Printable View
I agree with that, though with the qualification that "pandering" is in the eye of the beholder. There are many places, perhaps almost in every play, that one can say he is pandering. It's what else you do around it that separates the great and prosperous writer from one who may just be great or may just be prosperous.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I think the whole starving artist bit is a manufactured poetic trope. Think of how Tasso was presented in the 19th century - both Byron and Goethe writing of him as if he was some misunderstood artist whose own age couldn't appreciate his genius - hardly the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Now if you look at those two authors, they try to manufacture such identities - Byron plays the misunderstood wanderer, but lets be honest, what poet ever had such a reputation in their own life? Byron was the most accepted writer of the time period, and along with Longfellow and Pope, probably of all time in English.
Goethe too was well loved - but think about Werther, or Tasso, or whatever - the character seems central to his understanding of his times.
I think Lionel Trilling analyzed it best in Sincerity and Authenticity - 19th century thought was essentially controlled by this concept of the sincere, to the point where the starving, sincere, passionate artist collided with poetry, creating the romantic image that we still see poets as.
As for Eliot - I suspect he himself had legitimate doubt - one of my professors who is an Eliot specialist (and don't go ranting about new post-modern thinkers now, the woman is nothing but) suggests that only religion seems to have given him any sense of confidence - if he is elitist, the concept of the Wasteland seems to me to embody the destruction of that elite idea - it is strangely in Sanskrit and mystical writings that had only just been translated from the Spanish that he seems to have found any closure.
His whole poetic identity seems to be that poet in transition who lacks confidence is in the future, and is plagued by uncertainty - I suspect that is something true - an interesting critical work by Balachandra Rejan entitled The Overwhelming Question suggests that his whole poetic identity and career is based around the question of "what is man's relationship to the universe, and what does all this mean?" or something along those lines.
I don't like reading too much into Prufrock as autobiography, but I suspect on some level even there Prufrock and Eliot sort of collide, despite their differences - the Wasteland Eliot seems to me to be the least stable - indeed he seems to have been so plagued by his own uncertainty and the destruction of what I think he saw as "Western culture", in the sense that Wagner constructed in the burning of Valhalla at the end of the Ring, seems to have shaken him to the brink of mental instability.
In truth, pound himself seems to have been the reason the work actually solidified at all - supposedly the manuscript is quite literally a heap of broken images - that's why before I emphasized Pound's role - Eliot, from my understanding, wasn't mentally stable enough to finish the poem.
Now, the Eliot of Four Quartets seems more stable, and to me only because of Christianity. His treatment of Dante too seems to change, moving outside of Inferno into Purgatorio and Paradiso. The closing lines of Little Gidding hint at a final sureness in Eliot that he seems to only have been able to get at that point, with the culmination in the meeting between the Fire and the Rose in the last section, it seems that he finally found a suitable answer to his "overwhelming question." That is, that all of this destruction has a purpose, as it leads to the moment beyond time, in the infinite of Paradise.
The Eliot of the Wasteland is very different though - the whole poem is so uncertain of itself, even in the end. The closing lines to me gesture to a blank transition - there is the word, but things sort of die off, without closure. That to me is the haunting thing about the Wasteland - that it just swallows itself, and never goes beyond - it remains. The poem is never certain, is always intense, and is always overwhelming, in that one can never seem to completely control it - one cannot completely understand it, one cannot completely grasp what it all means - the whole thing is caught up in itself, and essentially eats the reader up with it in the destruction - in the space of nothingness, the Unreal city of uncertainty, and no meaning.
Your professor sounds quite knowledgable. I'm not against contemporary critics, only those that try to deconstruct social issues out of thin air. The Wasteland is a bit unstable. Is it intentionally so or was that the period Eliot was sufferring a nervous breakdown? Perhaps it was inspired from his emotional problems, but I tend to think it was intentionally so. The notes he provides seems to indicate a conscious mind at work with a purpose. However he came about it, and with Pound's editing, it turned out exceptional.
The finished product is more stable than the fragments - essentially Pound rebuilt the thing out of literally almost unconnected bursts of poetry - the five-section structure that perhaps is the most significant structural scheme in Eliot's career is indeed Pound's - the poem itself seems grabbed out of his mental instability, or at least suggests it - from what I understand, it is almost by fluke that the poem emerged at all, only because of Pound's insistence and dedication to it, because he somehow saw something in it that, I am told, everybody else would probably have discarded as insane nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
His whole poetic identity seems to be that poet in transition who lacks confidence is in the future, and is plagued by uncertainty - I suspect that is something true - an interesting critical work by Balachandra Rejan entitled The Overwhelming Question suggests that his whole poetic identity and career is based around the question of "what is man's relationship to the universe, and what does all this mean?" or something along those lines.
I think we need to remember that 4 years previously, the Great War had just ended, and the carnage had become visible. Anyone with the problems Eliot had at this time would no doubt have felt that the world had become a wasteland.
As for Eliot - I suspect he himself had legitimate doubt - one of my professors who is an Eliot specialist (and don't go ranting about new post-modern thinkers now, the woman is nothing but) suggests that only religion seems to have given him any sense of confidence - if he is elitist, the concept of the Wasteland seems to me to embody the destruction of that elite idea - it is strangely in Sanskrit and mystical writings that had only just been translated from the Spanish that he seems to have found any closure.
This is undoubtedly true, as his Catholic conversion illustrates, but the inclusion of Asian thought stems from his interest in Buddhim, for which there are examples in the poem. Eliot felt that Buddhism in the West lacked the necessary tradition, at that time, to support his spirituality, and he was no doubt correct.
The finished product is more stable than the fragments - essentially Pound rebuilt the thing out of literally almost unconnected bursts of poetry - the five-section structure that perhaps is the most significant structural scheme in Eliot's career is indeed Pound's - the poem itself seems grabbed out of his mental instability, or at least suggests it - from what I understand, it is almost by fluke that the poem emerged at all, only because of Pound's insistence and dedication to it, because he somehow saw something in it that, I am told, everybody else would probably have discarded as insane nonsense.
I guess it's about how much importance you give to Pound and his influence on the poem, which is important. In the end he advised Eliot with effect, but without Eliot's lines there would be no poem, not the other way around. If he had sat on it, Eliot would no doubt have crafted it and changed the message, as he changed his attitude into the twenties.
Agreed. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
A few weeks ago I bristled when JBI sasid that Pound added lines. That was wrong, but I do think as editor Pound greatly influenced the work. I don't think the work would be as solid without Pound. But essentially the work is the authors. Editorsd today have lots of inpact on writer's works, but then never get any credit. They make suggestions to the author. The author ultimately decides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I still maintain that Pound added lines - reworking and changing the wording and breaking up of words to create something beyond the original purpose is clearly, in my opinion, adding lines - the fourth section is almost all Pound in my opinion.
I've never seen that claimed anywhere. Editing and structuring is not adding lines, though Pound has always been rightly credited for his input. It made a better poem than previously -there's no doubt about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI