T.S Eliot reading "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"
The protagonist Prufrock can perhaps be seen to echo our ideas of The Flanuer, adding a dimension of introspection, crippling self doubt. Prufrock explicitly states the need for a public persona, "To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;", in Prufrock our fears of the collective are lived out. The Flaneur moves through the city, observing and consequently is observed. The city as described by Eliot does not offer respite from the rigors of life, instead amplifies them causing even the most mundane and seemingly innocuous to become sinister. The moments with which Prufrocks life is punctuated are transformed into elaborate acts resulting in self questioning to the point of madness.
How could the scheme offer a place for the individual to be at ease in the collective (actually any of our growing cast), the trivial must be inscribed with value and similarly daily ritual must not descend to monotonous task. I am not entirely sure where I am going with this, however one thing that has been emerging is the importance of the persona of the individual and also the place of ritual in the forming of said persona. Must we question the value/importance of collective life in order to realise the necessity of a place for the individual?
I think the character of Prufrock is very relevant, though I would have to question your assumption that he is a flaneur. Perhaps we need to define more precisely what we mean by flaneur? It has become apparent that neither of us are really thinking of the character as Walter Benjamin defined him
ReplyDelete