the objective correlative

This term showed up on a question on my practice GRE and I have yet to understand it. Here's what I've read so far...

In his essay, "Hamlet and his Problems", Eliot says "the only way of expressing emotion in the form of art is by finding an 'objective correlative'; in other words a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that particular emotion; such that when the external facts, which must terminate in sensory experience, are given, the emotion is immediately evoked."

In my humble reading, it sounds like Eliot is saying that emotion is triggered when readers see or experience a certain important object/situation/chain of events...like a symbol. That seems like a very simplistic reading to me. Would someone care to explain it in more depth? And could someone give an example of an objective correlative used in a novel?

It's not terribly important that I understand the term deeply, just that I'm able to recognize an instance of it when given a passage of prose.

I think that your reading is not overly simplistic, but correct. Eliot meant that certain symbols or objects should be used to express or allow an understanding of usually incomprehensible emotions or feelings. However, I think that Eliot sees it more than just one symbol or object... it is a combination of elements, in consecutive order, that evoke a certain emotion explicitly (versus implicitly)...

For this reason, Eliot believed that Shakespeare's Hamlet was a failure; in the sense that it did not have an objective correlative.

Eliot's own "The Waste Land" has a lot of the objective correlative...

Thanks for that. But it turns out that the only question that appeared on my GRE about the objective correlative was "which poet was the objective correlative associated with?" :rolleyes: At least I know I got that one right.

If you're still curious, objective correlative is essentially what we call metaphor - through comparison to exterior things, the nature of something inexpressible in language is conveyed. Feelings, for instance, love, trauma, etc. Therefore, since nothing is really telling us what Hamlet is thinking or feeling but Hamlet, nothing exterior such as scenery or objects, Shakespeare fails to establish an objective correlative enabling anyone to understand the play, making it a failure, as we know not whether he is mad or not, stalling or calculating, in love or taking advantage, 18 or 28, planning to avenge his father or not, or even caring about anything.

In a sense that is true, except that Eliot puts too much credit on the objective correlative, and fails to see the point that such sure understanding and closure is not the purpose of the work.

Hope this helps.

Thanks JBI. That does help quite a lot. Your definition makes me wonder if the term "metaphor" was tossed around as frequently in literature before Eliot or if it became popular afterwards. Thoughts?

In the essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent", T.S Eliot discusses the theory of depersonalization of the poetic process. The more perfect the artist, Eliot argues the more completely seperate in him will be the "man who suffers and the mind which creates". It is not in the personal emotions, the emotions provoked by particular events in his life that the poet is in any way remarkable or interesting. The business of the poet is not to find new emotions but to use the ordinary ones and in working them up into poetry, to express feelings which are not in actual emotions at all. The original subject-matter must be transformed. Minor subjects may release major emotions and major emotions may appear when objectified as something of minor importance.

I came across this thread while doing some research on the Objective Correlative. I don't quiet understand the link between this concept and Hamlet. A teacher of mine said that Shakespeare was brilliant at "juxtaposing the concrete and the abstract" like for instance when he uses " harrow" a term linked to the earth, to refer to an abstract notion " soul".

Do you think, we can speak of an objective correlative here? There are no clear combination of elements, yet the combination of a concrete term "harrow" and an abstract one "soul" might be considered as a combination of different elements. Don"t you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PoeticPassions

I think that your reading is not overly simplistic, but correct. Eliot meant that certain symbols or objects should be used to express or allow an understanding of usually incomprehensible emotions or feelings. However, I think that Eliot sees it more than just one symbol or object... it is a combination of elements, in consecutive order, that evoke a certain emotion explicitly (versus implicitly)...

For this reason, Eliot believed that Shakespeare's Hamlet was a failure; in the sense that it did not have an objective correlative.

Eliot's own "The Waste Land" has a lot of the objective correlative...

---

I agree with you and Eliot. And The Waste Land has plenty of what he's talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

If you're still curious, objective correlative is essentially what we call metaphor - through comparison to exterior things, the nature of something inexpressible in language is conveyed. Feelings, for instance, love, trauma, etc. Therefore, since nothing is really telling us what Hamlet is thinking or feeling but Hamlet, nothing exterior such as scenery or objects, Shakespeare fails to establish an objective correlative enabling anyone to understand the play, making it a failure, as we know not whether he is mad or not, stalling or calculating, in love or taking advantage, 18 or 28, planning to avenge his father or not, or even caring about anything.

In a sense that is true, except that Eliot puts too much credit on the objective correlative, and fails to see the point that such sure understanding and closure is not the purpose of the work.

Hope this helps.

---

This is in need of so-called objective correlative to show the purpose of the work. :seeya: