Re:
"In an attempt to change history and in reference to the perceived feasibility of my argument I am herewith soliciting learned opinion by inviting comments, pro or con."
You're soliciting "learned opinion" by posting on internet poetry boards?
This must be some kind of spoof.
JB

Odd, isn't it, that I only receive snide remarks to my post sans reply to the intellectual argument so sedulously prepared for the likes of you to comment upon? Cheers, J.T. Best

This is the second time you've posted this here. The fact is (and you were told very much the same thing elsewhere in your intensive, laborious plastering of the internet with the fruits of your genius), what you have here is the kind of clever but ultimately specious argument with which a typical sophomore -- long on the desire to show up his teachers but short on understanding of poetry or literary scholarship -- would try to wow the academic community and establish his intellectual superiority to everyone else in sight
In a phrase (or, more accurately, a clause): "A little learning is a dangerous thing"; when it comes to your understanding of Browning, poetry, and literary criticism, the "little" is vanishingly small, indeed.

Mmmm... Well I don't think Porphyria is a person at all. I think she is a personification of the narrator's prayers.
Regards
Deb

J.T. Best - Here is Howard's previous post and my reply thereto:
Howard - "It has been totally misread as representing the wanton acts of depraved sexuality by a madman." If the standard interpretation is incorrect, then why, pray tell, did Browning himself entitle the section of Dramatic Lyrics (1842) in which "Porphyria's Lover" appeared Madhouse Cells? Oh, the answer's obvious, isn't it: Browning himself just didn't know what he was doing. Yeah, right. You continue to plaster this on poetry boards all over the internet and reject any disagreements with your position
J.T. BestHere is my response thereto and I am still waiting for an answer!!!!!
J.T. Best- There are several answers to your question, all of which make more sense than the interpretation of a poem on the basis of the heading under which the author, over 150 years ago, elected to publish the poem. As to why Browning did that I am not at all sure the subject matter of euthanasia was not considered the act of a madman in 1836, i.e. a person had to be mad to do such a thing. Modernly however the word takes on a different meaning as is apparent from the following definition: [The word 'euthanasia' comes from the Greek -- Eu, "good", and Thanatos, "death". Literally, "good death". But the word 'euthanasia' has acquired a more complex meaning in modern times -- it is generally taken nowadays to mean taking action to achieve a good death.] Next when confronted with the "madman" argument in reference to Porphyria's Lover I would want an explanation for the following, which is an edit I recently added to my essay: [The face of fear would not likely accompany one meeting a desired end. Remember, Porphyria "worshiped" the speaker. If he were a madman, like most suggest, then why would there be a smile upon her face instead of shock or horror? Which facial _expression would more likely emanate from the spontaneous act of being strangled by someone you worship, shock, of course, certainly not a "smiling rosy little head"]. Thus I say to you, look not at the label of the periodical within which the poem appears, but rather look at what the poem says. You "madman" guys have to dance a jig to get to that conclusion whereas if you accept the euthanasia basis for death then the entire poem makes perfect sense from beginning to end. Given your approach there are massive gaps that you have to fill in with hyperbole.

Howard said that
"what you have here is the kind of clever but ultimately specious argument with which a typical sophomore -- long on the desire to show up his teachers but short on understanding of poetry or literary scholarship"
J.T. Best says: Here is what the Professor of English at a major Ivy league University said about my essay:
"J.T. Best's ingenious reading of "Porphyria's Lover" raises central questions about interpreting the dramatic monologue"
So much for Howard's sophomore argument. Cheers, J.T. Best

"look not at the label of the periodical within which the poem appears, but rather look at what the poem says"
The only reason for ignoring the title Browning gave to this section of his book (not a periodical}) is that it conflicts with the hobby horse you want to ride.
"the Professor of English at a major Ivy league University" -- The easiest trick in the book. What Professor at what university and what supporting evidence do you have that it's true in any event and not just something you've made up? And, even so, the statement is at best ambiguous and does nothing to support your contention.
Finally, it's "sophomore." And it's still sophomoric.

Re: J.T. Best says: Here is what the Professor of English at a major Ivy league University said about my essay:
"J.T. Best's ingenious reading of "Porphyria's Lover" raises central questions about interpreting the dramatic monologue"
Well, then - you already have the "learned opinion" you sought. Why post here?
JT, you appear to be demanding that we take you seriously, yet you give us no reason other than your own insistence for doing so. Further, the subject for which you have such passion is of marginal interest to readers here (I believe I'm correct in this), and you'd be far more likely to encounter those who have an abiding interest in the subject in the various groups that focus on Browing.
Your manner of garnering support for your position seems ludicrous at best, little better than a dial-in phone poll on Entertainment Tonight to select the greatest actor of all time.
Browing scholars would, quite rightly, place little import on opinions, either positive or negative, from an on-line poetry workshop that is focused on the work of its own participants.
The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that you are either delusional or you are a troll. Perhaps both.
JB

Howard - Conspicuously absent from your invective is an answer to the question I hereinbefore presented to you, please note that all eyes are upon you and the whole world is waiting with baited breath for your intellectual answer that annihilates my euthanasia argument, here is the question again:
[The face of fear would not likely accompany one meeting a desired end. Remember, Porphyria "worshiped" the speaker. If he were a madman, like most suggest, then why would there be a smile upon her face instead of shock or horror? Which facial _expression would more likely emanate from the spontaneous act of being strangled by someone you worship, shock, of course, certainly not a "smiling rosy little head"]
What is your answer? Cheers, J.T. Best

Wow the guy just wants to discuss his theory. JT I can appreciate your interpretation and I can also see where the poem could be interpreted in that way. Whether you are right or wrong is very subjective but in all honesty I personally do not agree with you.
I should clarify and say that I believe Porphyria is the personification of the answer to all the narrator's prayers.
She glides in and makes everything rosy. The picture of perfection. He doesn't know what to do with her, he doesn't believe that she is all that she is made up to be and that she was to be his forever. The only thing that he knew to do was to abuse her. Take all the good that she is and squeeze the life out of it. He has gained and she remains lifeless on his shoulder, not really much good to anyone. If I was God I would be silent too.
Regards
Deb

Too bad you appear to be unacquainted with the concept of the "unreliable narrator." In short, the speaker is an disturbed individual who interprets what he sees in a manner that fits his personal, allconsuming obsession. Hmmm . . . .

I find it absolutely incredible that Porphyria's Lover is universally regarded as a madman and sexual deviant. I have read everything I can get my eyes on and there is no logic whatsoever to the madman argument. I spent my entire life in a courtroom litigating cases and I can assure you that if I were to try the issue of euthanasia verses madman sexual deviant to a jury of literary peers that were not contaminated by existing precedent, euthanasia would win every time. The madman argument involves huge inconsistencies but if you accept the euthanasia postulate then the poem makes perfect sense from beginning to end. In this case it has taken the mind of a seasoned trial lawyer who refuses to have absurdity crammed down his throat to sort out the issue of Porphyria's death. Cheers, J.T. Best

Literature isn't law, and Browning wasn't presenting a legal argument about insanity or anything else. The experience you bring to the poem is very simply of the wrong kind. You can, and of course will, continue to believe your own view; that fact that those who better understand poetry than you don't should (but probably won't) be your clue.

JT,
I shall challenge your theory. If the narrator is providing her with the "good death" why does she glide in from the storm outside. I would say he would be carrying her? Why does she make the room warm? Why is she so perfect? Isn't she sick and dying? The language does not support the need for her to die.
Regards
Deb

Howard says: Too bad you appear to be unacquainted with the concept of the "unreliable narrator." In short, the speaker is an disturbed individual who interprets what he sees in a manner that fits his personal, allconsuming obsession. Hmmm . . . .
J.T. Best says: So tell me Howard what was Porphyria's Lover looking at if it wasn't a "smiling rosey little head" was he looking at "shock' and "horror". Are you so myopic that you cannot see that you must actually change or ignore nearly all of the words of the poem to get to your ridiculous interpretation. On the other hand I don't have to change a single word, the entirety of the poem fits perfectly within the concept of euthanasia. Cheers, J.T. Best

All you're doing is confirming you lack of understanding of some of the fundamentals of literature.
Spin your wheels all you want; every post you make simply shows how little you understand about poetry. If your argument had any merit, it would be accepted by any reputable scholarly literary criticism journal.

Deb says: I shall challenge your theory. If the narrator is providing her with the "good death" why does she glide in from the storm outside. I would say he would be carrying her? Why does she make the room warm? Why is she so perfect? Isn't she sick and dying? The language does not support the need for her to die.
J.T. Best answers: She glides in because they are lovers, the speaker is Porphyria's Lover for God's sake, they do it all the time. Where do you get "perfect" she is pale, too weak for sex go back and read the poem. What is her wish? How does the wish get in there and what is its significance if the speaker is a madman. Was Browning wasting those words. I suggest that they are wasted only if the speaker was a a madman but they are very telling if the case is about euthanasia. The words are within the poem for a reason and that reason is not for them to be ignored and cast aside in favor of obfuscation. Cheers, J.T. Best

So, she was come through wind and rain.
Be sure I looked up at her eyes
Happy and proud; at last l knew
Porphyria worshiped me: surprise
Made my heart swell, and still it grew
While l debated what to do.
That moment she was mine, mine, fair,
Perfectly pure and good: I found