...”

We could go on, naming and interpreting all the other allusions hidden in Prufrock, but I will stop here and due to the limited space will leave the rest out. When one reads the poem for the first time, he very probably misses the great majority of them. The only references stated really explicitly are those to Michelangelo and Hamlet. The Renaissance genius and author of the David is such a great opposite to imperfect Prufrock. With these you dispense with various meta texts, but otherwise, you do need them.

The poem is understandable if you are not familiar with Dante, John Donne or the Bible. You comprehend the narrative plane of the poem without understanding the majority of the allusions. However, what you do not get is the uncountable number of hints and hidden senses. These are what makes the poem so wonderful and what invites you to read it again and again. You simply never know, which allusion you will discover and which will put The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock into a different light for you.

--Samael775 03:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Alman brothers reference?

Is the Allman Brothers reference REALLY necessary? C'mon, the band completely deny it, and there's documentation (an interview) of Duane saying "every time I'm in Georgia, I eat a peach for peace." It's a lovely coincidence, but a coincidence nonetheless. Duane was a hell of a guitarist but I highly doubt he even knew who T.S. Elliot was. Fishanthrope 16:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed this, as it does seem apocryphal. Telemachus

A number of the pop culture refs seem to be stretching a bit, and VERY few of them are sourced. The Allman ref seems to have returned (I assume the one there now is the one y'all were talking about), and I'm skeptical of the ref to the Rush song... I mean, "That's not what I meant at all" is a pretty common English phrase, so unless there's a real reason to see it as a reference to the poem, I'd say that one should be removed. Unfortunately I'm just not knowledgeable enough to revamp that section, but I'd suggest that it needs revamping. Hierophany 11:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references

How about moving the popular culture references to a new page Cultural references to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock ... along the lines of the emerging standard in pages such as Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great, Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh, and Cultural depictions of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. It has the advantage of allowing more space for a fuller treatment of references in popular culture and also 'de-clutters' the main article so it can focus on the actual poem, the circumstances of its writing, critical responses to it, and the history of its publication. Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc became a featured list. See the category Category:In popular culture for a complete list of similar articles. I'm happy to do the work of moving things across if others agree that this might be a productive way forward. Stumps 12:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that having just one for Eliot would be enough with sections for the topics that tend to gather these items (e.g., LSJAP, TWL). WikiParker 15:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've created it at Cultural references to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and transplanted the current section. Swakeman 05:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Addition coming

I am currently working on a research paper on T.S. Eliot, focusing on "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" i will add my interpretation of the poem to the article when it is completed. Please let me know of any errors in my post, as i am new at this.

• I'm afraid you can't post your personal interpretation of the poem, as that is original research unless you can support it with reliable sources or your paper has been published by one. --Samael775 00:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• your opinion has to be published in order to be valid? that's ridiculous... no wonder there's only one interpretation; nobody's going to dedicate however many years of his/her life going through the administrative processes of getting published for a wikipedia article. I say if you have a different way of interpreting the poem, post it.

• Material must be verifiable and sources should be cited; if you're interpretation is new and interesting you should have no problem getting it published elsewhere; if it is not genuinely new, then we should cite the original source of the interpretation. Stumps 09:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Stumps, you appearently know little about academic life. A new interpretation of a classic would hardly be considered interesting enough to be published, unless you're already an Oxford or Yale professor... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.14.8.228 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Removed Section

I've removed the "Words" section as it seems to break the flow of the piece, contains a couple of famous quotes ... but the text of the whole poem is linked ... and repeats information re Dante dealt with in more detail later in the article. I don't think the number of lines is particularly significant. I've pasted everything here. It would, I suppose, be possible to work this stuff in to the article in a more integrated fashion. Removed section starts here ...

The one hundered and thirty-one line poem begins with an epigraph in Italian from Dante's inferno and then reads,

LET us go then, you and I,
When the evening is spread out against the sky

The poem ends with,

We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown

Till human voices wake us, and we drown.

... end of removed section. Stumps 05:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel as though this section provides an excellent addition to the article, even though the poem can be found in the links. I think it should be returned to the article, as it benefits the flow and provides insight to those who may not be familiar with the poem. leontes 05:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: perhaps the section could be included between the section on the epigraph and the interpretation? It would certainly fit more into the flow that way. leontes 06:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotes are worth working into the article, but I think we need to have a reason for including them, rather than just saying "here's a bit of the poem". Perhaps we could include them IN the interpretation section, or in a section on the technical aspects of the verse. Stumps 07:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I see for including the section is to give readers a sense of breath and opening and closing of how the poem feels. The quotations are not just neato parts, but are the opening and closing stanzas. I think it's important to include for individuals to be educated or reminded and reinforced to the tone, nature and strucutre of the work. I think infusing them into the intpretation and technical aspects of the verse belies the main purpose of their would be inclusion. leontes 12:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still having trouble understanding the 'gist' of the section. Maybe we could start by agreeing on a good heading ... I felt that "Words" was a bit strange. I think "sense of breath" and "how the poem feels" sounds like it's something to do with technique ... the vowel-echoes between "let" "when" "spread" "against" and the rhyme of "I" and "sky" set-up a complex counterpoint which goes a long way to creating the musical effect of the lines ... we could probably find some reliable source that discusses this aspect of the poem. Is that close to what you are getting at? Stumps 03:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I really should read more closely what I post. I meant the breadth, not breath of the piece. What I think is important is presenting something of the structure of the poem. Including the beginning, the end, and the line count lets people know what the poem ocnsists of. The title of "poem structure" "structure", maybe something like that perhaps? leontes 04:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I like "Structure" as a heading ... we could then have "Title" and "Epigraph" as subheadings of that perhaps. I'll have a bit more of a think about it. Stumps 05:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

British or American spelling?

This article has "etherized" in the famous opening lines of Prufrock. The main T. S. Eliot article has "etherised". Which did Eliot actually write? MCB 00:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

My copy of the poem, from T. S. Eliot: Selected Poems, says 'etherised', so I'll change this article to reflect that. splintax ^(talk) 13:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting aside on this. My Copy ('T. S. Eliot: Collected Poems' in Folio) uses 'etherised', but in 'Conversation Galante' 'humour' is spelt in the American fashion ("You, madam, are the eternal humorist..."). MJSchofield 17:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

He's an American though...Cameron Nedland 00:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Eliot was born an American, but lived in Britain when the poem was published. It was first published by an American magazine; then by a British book publisher. It's probable that the two versions are different. Eliot might have changed it himself. But it's also probable that both these two, as well as later publishers have changed the spelling to their own taste. Besides, differences between US and UK English were not necessarily the same 90 year ago as they are today. Unless you've got access to the first two publications, as well as Eliot's manuscript(s), you'll have to rely on a text-critical study on the poem to sort things like that out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.14.8.228 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

The only insight I can offer is that the English spelling (etherised) is used in my Complete Works of T.S. Eliot, even though it was printed in the US. But especially in the light that Eliot was such an Anglophile, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet to keep with the English spelling. Vendretta 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Who called the poem "absolutely insane"?

A magazine editor Pound showed Prufrock to when he was shopping it around for publication pronounced the poem "absolutely insane". Does anyone recall who the editor was? --Rrburke 17:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

• That would be Harold Monro. LordRobert 07:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Harold Monro, however included Eliot in his Poets in Twentieth Century Poetry, an Anthology chosen by Harold Monro, 1933 edition

Proust and Prufrock?

I find it odd that in the "time verse" (And indeed there will be time / for the yellow smoke...) he uses the word "time" 7 times and then brings up "toast and tea" is it possible that Eliot had read Swann's Way? Woolf commented on it, but I'm not sure if it was after this period or not.Agreatguy6 06:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Though not published until 1915 LSJAP was essential completed in the summer of 1911. This was before the publication of Swann's Way. Time was a favorite topic of Eliot's and in his year in Paris that saw the completion of LSJAP he attended lectures by Henri Bergson that concerned time. WikiParker 11:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision

Done, it's feeble, but Oh, well I'm not a scientist. (Unsigned post)

Thanks for the start. Do you like the new version? By the way, why don't you register and so we will be able to discuss things easier? Pfortuny 10:24, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yah, it's a lot better now, and it's better redirected too XD, I already registered XD...I dunno a lot about Poems and I didn't know if i could post it..

If you could sign your posts... (just add four "tildes" ~~~~) at the end. Then your name and date will appear. Thx. Pfortuny 12:54, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I know, somebody told me XD Oca 13:05, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

...and revisions, before the taking of a toast and tea? 05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research?

Much of this seems original research, like a critical survey, no? Mandel 02:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• This looks like original research, and it shows only one interpretation of a poem that scholars debate the meaning of. I'll try to find time to overhaul it. --Samael775 02:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it needs an overhaul. I'd be happy to see interpretations included so long as they are properly footnoted. — Stumps 06:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are footnotes currently. I'm an English major at a top tier school who has been through the poem several times. The current 'interpretation' is as coherent an explanation as you're likely to get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishblubistan (talk • contribs) 06:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation

This article's interpretation of the poem is not the only one, and it should be expanded to include other analyses.

I'm wondering if anyone has found any information relating this poem to Alice Through the Looking Glass. In the first stanza (after the quotation from Dante) "And sawdust restaurants with oyster shells:" after reading that line the first thing that came into mind was the Walrus and the Carpenter that Alice hears about from Tweedledee and Tweedledum. I'm wondering if anyone has heard of this allusion? I haven't found any speculation on the matter. Though it is plausible because Alice Through the Looking Glass was published 1871 and Eliot wrote the poem in 1910-1911.

I think you're wrong. In Eliot's days cheap restaurants still had sawdust on their floor because the guests would spit tobacco and threw rubbish all around them. I'm not sure if that kind of restaurants would ever serve oysters. Probably not, making this some sort of paradox... I never saw any connection with Alice. Lewis Carroll usually built his scenes on some well-known English proverb, rhyme or chidren's tale - but I don't know the model for this one. Tweedledee and Tweedledum are only connected to the scene in the Disney movie, as far I my memory goes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.14.8.228 (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Oysters used to be cheap, working class food IIRC. I think, for example, they used to be included in a Lancashire hotpot almost-instinct 14:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you. They're actually still fairly inexpensive to harvest/process. also: Alice in wonderland my ass. that one was published 40 years earlier means nothing. Considering they both talk about the ocean, I suppose this text contains allusions to moby dick? I'm thinking, prolly not so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishblubistan (talk • contribs) 07:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation Section

....doesn't the poem tell us pretty unambiguously not to speculate on this question's nature? And so it seems a bit silly, really, for it to inform the "most significant dispute" (as the article has it) over the poem's meaning.... and just generally, since interpretation of poems and other sorts of art is so personal and esoteric, I can't see how the inclusion of any "Interpretation" section in an encyclopedia entry is at all useful, in the final analysis. Godwallop 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• The interpretation section has been marked for cleanup for over a year. While I don't have a problem with putting interpretations that other significant authors have asserted for this poetic work, as it stands now, the section is far too subjective to be encyclopedic. It needs to be significantly edited or pruned. I'd do it myself, but I don't have any background int his poem or poetry in general. --Lendorien (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Date

If first publication was in 1915 why is the date given as 1917? Bastie (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia allows idiots that don't even bother to read the article change the article. The correct date of first publication is 1915. WikiParker (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

The allusions section has a lot of wording that comes straight from Sound and Sense - An Introduction to Poetry (Laurence Perrine). For example, these quotes are exactly copied from the book: "may be either the beggar Lazarus (of Luke 16) who was not permitted to return from the dead to warn the brothers of a rich man about Hell or the Lazarus (of John 11) whom Christ raised from the dead, or both.", "is John the Baptist, whose head was delivered to Salome by Herod as a reward for her dancing (Matthew14:1-11, and Oscar Wilde's play Salome)." I know it is footnoted as from Perrine, but I would think if it's a direct quote it needs to be either changed or cited as such. I'm not entirely sure what to do though (I'm new to Wikipedia as far as editing goes) so I didn't actually change anything, just pointing that out :) 69.234.128.67 (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Epigraph

In your section on the epigraph of the the poem, you state that in a draft version of the poem Eliot had originally had for an epigraph "'sovegna vos a temps de ma dolor'. Poi s'ascose nel foco che gli affina." Which Eliot apparently translated to mean "'be mindful in due time of my pain'. Then dived he back into that fire which refines them." I am slightly curious as to where this information came from. As there are no direct footnotes indicating where this draft poem could be found. If you could tell me where this information came from it would be greatly appreciated.

````Rockgod214 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgod214 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Added the citation to the main article. It is: T.S. Eliot, Inventions of the March Hare: Poems 1909-1917. Ed Christopher B. Ricks. (Harcourt, 1996) pp. 39, 41 WikiParker (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture

In regard to T. S. Eliot's, The Love Song of Alfred J. Prufrock, I can't understand how the Crash Test Dummies' song, Afternoons and Coffee Spoons managed to be left out of the Cultural or Musical references to this poem. The line is, "Afternoons will be measured out Measured out, measured with Coffee spoons and T.S. Eliot."

https://www.google.com/search?q=lyrics+crash+test+dummies+afternoons+and+coffeespoons&oq=Lyrics+to+Crash+Te&aqs=chrome.5.69i57j0l5.10938j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

Whoever's in charge of edits, could you please add this reference? If you want me to do it, please indicate the section of the page in which you'd like it to appear. (I'm assuming, Popular Culture.)

Thank you.

Duse42

merrywoodesingers@gmail.com

I object to MZMcBride's removal of the popular culture section to a separate article. In general, I am opposed to the existence of most "in popular culture" sections, as they are all too often simply trivial mentions of a topic, with very little substance. The section in this article was, alas, no different, and was in need of serious trimming. Once that is done, and what remains is referenced, it will be a small and manageable section here. There is no need for a separate article. Anyone have any thoughts on this matter? ---RepublicanJacobite<sub>The'FortyFive'</sub> 03:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to imply there's some sort of rush. I think there's sufficient material to create a well-referenced article. (And the article certainly won't be alone in its theme.) I completely agree that the current text is a mess and needs work (esp. references). But I don't see a strong reason to keep it in this article. The article's intro underscores the prominence of the work in culture ("one of the most anthologized," etc.). Your thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that you have responded to my concerns. Actually, nothing that you have said gives me pause to reconsider what I said above. As it stands, if all the trivial information is removed, it could be a small section in this article, rather than a separate article. ---RepublicanJacobite<sub>The'FortyFive'</sub> 15:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that you're making a presumption that action is necessary soon. That is, that the change should be reverted in short order. I'm saying that you should give it a few weeks. If there's no improvement, the page can always be re-merged (this a wiki after all). But I don't see a pressing need to revert this week or anything like that. Rather than focusing on whether the topic deserves a separate topic, perhaps it would be better to help me find sources for some of this material? :-) Regardless of where the topic ends up (in the main article or a sub-article), it will need sources. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I never spoke of time, and I am in no hurry. I posted my message here in order to elicit opinions from other editors. I still hope that people besides you and I will respond on this matter. I am willing to give it time and hear what others think about how we should proceed. ---RepublicanJacobite<sub>The'FortyFive'</sub> 23:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've found 90% of popular culture contributions to be trivia with little or no significance. But they are gold to be be mined by someone doing real research. Leaving them in the main article just attracts more trivia and editing them out just leaves room for them to be re-inserted later. I suggest the practical solution; a separate "X in popular culture" article where a reader will likely be used to seeing trivia lists (but someone could still spent time to make a real article out of the pieces.) WikiParker (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

References Error

I'm not sure how to edit this, but reference 14 is from the comparative literature section of Modern Language Notes, not the journal "Comparative Literature" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.216.163 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Prufrock a "voice"?

The lede says that Prufrock is a "voice." Huh? The poem is not a voice. Is the character a voice? Having no access to the source cited, I cannot say if it actually says that Prufrock or Prufrock is a voice; can somebody check it out, please? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the source says that (it says "the most recognizable voice in 20th-century literature"), but why would it be contentious to call Prufrock a voice? SlimVirgin <sup>TALK|CONTRIBS</sup> 01:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Prufrock furniture store

Earlier today an anonymous submission came in changing the name of the Prufrock-Littau furniture store to Prufrock-Litton. I did a quick check and then reverted the change. I've since changed it back to Prufrock-Litton.

A book search on Google for "T.S. Eliot" and "Prufrock-Littau" brought up about 74 results dating back to at least 1967. A search for "T.S. Eliot" and "Prufrock-Litton" came back with only 2 results. One of these though showed a 1910 advertising postcard with the name of the company embedded in the image of one of the company's showrooms. http://books.google.com/books?id=xFMYa1ZaojUC&pg=PA65

Another search came up with a webpage showing a different pre-1910 advertising postcard showing the company's building. http://postcardparadise.blogspot.com/2010/01/prufrock-litton-st-louis-missouri.html

Another webpage has a photgraph of "Lighting fixture in front of Prufrock-Litton Furniture Company, 420-422 North Fourth Street." http://collections.mohistory.org/photo/PHO:34736

Finally, Find-a-grave has an entry for Harry F Prufrock saying "Son of William and Matilda Prufrock, Husband of Roberta Litton Prufrock Took over his fathers furniture business and upon his marriage to Roberta Litton they merged the 2 companies and it became the Prufrock- Litton Furniture co." http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=70183742

WikiParker (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Citation style proposal

May I suggest the LSJAP and possibly other Eliot works use the user visible citation style currently used in The Waste Land article. That is to say that the text of the citation (and popup when hovering over the superscripted footnote number) be the author's name and page number. For example: "Eliot, 1917, p. 5" or "Gordon, pp. 406-8." In a large section called, e.g., "References" will be a subsection for "Notes and citations" and one for "cited works" (and possibly "Further reading", etc.)

The advantages are: (1) When editing the text of the article the citation between the start and end ref markup is really short and easy to put in. No long citation style or template breaking up the flow of thought. (2) Real easy to put in different page numbers for the same cited work. (3) No having to look up aliases for refs like putting in another citation to ref name=EliotsLastEssay (4) All the cited works are in one location where consistency of format can be checked for and corrected (I suggest the use of templates here, all the verbage is not so distracting and copying the format makes it easier for non-academic types to add a citation.) (5) The citations can fall easily into two or even three columns.

The way that the TWL article splits notes from citations stinks but I think Wikipedia has a better way to do the same thing.

This way of implementing the citations could be retrofitted into the article after ColonelHenry has done his changes in the way that is easiest for him (Eliot must love you Henry.) WikiParker (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Waste Land is actually among my next projects--the article needs a lot of copyediting work, better discussion of the poem's importance and themes, and the cites are not consistent (not happy with the organisation of the reference section either. it's abysmal.).

On the present question, I prefer full citations over short citations. I err on the side of providing more information without obstacles. A short citation format has its drawbacks-- One thing that proves distracting (for people who like checking notes) is having to scroll up and down frequently between "Eliot, 1917, p. 5" to the references section at the end of the article and figure out which one is "Eliot, 1917" and then scroll back up, and then scroll back down, and then again. When I write, I tend to think of what I would get out of the article when I read, and I'm an obsessive note-checker. At least with the bubble that pops up, a full citation lets a reader get back to reading the article faster, without the distraction caused by scrolling down. IMHO, short cites are not quite practical the larger an article gets. Although not a fan, I could understand for a shorter article their practicality and could see the merits of short citations, but for an article with say 6-8 pages of text, it becomes bothersome. If that were the m.o. for my work Alcohol laws of New Jersey, it would have been grounds for a nervous breakdown.

Responses to your points--

• (1) brevity is laudable, a full cite is just as laudable. While I err on the side of more information, I respect you err on the side of brevity. Six of one half dozen of another, since each has benefits (but are essentially personal preferences), there is no sense of urgency to change, hence not really an advantage.
• (2) Yes, I would concede it is easier than the {{rp}} template, but at the same time, what we trade of for ease in brevity in editing we lose in a full cite we don't have to scroll for. Trading one convenience of personal preference for an inconvenience to an interested reader isn't an advantage. While I do not like the rp template, I find its utility facilitates my objectives (i.e. the readily accessible information without scrolling) in providing citations better than the alternatives I've examined/compared.
• (3) For the average editor looking for shortcuts, yes, I could assume it might be easier. For the reader it makes no difference save for the scrolling. Advantage for the average editor, continued disadvantage for a curious reader...breaks even, no advantage either way.
• (4) can just as easily be done manually. The difference in time it takes a non-academic editor to format a cite after referring to a style guide or in learning how to use the template is too negligible to bother. No advantage either way.
• (5) typesetting the footnotes in columns can be done right now without having to sacrifice a full cite.

On another note, from my years in the field, it is my observation that the short citation format like the Harvard or APA styles or as you've suggested has largely fallen out of favour. In light of the more assertive dominance of Chicago/Turabian in the humanities, which only uses shortened notes after a first long-form mention. Wikipedia gives us a rather decent tool to facilitate repeating the long-form without having to deal with the aforementioned disadvantages of the short form.

Lastly, we just got over one nonsense argument over citations on this article that wasted two days several people could have spent on more productive work, let's table this discussion for another two weeks or so, let the sentiments of the cite template discussion die down, see how the article progresses, and then consider it. It's not of urgent necessity, especially on the tail of the other acrimonious discussion.

Well, never got to meet Tom (he passed before I was born), but I would wager he'd be bemused. His widow Valerie (a lovely woman), several years ago, was gracious to me over discussions and tea when I lived in London and worked briefly in publishing. --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

On an aside, as I look at this article, I see one that could be a GA or FA, and my goal on this and several other articles is to raise them to that level. Typically GA or FA articles have a ton of citations that clog up the text and usually scares away editors who aren't super-determined to edit an article. It also convinces other editors to utilize the talk page more or to reach out to an editor who is seen for his/her stewardship of the article if there is a serious content issue, additional information they would like to see included, etc. This actually, IMHO, keeps a GA or FA from deteriorating in quality post-promotion because of the hesitancy to wander into the minefield and forces content changes to a recognized GA/FA article to be done through consensus. I notice that once I get an article to GA or FA, there are very few edits on it--as evinced especially in a reduction in vandalism. Perhaps the longer-form citations serve an indirect advantage in this manner.--ColonelHenry (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation templates?

Per WP:BRD: is there any reason why this article should not use citation templates? As of right now, this article comprises at least five different citation styles, see current "Further reading" section:

• Drew, Elizabeth. T. S. Eliot: The Design of His Poetry. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1949.

Year at the end, no brackets, seperated by comma. Book title italic.

• Gallup, Donald. T. S. Eliot: A Bibliography (A Revised and Extended Edition) pp. 23, 196 (Harcourt Brace & World 1969)

Year at the end, brackets, no comma. Book title italic, as is edition description.

• Sinha, Arun Kumar and Vikram, Kumar 'The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock' (Critical Essay with Detailed Annotations), T. S. Eliot: An Intensive Study of Selected Poems, Spectrum Books Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, (2005).

Year at the end, brackets. Book title not italic. Chapter title in single quotes.

• Luthy, Melvin J. The Case of Prufrock's Grammar. (1978) College English, 39, 841-853.

Year in the middle, brackets. Journal title in italics. No issue number.

• Sorum, Eve. "Masochistic Modernisms: A Reading of Eliot and Woolf." Journal of Modern Literature. 28 (3): 25-43. Spring 2005.

Year at the end, no brackets. Journal title not italic. Issue number.

I started to implement a consistent citation style via templates until User:ColonelHenry reverted my efforts. So now I'm asking on what the consensus is among Wikipedians. I favor citation templates, not only because they guarantee a consistent citation style (which, of course, can be done manually, too), but also because they create a machine-readable Dublin core element behind each citation (which cannot be done manually), which increases the usefulness of the references and further reading sections. --bender235 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is already a site-wide consensus: if the article was started without templates, and anyone objects to their addition (and ColonelHenry has objected), they should not be added. Certainly it is possible to make the footnotes consistent without adding templates. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a veto right on Wikipedia. Regardless of how the article "started", we can always, at any point, decide to change anything, including citation style.

Making the citation style consistent, like you suggest, violates the very guideline you cite (i.e., "changing an existent citation style"). So, either way, whether we use templates or not, we'd have to find consensus on which of the five citation styles above is the one that the entire article should use.

That being said: this article should not use citation templates because... ? --bender235 (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

In cases where there is disagreement, the sitewide consensus is to keep the style that was used first. This page should not use templates because an editor (ColonelHenry) has objected to their being added. I know you are well aware of this, but you're free to ask about it on WT:CITE if you would like another explanation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out, there no "style that was used first", but five of them. Which one do we use, and how do we decide? Does on editor have veto rights in this decision process, too? --bender235 (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

No, there isn't a consistent style. It's one of the things on my list to do as I revise, expand and improve this article over the next few months (which I started a few weeks ago)...make them consistent. However, I don't intend, and refuse to use to templates. So, unless you're contributing content to the article, your desire to impose templates on an article you don't otherwise contribute to is rather presumptuous and disruptive.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on this article, but please beware that no matter how much content to contribute to an article, it does not make you it's owner. Your vote has the same weight as has the one by someone who never contributed. This is how Wikipedia works. --bender235 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And I appreciate your suggestion, I do not own the article and neither do you, but moving forward someone who actually contributes to the content should determine the citation method, and as someone who contributed content and will be adding more of it vs. you who plays with formats without contributing anything other to the article--you can take your cite-templates elsewhere, and as I move forward I will refuse to use them (as I make the other references consistent).--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, the previous contributors to this article did not chose to use them. Personally, I agree with them--I find the templates are cumbersome and a bother. If you have links to JSTOR and other sources, incorporate them in the current format, please do not impose a method of citation on an article that you are not a contributor to other than to impose that format. It makes it difficult for those who do contribute to the article on a regular basis. That is why I have reverted your edits.

• Per WP:CITECONSENSUS -- The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged: an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus and,
• per WP:CITEVAR-- Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page.

It seems by looking at your contributions this is something you do often. Some of us consider this to be disruptive or edit warring. If your only contribution to an article is to switch from non-template to template, you are only going to aggravate those who have been contributing to an article. Simple, if you're a Johnny-come-lately, you don't get to dictate how the party is set up based on your personal preferences.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And if you don't like that it removed information like JSTOR, there's nothing stopping you from incorporating the links in the format already used (i.e. NOT imposing your own). If you don't, I'll be glad to. But as someone who has contributed to the article and expects to continue revising it, I don't intend to use cite templates as I revise it. (Sorry, I was on vacation the last two weeks....and I expect my work on this article to go on for a few months, of which part of it will be making the citations consistent...but not with templates.) And if your only contribution to the article will be to impose cite templates and not add content, you make my work THAT much harder.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing those edits, among other copy-editing, for years. It is by no means "edit-warring", nor considered "disruptive". If anything, it would trigger a WP:BRD cycle, as it does now.

Despite your accusations, I do not try to "dictate how the party is set up". Like you do, too, I try to improve Wikipedia. You contributed content to this article, I fixed the inconsistent citation style. Please calm down and don't act like I was attempting to vandalize this article. --bender235 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As you pointed out in WP:CITEVAR, "if the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it". Now please help me identify, which is the current citation style. --bender235 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you for imposing your style, but no thanks. Moving forward: I prefer (since I have a lot to add to this article and will do it my way), and the previous editors preferred, to not use templates. So let's part company knowing that this article will persist in being CONSISTENTLY cite template-free.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not your decision. Contrary to your behavior, you do not own this article. All of this articles content is subject to consensual decissions, not individual action.

Again, I'm asking you: why should this article not use citation templates? Should your reason be that you find it too hard to code them, I'd volunteer to do that for your contributions. --bender235 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding citation templates to articles that don't use them is not a valid application of WP:BRD, as you know. ColonelHenry does not need to convince you (or me, or anyone) that he is correct. He only has to have a good-faith objection to the introduction of citation templates, and he has stated one. If you want to change the consensus about adding templates, the forum for that is WT:CITE. From my point of view, this thread is finished. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I find it really sad and disturbing that my attempt to discuss this is meet by so much hostility.

Anyway, I was about to do what you suggested (that is, going to WT:CITE and asking for a change in the "one editor can veto" rule), but I could not find that rule you cited. Where does WP:CITE say that? I only found what ColonelHenry quoted above, which says "change should only be made after consensus has been established".

So far, I've been doing what WP:CITE "generally consider[s] helpful", which is: "imposing one style on an article with incompatible citation styles" (see above). --bender235 (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The hostility is because of your insistence and your unwanted imposition--especially the pedantic expectation that we should convert to cite templates just because you showed up to gracefully bestow them upon this article. The citations are now consistent, your point is moot. They will continue to be improved with links that will be added to THIS FORMAT, and the article will continue to be improved WITHOUT CITE TEMPLATES by people to have contributed real content to the article instead of those who show up, play (read:disrupt) with the format against guidelines, and leave immediately after. Take your cite templates elsewhere, per WP:CITECONSENSUS and WP:CITEVAR, they are not wanted here. I agree with Carl, I have offered a good faith objection, there likely won't be a consensus to change, the citations are now generally consistent. This discussion is over. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering, didn't you now violate the very rules you cited above?

(1) you changed an existing citation style to the one you prefered,

(2) you removed existing citation templates that were used long before you made your first contribution.

Shouldn't there first have been a search for consensus? --bender235 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Invalid argument. The majority of the citations in this article were generally in Chicago style, I just cleaned them up--cleaning them up doesn't require consensus. The rules cited establish that we shouldn't change them between templates and non-templates. You insist on changing them from non-template (which has been the usage on this article ad incipio) to templates (which you impose contra policy), which is a violation without consensus. There were a few cites to templates, the rest (i.e. the large majority) were manual non-template. That is within the realm of establishing a consistent usage. Seriously, if you do not desist in prolonging a concluded discussion, I will consider further a disruptive attempts to keep me away from actual contributions to be spiteful harassment and will report it accordingly.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A nice attempt of double standards here, I must say. So if I clean up citations by adding templates, it qualifies as vandalism, and your veto immediately entitles you to revert. But if you clean up citations by removing templates, it qualifies as valid improvement, and does not even require previous discussion. Remarkable. And yes, this requires to be reported accordingly. I will do so. --bender235 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Think of it what you want. You insisted there be consistent citations, we're in agreement as to that (you, me, and carl all agreed that they could be made more consistent, and two of us agree that it should be done within current formats). I made them consistent with the overwhelming majority of citations in this article (35 of 38 of the ref tags were manual). You insisted on changing the entire scheme of citations from template to non-template, without prior consensus, as a recent major contributor to this article and in accordance with the policies referenced above, I disagree. I will continue, as a contributor to this article, to disagree. I didn't call it vandalism, those are your words. I said many editors consider such non-productive format changing battles to be disruptive. There's nothing wrong with stating the obvious. I did not say I have a veto, but considering you're just going around changing from non-template to template formats without consensus contra policies referenced above, as a contributor to this article I am well within my right to say "nope" and revert it per those policies, and point you to those policies why your imposed format change is wrong. Wikipedia is consistent with its policies to insist on editors not getting into wars over formats--the prior format which was consistently non-template for the most part (i.e., for 35 of 38 ref tags) should and ought to remain NON-TEMPLATE until consensus directs it to change otherwise (which it apparently has not--history has been chiefly non-template, the majority of ref tags were non-template, and today it's 2 voices for keeping it non-template against your 1) whether you like cite templates or not is immaterial. Consensus has been for non-template, and in accordance with policy it will likely to remain non-template. So it will likely be for the best if you realize you are not going to win on this one, policy, history, the majority of references, and the fact that your points have been refuted establish the futility of proceeding with this discussion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You erroneously continue to refer to guidelines as policies, but anyways: there is no guideline that labels what I did "disruptive". Especially since I did exactly the same you did. In fact, WP:CITE considers it "generally useful" if one "imposes one style on an article with incompatible citation style". We both did just that, only you did it manually whereas I used citation templates.

To be clear: this isn't about citation templates. The question of the validity of my changes would be the same had I just implemented Harvard style w/out templates (or would you have accepted that?). So if anything, we now have two different citation styles to discuss about. If I'm not allowed to change the citation style from non-template to template without prior consensus, then neither are you to change it from template to non-template. By your rules, I'd be entitled to revert your last edit now (which I, of course, won't do). But all I want is a serious discussion on pros and cons. --bender235 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, even after User:ColonelHenry's edit to "make cites consistent", this article still has at least five different citation styles for journal articles alone:

• (i) Locke, Frederick W. "Dante and T. S. Eliot's Prufrock." in Modern Language Notes. (1963) 78:51-59.

Period after article title, period after publication title, no comma after year.

• (ii) Stepanchev, Stephen. "The Origin of J. Alfred Prufrock" in Modern Language Notes. (1951), 66:400-401.

No period after article title, period after publication title, comma after year.

• (iii) Soles, Derek. "The Prufrock Makeover" in The English Journal (1999), 88:59-61.

No period after article title, no period after publication title, comma after year.

• (iv) Luthy, Melvin J. "The Case of Prufrock's Grammar" in College English (1978) 39:841-853.

No period after article title, no period after publication title, no comma after year.

• (v) Sorum, Eve. "Masochistic Modernisms: A Reading of Eliot and Woolf." Journal of Modern Literature. 28 (3), (Spring 2005) 25-43.

Meh.

For books and book chapters it is the same, by the way. I would fix this by myself, but (a) I don't know which one of these is deemed the correct version, and (b) per unwritten rules cited above I am not entitled to do it. --bender235 (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Seriously, don't be a dick. This is becoming pointy and I think you seriously need to back off. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, so when someone points out inconsistencies in the current citation style all he deserves is being called "a dick". I never expected simple copy-editing to arouse that much hatred. In almost nine years working on Wikipedia, this is the most bizarre incident I've ever been involved. --bender235 (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel like writing nearly as much as the guys above but I'm 90% with bender235 on the use of templates. WikiParker (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

May I ask what are the 10% in which you disagree? --bender235 (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I want ColonelHenry to be able to put in his edits the easiest way for him. Anyway, see a proposal below. WikiParker (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not want to impede his content additions either. In fact he would not have to worry about implementing the citation templates, since I already did the work. To this day I have no idea what his problem with citation templates is, because he won't tell. --bender235 (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Notes on YOU AND I in LSJAP

I have put some notes and citations for the LSJAP on my Talk page in case my computer dies. They need work to produce anything readable in the article but I'm not up to that at the moment. Bush doesn't show up in Google Books very well. I used my paperback copy (ISBN is to the paperback version.) WikiParker (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be glad to take a look tonight and over the next few days and see if I can make sense of it. Good luck with the computer. --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

External link removal

Rutgers professor's personal website musings on Prufrock interpretation. I removed this link from the external link section: "Common and Uncommon Errors in Interpretation of 'Prufrock'". The page in question is one of William Dowling's pages on his personal website hosted by Rutgers...Dowling is an English professor there and the author of some decent but very dry books. Despite is expertise, his personal website with his musings (some smug) cannot be accommodated by reliable source policy. The IP (173.61.107.43) that introduce the link to the article appears to have a COI regarding the Dowling connection as the edits connected to that IP are exclusively to this article (regarding Dowling's Prufrock musings) and to the Oliver Wendell Holmes article (Holmes was the subject of one of Dowling's books). If Dowling published his musings on Prufrock in an article in a journal, or in a book, it would have more credibility as a source--we are advised against using blogs, websites, and other self-published sources.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely there is more to be said...

...about this work's "Critical reception", than a single sentence quoting an anonymous scathing review appearing at the time the work first appeared? If what is said later, that the birth of modernism in poetry can be traced to this and to Wasteland, then surely more has been said by the knowledgeable, that can in turn be summarised in this section. Please, consult the works of the many Eliot scholars, or invite them here to contribute. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

April 2018

So after I retired I started memorizing poems. One is Prufrock. After reciting it to myself a thousand times I see a different meaning altogether. My different take on Prufrock is it is an analogue to The Divine Comedy. The epigraph aside (which to me hits us over the head with it) Prufrock is a young poet just starting out (like Eliot.) His spirit guide is not Virgil but the older Prufrock at the end of his life. They talk to each other in the first person. The overwhelming question is exactly: Would it have been worthwhile after all? Prufrock wants to find out if heading off on this career is worthwhile. The constantly misunderstood comment “that is not what I meant at all” is actually, bear with me, the woman telling Prufrock her understanding of his poem is different than he intended. It is heartbreaking to him. He is looking at operating in a completely new form of poetry; will it be accepted? Will the vapid people talking of Michelangelo understand what he means? He fears they won’t.

But he refuses to succumb to the then current realist poetry style. He gives a clear example of what this very poem would be like if he wrote that way: (as I recall) “Shall I say I have gone at dusk through narrow streets and watched the smoke that rises from the pipes of lonely men in shirtsleeves leaning out of windows?” He would rather be a nothing (a pair of ragged claws, etc.) than write that boring way.

The only tricky part is figuring out which “I” is talking at any given line.

Read it that way and let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proche195 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)