poetry texts, poem archive at plagiarist.com

okay i'm a struggling high school student trying to get some kind of help understanding this rather difficult poem but to my surprise all the comments offered absolutley no insight. Everyone commenting sounds pretty pretentious. Content and rythm is important in poetry. Poetry is meant to be read aloud. Readers are meant to search for the meaning. Instead of trying to sound smart can someone please say something meanigful about this poem. In dire need of some understanding

"i identify with the fact that prufrock (or eliot, if you want to take the AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL stance) is terrified of change."

I want to stop that dead in its tracks! Eliot believed in taking the poets person out of the poem; that is, when he wrote, he was not the speaker. It's inevitable that some of the poet's "personality" is in it, but only as your father and mother are in you.

I don't want to jabberwocky today.

~Dylan

On the subject of analysis, one thing is obvious: the fact that this discussion has made interesting reading to more than one person speaks for itself.
In my opinion, analysis is essential. We all seek a deeper understanding. Why have we been obsessed with religion for thousands of years, and why is ours the age of science? We seek an explanation. While Billy Collins' poem (Introduction to poetry) may illustrate the destructive force that serves only to tear poetry apart, he also expects an understanding from those he asks to "take a poem". Usually this understanding is only attainable with analysis.
Analysis inspires greater appreciation. It requires work and wide reading. It is much more difficult than simply learning the poem off by heart.
It can take years to grasp and even then it is as transient as Prufrock's "restless nights in one-night cheap hotels".
That sound and rhythm is important is true, but that it can stand alone in poetry is a loosing argument. Poetry is language and language requires understanding and understanding requires analysis.
To scim the surface of a poem is to ignore the work of the poet. Especially in this poem, it goes against Eliot's own teachings.
He comments on this sort of superficial appreciation of art, in his "In the room the women come and go
Talking of Michelangelo."

These women are trying to be intellectual but they are doing it in a very trivial way. That the women "come and go" would suggest that there is no lasting, in-depth discussion of the genius of Michelangelo; only a surface-scraping mention to sound more well-read and intelligent. On a larger scheme, T.S Eliot is commenting on art itself, and how it is admired in passing, in superficial terms, and many of the admirers have no idea what the purpose or function of art is.

Therefore, to ignore the depth of meaning in this poem would hardly be faithful to Eliot's ideas and serves to insult the masterpiece you so admire. Reconsider this admiration: does it come from personal opinion or a lack of understanding? Do you find that it is so deeply layered, that you can only admire? For you to criticise is blasphemy, as you would question what you don't understand?
Prufrock should teach us to stray from putting on faces "to meet the faces that [we] meet".
We should learn to understand the poem (even if it requires temporary confusion and possible ruination in our tearing it apart) , instead of just stating our adoration of it. This poem would have us learn from Prufrock's mistakes and face our eternal question, before we too wake to "human voices" that criticise and hurt.

My reading of this poem is far from rounded, I am sure I have not yet dug enough below the surface, but assume this to be my own fault. I cannot say I don't admire the poem, but my admiration of this poem above other works comes not from it being much better than others (i can hardly attempt to compare great poetry), but from it challenging more. In my opinion, this poem requires more analysis than many others. Some may say that these sort of complications in a poem are at the fault of the poet, but I think it illustrates the essence of poetry.

three and a half years is a long time to go unanswered, at least moving forward it seems so. Perhaps looking backward it will not be perceived such a gap, and perception is the point I want to make. Andrew you are a great writer yourself and I enjoyed your insights and agree with much of what you wrote, pertaining to Prufrock and moreover to poetry more broadly. There was actually very little discussed about the particulars of the poem by you and your comments were more focused on earlier attempts to defend the sophmoric reflexive art of disengagement of a battle due to lack of preparation by making the excuse that the fight is not worth fighting for idealistic reasons.

To get to it, the poem is for me, like for many, perhaps the best poem ever stumbled upon. Certainly in college some 25 years ago i studied it and did well in some English lit undergrad class which dealt with this poem.

In fact, I googled my way through as much free analysis of this poem as I could find tonight, after reading it out loud and getting awed all over again by much of its lyrical pacing mixed with rushed revelations and wistful denouncements.

I want to simply conclude that poem has the rare combination of self deprecation, irony, humor, criticism of society, and of city rot, of industrialism, of middle age and mortality, of courage and fear, of the mundane and of the human condition, all wrapped up in the angst of desire to find happiness with another person on this earth. Good luck to all who love this poem, it works on many levels. Scott Kaplan

Hello everyone,
I'm a freshman in high school and my class has just recently read "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," and we listened to T.S. Eliot's reading as well as experimented with explicating the poem. I think it is more important to rejoice in the poem's multiple meanings and use of creative language than to argue the different ways to read or analyze it. Let those who read the poetry find their own way. Let them try everything. There was another poem we read by Billy Collins. I strongly recommend reading it. It says, "I say drop a mouse into a poem/and watch him probe his way out." So it's a great idea to explore rather than analyze a poem. Explore your thoughts and the poems thoughts. Another part says, "I want them to waterski/across the surface of a poem/waving at the author's name on the shore."
So, rejoice in the words of an author and that we all find meaning in their work. There is no wrong way to read poetry, and there are no right answers.

After all, in "Prufrock" T.S. Eliot starts out by inviting the individual, you, into his work..."Let us go then, you and I,"...

I agree whole-heartedly with Gerard; the beauty and intelligence of Eliot's poem does not decrease with critical analysis. In fact, by exploring and discovering allusions, their effects and the underlying critiques behind the rather cynical and redundant middle-aged perspective, one can take with them not only the wondrous lanuage of the poetry, but also the intense scrutiny of urbanity and social pretense. The further you delve into 'Prufrock,' the further you are able to push and discover Eliot's mastery of language, as well as his incredible wit. Enjoy both the cadence of the melody, as well as the undercurrent of meaning!!

I understand that a high school English teacher can sometimes falter at giving justice to a work of art, such as "Love Song." However, being an English teacher myself, I must give my two cents, whether it is wanted or not. You see, an English teacher is not required, nor encouraged, to teach her students to love literature. I know this seems to be a paradox, but it is true. I am required to teach the mechanics of understanding and explicating literature, but I am not asked to teach the students how to love literature. This is sad and one of the reasons I do not intend to be a high school teacher for long. The sadder part is that when a teacher does try to teach the beauty of literature, 99 % of her students sleep, zone out, or begin doing something else. I am sorry for those students who had this poem ruined by a high school teacher, but federal and state laws and tests require that teachers teach the mechanics and not emotion. It is disturbing that we teach students what to think and how to think and then wonder why, in the "real" world, they don't think for themselves.

I love when people spout about how amazing and fascinating a poem is but dont bother to tell you why because it would ruin it....dont bother posting.


People feel a connection to The love SOng of J ALfred Prufrock because it touches on the insecurities that many of us feel in our daily lives. we all have a side of us that wonders how and where we fit in amidst the world. We ahave all felt ourselves peged as outsiders. This is what makes the poem beautiful to me because it tells the raw truth about life. We are not all made to play Hamlet. Many of us will be attendant lord and some of us wont even make the cut for the play at all. Its a truely ad world and we are all forced to live with it.

Aside from the fact that this is a very well written peace of poetry, and don't get me wrong I love T.S. Eliot, this poem annoys me.

J. Alfred Prufrock is just too much of drama queen. Everyone has insecurities, but if one can't get over them, then it does not matter how time one has left. It is a beautifully written poem and I have read time and time again and have been taught it several different ways ( I am an English major) and I just cannot get past the want of telling Prufrock to just shut up and go out there and get a date already! Eat the peach, what difference is going to make if you have all the time in the world to eat this peach but you never ever use it! You arent good enough to be the claw on a lobster at the bottom of the ocean? So what if you arent Brad Pitt! The "mermaids singing each to each" but he doesnt think they will take the time to sing to him. In mythology the mermaids were the Sirens, and their job was to steer boats into rocks and kill the crew of this ship...trust me, they don't have a problem singing to you, too!

And so what if we cant all be Hamlets? I myself find Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to be more interesting anyway. In "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" there are philosophical and quizzical and hilarious....but they get the job done because they go OUTSIDE and find things to question....not just sit in the house and talk to yourself about going to a party! I know this only touches on a very basic part of the poem, but it seems to be the one that causes me to do the most thinking. I suppose if that was T.S. Eliots intentions then he certainly has achieved them for me!