Is J. Alfred Prufrock insecure?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Hi, my TA was telling me that Prufrock's "problem" isn't that he slept around and didn't like shallow cocktail party conversations, but that he DIDN'T sleep around, and wanted to, especially with a girl he talks about in the poem, and that he's insecure because he's getting old and losing his hair. When I said I disagreed, he mumbled something incomprehensible about Andrew Marvell's "To His Coy Mistress."

Can anyone clear this up for me? Thanks.

― a student, Monday, 25 April 2005 20:54 (twenty years ago)

Well, what makes you think he slept around?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 25 April 2005 21:23 (twenty years ago)

Say, hey, student! You're BOTH right! It's like one of those reversible sports jackets that goes with cashmere and with plaids.

― Aimless (Aimless), Monday, 25 April 2005 21:28 (twenty years ago)

Can you cite evidence that suggests he sleeps around?

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 (twenty years ago)

I believe a certain ILXer quoted that line in one of his best songs.

― Ken L (Ken L), Monday, 25 April 2005 22:49 (twenty years ago)

maybe he slept with that etherized corpse.

― jed_ (jed), Monday, 25 April 2005 23:34 (twenty years ago)

No offense, but you guys seem like my TA. I need help here! I'm a student!

― a student, Monday, 25 April 2005 23:50 (twenty years ago)

1) Are you a college student?

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 (twenty years ago)

What I'm trying to say here is, can you at least talk about some specific lines you're having trouble with, instead of just asking us for the one-word answer?

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 00:14 (twenty years ago)

You're wrong.

(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 (twenty years ago)

Dude, you gave it away! I wanted to string him along for a while.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 00:26 (twenty years ago)

Haha, sorry to ruin it.

― Jordan (Jordan), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 00:30 (twenty years ago)

We seem like your TA because we're asking you to defend your position?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 00:40 (twenty years ago)

No. It just seems to me Prufrock's too sophisticated not to have slept around with all those women that come and go from his room. You know? Forget it.

― a student, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:06 (twenty years ago)

"It just seems to me Prufrock's too sophisticated not to have slept around with all those women that come and go from his room."

i think you should maybe take an engineering course or something.

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:09 (twenty years ago)

What makes you think "the room" is Prufrock's room?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:16 (twenty years ago)

No. It just seems to me Prufrock's too sophisticated not to have slept around with all those women that come and go from his room. You know? Forget it.

-- 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 (twenty years ago)

1917: "In the room the women come and go"

1997: "Boom boom boom, let's go back to my room."

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:22 (twenty years ago)

...but hell, i've just re-read the poem (twice) in a whole other light. maybe a student is on to something!

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:22 (twenty years ago)

he wasn't too bad in the sack but boy are his arms and legs thin! and what about that bald patch? you know what they say about virility and baldness!

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:24 (twenty years ago)

Sorry Jed, I don't see it.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:26 (twenty years ago)

We're talking pre-sexual revolution here.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:34 (twenty years ago)

It was certainly well before Philip Larkin's Annus Mirabilis.

― Ken L (Ken L), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 01:54 (twenty years ago)

That's a nice little poem. Never had read it before.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 02:03 (twenty years ago)

This topic is also addressed in Gilbert Sorrentino's "The Moon In Its Flight," among other places.

― Ken L (Ken L), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 02:23 (twenty years ago)

what topic?

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 08:20 (twenty years ago)

The tutor is correct, yes.

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 (twenty years ago)

AC Bradley to thread etc.

The pinefox is correct, yes.

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 15:15 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, unsurprisingly I was going to get to that. But I wanted the guy to have a chance to state his thoughts first. Which he could not, or would not, do.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 15:43 (twenty years ago)

I think that this discussion of the poem is too naturalistic or narrative-based. Much more is going on in its language.

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 (twenty years ago)

Isn't the peach fear often interpreted as indigestion rather than losing a tooth?

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 (twenty years ago)

"Do I dare eat a peach?" isn't about chilling out after getting high?

(kidding)

― all man, Tuesday, 26 April 2005 22:16 (twenty years ago)

Even going so far as noting the similarity between a peach and certain parts of the body reduces the power of that line.

-- 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 (twenty years ago)

Does it? Or, did it before Prufrock?

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 (twenty years ago)

I agree with chris that i prefer the more banal implications in the line, it appeals to me more - but he probably chose the peach for its vaguely sexual connotations, the skin of a peach being a bit like human skin etc.

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:32 (twenty years ago)

For the most part, I agree. However, I do think there's some reason he chose "peach" and not, say "potato." Peaches are sweet and juicy and pleasurable I think it's obvious that Prufrock is bemoaning the onset of old age in general and not just a few specific things he won't be able to do. I don't think he's just saying "Old age is going to suck because I won't be able to eat peaches, which are my favorite fruit, and I'll have to roll up my trousers as my bones shrink."

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:38 (twenty years ago)

also potato doesn't rhyme with beach. i kid!

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 (twenty years ago)

oh i mean that's not a given - i'm just asking if any of you thnk it does?

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:44 (twenty years ago)

Hmm. That doesn't seem out of the question, and it's at very least interesting.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:52 (twenty years ago)

I may have to go back to my old stickler-for-close-reading English professor and ask him about the indigestion thing. I really like the loose/false teeth reading much better -- the vivid image of him biting into a peach and losing a tooth as opposed to just not feeling so well later on.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:54 (twenty years ago)

It'd be nice if there were more threads like this on ILB, threads wherein specific lines or passages are discussed in detail.

― Hurting (Hurting), Tuesday, 26 April 2005 23:56 (twenty years ago)

yeah this has turned into a good thread.

― jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 00:00 (twenty years ago)

I'm not entirely sure you can justify any answer with the text, but how old do you assume Prufrock is?

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 (twenty years ago)

i always with the peach, he was worried about juice running down his chin and robbing him of his brittle dignity.

― debden, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 07:38 (twenty years ago)

i mean, whoever got indigestion after eating a peach? and how can you 'lose a tooth' if you're wearing dentures?

― debden, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 07:39 (twenty years ago)

Well, that might also be true!

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 07:52 (twenty years ago)

The exciting thing is that it doesn't matter why he's worried about the peach. What matters is that peaches are pathetic things to be worried about "daring" to eat, and of course the pleasing patterns of sounds in "do I dare to eat a peach?"

― Casuistry (Chris P), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 07:53 (twenty years ago)

I am surprised at the alleged sexual connotations of peaches on this thread. I have never thought that they have any.

― the bellefox, Wednesday, 27 April 2005 09:11 (twenty years ago)

!!!

― Ken L (Ken L), Wednesday, 27 April 2005 09:27 (twenty years ago)

PF you are strange.

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 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 42 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

I was bummed when the Allman thing was debunked.

― k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 11 August 2005 16:34 (twenty years ago)

I think it's rather curious that my posts here have not been archived by Google. In fact, so far as I can see, all of the posts up to mine are archived, but mine isn't, nor are those afterward which address mine (though I didn't systematically check all of the latter). A Web search for "ilx "i love books" diachronic pooftah" (interior quotes included in the search string) turns up a hit for this Q&A thread, but neither my email address (contained in full in the text) nor words particular to my reply, result in a hit when added to the search string.

Mark Adkins
msadkins04@yahoo.com

― Mark Adkins, Thursday, 11 August 2005 18:58 (twenty years ago)

I guess Google doesn't update the entire web every five minutes, as you seem to think, but rather checks modestly popular sites such as ILX only every few days or weeks.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 11 August 2005 19:04 (twenty years ago)

Chris, maybe you can use your newfound moderator powers to change that.

― k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 11 August 2005 19:20 (twenty years ago)

chris write to google and tell them. write in longhand and use a fountain pen.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 11 August 2005 19:57 (twenty years ago)

Mark = Marissa Marchant???

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 11 August 2005 20:08 (twenty years ago)

The ILB equivalent.

― k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 11 August 2005 20:24 (twenty years ago)

Abstract of my article "Eliot contra Prog Rock: 'The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock' and the Politics of Punk Rock"

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 (twenty years ago)

Abstract of my article "Eliot contra Prog Rock: 'The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock' and the Politics of Punk Rock"

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 (twenty years ago)

Sorry about the double post! There should be an editing function here. "Eliot proffers Prufrock" even.

― Nobodaddy, Thursday, 11 August 2005 23:59 (twenty years ago)

There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold, but sometimes it's just yellow smoke.

― as it clung to her thigh I started to cry (pr00de), Friday, 12 August 2005 00:27 (twenty years ago)

In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo (Matos)

― as it clung to her thigh I started to cry (pr00de), Friday, 12 August 2005 00:29 (twenty years ago)

If there's a mermaid in the water, don't be alarmed now.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Friday, 12 August 2005 02:33 (twenty years ago)

"Prufrock! Prufrock!"

― Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 12 August 2005 03:11 (twenty years ago)

Obviously the narrator does not consider the hair attractive...note the fact that the sentence is parenthetical, starts with "But" and ends with an exclamation point.

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 (twenty years ago)

The Folk Song Of J Alfred Pinefox

― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 12 August 2005 09:44 (twenty years ago)

And as we wind on, you and I,
the sun is taller than the sky,
there is a lady we both know,
and in the room she comes and goes,
and when I catch her in the hall,
"That is not what I meant at all!"
I should have been a pair of CLAW-AWS (yeah!)
Grow old and wear my trousers ROLLED!

― Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 12 August 2005 11:19 (twenty years ago)

That's HI-larious! Almost as good as "Stairway to Gilligan." Better maybe.

― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 12 August 2005 12:19 (twenty years ago)

I should have had a grassband girlfriend
Playing banjo in the key of C

― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 12 August 2005 18:08 (twenty years ago)

bango

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 12 August 2005 21:57 (twenty years ago)

This is a great thread, btw. I should read ILB more. Actually I should read B more first. But it's inspired me to dig out my Eliot volume, at least.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 12 August 2005 21:58 (twenty years ago)

Nice, k!

― Hurting (Hurting), Saturday, 13 August 2005 03:31 (twenty years ago)

Chris, If it is obvious to me, then it is obvious to everyone here 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 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 (twenty years ago)

When cut and paste goes wrong.

Anyway, just joshing, Chris.
Just kidding, Josh.

― k/l (Ken L), Saturday, 13 August 2005 03:49 (twenty years ago)

Nabisco hits the mark again.

― the bellefox, Monday, 15 August 2005 12:30 (twenty years ago)

oh please

― John (jdahlem), Monday, 15 August 2005 12:45 (twenty years ago)

ok he did nm

― John (jdahlem), Monday, 15 August 2005 12:46 (twenty years ago)

"The Love Song Remains The Same"

― David A. (Davant), Wednesday, 17 August 2005 05:27 (twenty years ago)

one month passes...

"Casuistry" (now *there's* truth in product labelling) wrote:

"The poem seems pretty obsessed with 'mundane existance', and this
seems 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 (twenty years ago)

It's as if a robot, asked to comment on the meaning of a play, reeled off a list of the props.
Gold star for robotboy!

― k/l (Ken L), Friday, 14 October 2005 16:07 (twenty years ago)

...

― tom west (thomp), Friday, 14 October 2005 17:27 (twenty years ago)

You're right: The fact that Eliot fills his text up with mundane, human, realistic details is a clear indication that we are to dismiss those details as mere props and assume that Prufrock is some sort of metaphysical starbaby, living in some abstracted plane and wrestling with inner daemons daring him to actually manipulate the matter of the universe, to be involved with the real world once again.

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 (twenty years ago)

dude you've got the most hard-working troll in the world dude

― tom west (thomp), Friday, 14 October 2005 23:49 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, man. That's dedication.

― the pr00de abides (pr00de), Saturday, 15 October 2005 01:11 (twenty years ago)

'starbaby'!

http://www.videovista.net/articles/starman.jpg

― Josh (Josh), Saturday, 15 October 2005 03:19 (twenty years ago)

It's as though a very primitive computer spent the last two months analyzing the comments and trying to come up with a response.

― Hurting (Hurting), Saturday, 15 October 2005 03:21 (twenty years ago)

I'm afraid I can't accept that interpretation, Chris.

― Kal-El 9000 (Ken L), Saturday, 15 October 2005 07:27 (twenty years ago)

four months pass...

(x-post) Nabisco, do you have access to Gold Bud peaches? Where do you live? I will BRING YOU ONE. In summer.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Wednesday, 22 February 2006 15:54 (nineteen years ago)

Can I have one too? I live just a few blocks from Nabisco.

― Paul Eater (eater), Wednesday, 22 February 2006 22:15 (nineteen years ago)

I will bring two. I will carefully transport them in eiderdown-lined boxes, to whatever township. And you will dare to eat them!

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Wednesday, 22 February 2006 23:09 (nineteen years ago)

Get busy plucking those geese, Beth!

― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 22 February 2006 23:25 (nineteen years ago)

I'm on it.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Wednesday, 22 February 2006 23:42 (nineteen years ago)

Great thread.

― Rockist_Scientist (RSLaRue), Friday, 24 February 2006 02:47 (nineteen years ago)

Especially the Eliot/Zeppelin mash-ups.

― Rockist_Scientist (RSLaRue), Friday, 24 February 2006 02:47 (nineteen years ago)

eider is duck,

― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 27 February 2006 11:59 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, details.

― Laurel (Laurel), Monday, 27 February 2006 15:48 (nineteen years ago)

There are a lot of dead eiders on the beach here, killed by the big windy blizzard the other week. Also a razorbill! And a porpoise! The porpoise corpse actually preceded the blizzard. It's going through lots of changes, very slowly. Becoming more and more Swiss cheesified. My dog is strangely uninterested. I thought he'd roll in it. Where are the turkey vultures? I would have thought they'd strip it to bare bones by now.
Several years we had a lot of dead sea turtles washing up. You don't think of the waters of New England as harboring turtles and porpoises, but apparently they do.

― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Monday, 27 February 2006 19:37 (nineteen years ago)

six months pass...

Well, perhaps they USED to, but now they're all dead.

― James Morrison (JRSM), Thursday, 7 September 2006 06:02 (nineteen years ago)

what a bizarre thread revival.

― tom west (thomp), Thursday, 7 September 2006 10:00 (nineteen years ago)

ten years pass...

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 (nine years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.