Howard says: "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."
J.T. Best says: You literary types kill me, you think you are the only ones who can master the English language. It is a common phenomena, those within a group think they are the only ones who know anything. They even develop their own vernacular. Well let me be the first to enlighten you, lawyers read pretty damn good and it is our job to interpret what we read so that sense can be made of it. Inapposite, it seems your position to make nonsense of what makes sense. Cheers, J.T. Best

Perfectly pure and good has nothing to do with her health she is "one so pale" and "too weak to set her passion free". That she worshipped the speaker is my point exactly, her entire being would be shocked at his sudden strangulation instead of her dead face being described as a "The smiling rosy little head,
So glad it has its utmost will", (what is that utmost will if not the desire to die)and "Laughed the blue eyes without a stain" so why is the head smiling and the blue eyes laughing when she has just been incredibly strangled to death by a madman. Absolutely ridiculous.

How do you know they did it all the time?
Her wish was to give herself forever. She did not realise how he would interpret that wish.
Porphyria's love: she guessed not how
Her darling one wish would be heard.
He has her forever...
Regards
Deb

And she just glided in from the storm? Too pale to have sex? Your theory contradicts itself.
Regards
Deb

If you read this literally she is not too weak to have sex.
Too weak, for all her heart's endeavor,
To set its struggling passion free
From pride, and vainer ties dissever,
And give herself to me forever.
She cannot fight her own heart any longer. She has to free herself from her own pride and vanity to give herself to the narrator.
Unconditional love. The answer to any man's prayers.
Regards
Deb

You people are arguing contrary to what the poem says which is that she is "pale" and "too weak". Prove to me that is not the case. I am still waiting for a sensible explanation as to why, after being strangled by a madman, her dead face carries a "smile" and "laughing eyes". Give me any historical precedent, imagined or otherwise, where a person who is spontaneously murdered by a madman ends up with "laughing eyes" and a "smile on her face". That never happens, it is shock and horror that is seen upon the face of one suffering a violent death spontaneously inflicted by a madman. Incredibly, the speaker then talks about it being her wish. There isn't a shred of sense within your madman argument, it is all nonsense.

??? I don't believe in the madman argument. Did you consider my interpretation?
Regards
Deb

***what is that utmost will if not the desire to die
That utmost will was for her, to be his, forever. Her wish was not to die. She is still fulfilling that wish so she is happy. She is the answer to his prayers. I'm not sure about him being mad but he sure was dumb!
Regards
Deb

Deb - We are in agreement, what Porphyria has for the speaker is unconditional love which is reciprocal. It is the highest act of love to euthanize a loved one, that is why it is often done. The actor in such an instance must surely face persecution and jail, and even execution by a goverment for such an act. That is what makes this poem so great, he undertook the task to prevent a miserable death for one he loved so much. That is why God does not blame and why her eyes are laughing and a smile is upon her face. Makes much more sense than the act of a perverted sex madman deviant. Cheers, J.T. Best

JT,
There is no reciprocy. The narrator believes he is the only one who has gained.
This, in itself, contradicts your theory.
Regards
Deb

Deb: You are reading over his love for her:
"And, stooping, made my cheek lie there,
And spread, o'er all, her yellow hair,"
A man who has not spread his cheek over the hair of the woman he loves has never been in love. It is of the utmost pleasure and performed by one literally basking in his love for the woman. Stated another way, "O, that I were a glove upon that hand, That I might touch that cheek!"
And if that is not enough, what about the burning kiss? What kind of a kiss is that if not one of utmost love?
"...her cheek once more
Blushed bright beneath my burning kiss"
Burning is not a negative here, it amplifies his feelings toward her.
And if that is not enough then what about:
"No pain felt she;
l am quite sure she felt no pain."
Why on earth would a madman murder give a shit about whether or not she felt "pain". Who would more likely be concerned about her pain? A madman murderer or a person who loved her deeply? These answers to all my postulates so heavily weigh in favor of euthanasia that it is mind boggling that anyone can argue otherwise.
Cheers, J.T. Best

J T Best,
You are reading into it his love for her.
And laid her soiled gloves by, untied
Her hat and let the damp hair fall,
And, last, she sat down by my side
And called me. When no voice replied,
She put my arm about her waist,
And made her smooth white shoulder bare,
And all her yellow hair displaced,
And, stooping, made my cheek lie there,
And spread, o'er all, her yellow hair,
Murmuring how she loved me -- she
Too weak, for all her heart's endeavor,
To set its struggling passion free
From pride, and vainer ties dissever,
And give herself to me forever.
She is doing all the loving. She makes him put his arm around her, he is silent, she makes him put his cheek up to her hair. She is seducing him. The tone I get is that he is not reciprocating.
Regards
Deb

Deb - You have not read my essay which addresses all these questions you raise. Porphyria's Lover is not reciprocating because he is in deep thought over the terrible thing he must do - It makes perfect sense when the poem is read as a whole and not in bits and pieces. Cheers, J.T. Best

It's the bits and pieces that make up the whole. As I said I can appreciate your interpretation and how you consider that is what Browning is trying to say but it is not the final word. The only one who can have the final word or confirm who is right and who is wrong is Browning.
I can accept your interpretation and as you were looking for someone to discuss it with you, I have enjoyed the dialogue. That doesn't mean I have to discard my own thoughts and agree with you.
Regards
Deb

JT,
because he is in deep thought over the terrible thing he must do
Where does it say in those little bits that there is a terrible thing that he must do?
Regards
Deb

Deb - How can you, with a straight face, argue that the love is one sided on one hand and on the other argue that he kills her so he can have her forever. That is grossly inconsistent, who would want to possess forever something you do not love. I too, sense the end for our dialog is near, many thanks for the brain testing and mental workout, you are a worthy adversary. Cheers, J.T. Best

The fact that he just "found" a thing to do attests to the spontaneity of the act, which ended his debate.
I'm sorry JT but I am starting to agree with Howard and JB. If he was solemn about what he must do then how could you consider the spontaneity of the act?
He doesn't kill her. He strangles her. His kiss brings her back to him drooping on his shoulder. She is still smiling. He was alone in a cold house with a breaking heart. She was the answer to his prayers.
Regards
Deb

No where does it say that he wants to have her forever. That is her wish! It is never revealed why he strangles her except maybe for the shock and disbelief that she worships him.
Regards
Deb

Deb - So be concise - what is your argument - why does he kill her and what is there about your argument that carries more weight than euthanasia? Why is it not a case of euthanasia? In my opinion it will take two generations for my argument to settle it. All you people have been programed to think otherwise and your line of thinking will have to expire, but the next round of thinkers will not be so charitable and, after reading a case for euthanasia will question all other interpretations that speak against the obvious. Then I will win. Cheers, J.T. Best

She is the answer to your prayers. Would you really know what to do with something so unconditional? What keeps coming to my mind is how mankind cannot accept what is God's will and also that old saying that you should not look a gift horse in the mouth. He wrapped her neck in her yellow hair. This symbolises to me that he was scared of what she was and what she had to offer. He wrapped her up in his own fear which ultimately strangled the life out of her. She was a personification of his ultimate dream. She warmed his house, she worshipped him but he used fear (sybmolised by yellow) to strangle her.
At least that is the way I see it.
Regards
Deb

Deb - She was the answer to his prayers so he killed her, yeah right. By the way I have some snow in northern Alaska I would like to sell - are you interested? Cheers, J.T. Best

Mmmmm... gullible I may be but I believe in my own thoughts just as I believe you have every right to your own thoughts.
I am sorry I do not agree with you.
Regards
Deb