I have not read this poem (http://eliotswasteland.tripod.com/, I like this version with all the crazy ref. links), but I understand what you were getting at. And again, indecision… the modern man. I suppose this is one reaction of our species when riddled with choices, but none of them borderline the sheer concept of survival. Perhaps we (humans) will psychologically evolve in this world of infinite decisions and break this sad trait, finally learning a stance of true assertion, but nothing is absolute, though we can improve.

lawl baka-raptor

Trolls should jealously guard their contingent, priveleged lifestyles in their castles of HAET and RAGE, lest too many SRS BLOGGERS become trolls, tipping the balance and resulting in incestuous trolling between people who already expect it.

In other news, episodic blogging is like serfdom and Zac Bertschy is the Holy Roman Emperor, because he trolls the whole damn otakusphere, effortlessly.

In the end, of course, Saladin won over Jerusalem. I just tend a small pasture, since we’re great friends.

Your comment is the reason why you should stop trolling.

While I very much know that you could write a wonderful riposte (I’m just capitalizing on the omissions), I didn’t know the intentions of Eliot when I first read it. I just did. I still found meaning in his poem. That’s just me, of course.

His ability to sate even different readers (even non-academic, as I am) and his ability to still present a superficial meaning (even without the lens of either New Crit or Old Crit) can still be seen, however. I saw it.

I can capitalize on the fact that modern criticism no longer depends upon the biography of the author. It is centered within the reader itself. For example, while most of my classmates only found an allegory to memory and desire I found a toying with the absolute nature of meaning. There is no need even to think about the writer, because doing that is so Old Criticism.

But it’s a very good point you’ve raised. You’ve certainly inverted, if only temporarily, your status of troll – you’ve become a litterateur. I hope that I can see more of these comments from the future, because I’ve no doubt with regard to your intelligence.

Buuuut we could say the same of The Waste Land if we didn’t know the intentions of its creator. T.S. Ellot was a writer and as such we assume that, like “all good writers,” he was trying to do something meaningful with his words. Okay, so “know” was the wrong word—but we have a set of rules, a lens as it were, that we use to examine literature. We apply this to Eliot’s work because we think of Eliot as a writer and his work as literature.

Ergo Proxy, on the other hand, while it employed a writer(s), was not literature. We do not assume it was created to have a deep meaning or to awe the consumer with its raw ability to evoke, allude, etc.

It’s easily cast aside as “entertainment” (lol, remember the ABC posts about deep vs. entertainment).

On the one hand, this might be a fair verdict. If we apply the lens we used on The Waste Land to Ergo Proxy, and if we find no meaning and a lot of stupidity, then the show has no meaning. But are we really applying the full lens? Are we taking into account the intentions of the writer(s)? Are we considering them as capable of drafting “literature” as the next person?

I don’t think so.

While I don’t disagree with a verdict of “entertainment, trying to be cool” for Ergo Proxy insofar as it’s a TV show that we a bunch of TV show watchers are critiquing, I don’t think we’re examining the whole shebang. Yes, I understand your comment about disregarding biographies, but you still know that the poem is written by a writer. That’s not something you can ignore.

I’ve always wanted there to be more meaning in shows like Lain and Ergo Proxy because while they were cool, they were only cool so long as I was kidding myself into thinking that they had some direction or purpose in their coolness.

If we examined Ergo Proxy, assuming that the creators “knew what they were doing” and “had the ability to make something meaningful,” would we still write it off as “trying to be cool?” Might it not be that we just don’t get it? I know I’ve examined works of literature and not gotten them on the first, second, or even third tries. Maybe there’s still hope for the Proxy. Maybe I’ll look at it again some day and have that AHA! moment and make an awesome post about its deeper meaning.

And, while it’s highly unlikely that I’ll ever take the time to rewatch Ergo Proxy, at the very least, I want to give a fair chance to any shows that follow in its footsteps.