Carl Remick wrote:
>
> >From: Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com>
> >
> >... A lot of this "discussion" kind of reminds me of a guy
> >who thinks the Inferno is essentially about a guy who
> >falls into a big hole. Jack and Jill already did the
> >falling down thing, so why should I read this big book
> >written in a funny language with all kinds of weird
> >allusions and stuff it hurts my wee little head to
> >think about. ...
The analogy does not hold, for a number of reasons.
One is that the language of the Commedia is _never_, as language, obscure or difficult. I don't read Italian, but from reading what others say about the poem's language and what I can infer from reading and rereading numerous different translations, the language fits Pound's line, "Not gin in cut glass has such clarity." This is also true, incidentally, of Pound's Cantos: the language is _never_, as language, difficult or obscure.
Another reason is that Dante's poem fits quite comfortably within Pope's line, "What oft was thought but ne'er so well expressed." I don't think that's the claim you want to make for Heidegger.
And yet another is that I haven't noticed his critics complaining about "weird allusions." (And in any case the allusions in Dante are not at all weird.)
I am quite unacquainted with Heidegger, and have no opinion of my own (or any grounds for such an opinion), and I haven't been particularly impressed by his critics in this thread, but what his _defenders_ have had to say so far does not encourage one to pursue his thought further.
Carrol