believe it or not, i've actually gotten myself into the office on a saturday morning to get some work done on my reading lists. i apologize in advance for the lengthiness of this blog post, but there's a lot to say. first up--some of T.S. Eliot's discursive prose:
"Tradition and the Individual Talent" (1919)
Quite an illuminating essay. I have read parts of it before, but it was good to revisit it and read the whole thing in its entirety because surprisingly, it makes more sense that way! what Eliot is arguing in favor of in this essay, for one, is that in order to be a great poet, one must have a historical sense of the past, and be aware not only of the past and its "pastness" but also of the presence of the past in the present. he argues that there is an ideal order of art, and that when a new piece of art is created, that existing ideal order must adjust to absorb that new work of art. and he argues that a work cannot be called "art" if it is not new. at the same time though, he insists that all art is in some way bound up within the tradition of the past, what came before is irrevocably present in what is created today. he also makes an analogy that i'm sure is pretty noteworthy--that of a catalyst, where platinum is added to oxygen and sulphur dioxide. for eliot, the platinum is analogous to the mind of the poet--without the platinum, the sulfurous acid could not be created, but at the same time, the platinum remains inert and unconsumed. also for eliot, the mind of the poet acts as a receptacle. and, eliot is very much of the opinion that it is the poem itself that should be the sole focus of critical attention. the emotions or feelings or opinions of the poet should never play into the valuation or criticism of the poem--i think part of this opinion rests in his belief that in order to create the poem, the poet does not rely on his own emotions and feelings. rather, because his mind is a receptacle, the poet collects a series of impressions, emotions, thoughts, feelings that may not all be entirely his own, and when that receptacle is full and the right amount of pressure has been added, that's when the poem comes into being. and so, the poem is independent of the poet, and hence should not be judged by the idiosyncrasies of the poet but on the terms of the poem itself.
"Hamlet" (1919)
this is an interesting little essay, not least because it is a piece of criticism on my all-time favorite shakespearean play and additionally because eliot views it not as shakespeare's masterpiece, but instead an artistic failure. i think he views it as such because while people find the play interesting and as a result see it as a work of art, he believes it is interesting because it is a work of art. he says that hamlet is the "mona lisa" of literature. can you believe it? eliot begins his essay by stating that hamlet the play is the primary problem, and that hamlet itself is the secondary problem, and that critics have often, through the ages, gotten these problems in the incorrect order, focusing on the character when they should be focusing upon the play as a whole. eliot considers hamlet to be written during a period of crisis that culminated in Coriolanus and Antony & Cleopatra, which eliot believes are shakespeare's master works. one thing that eliot does throughout the essay is read the play alongside Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy. For me, this makes sense, esp. after having read Tradition/Talent--it makes sense that he would see Kyd's play as being a part of that existing ideal order, and that Hamlet, as being a new work of art, must be judged against the historical tradition of tragedy, esp. against the play that it reworked. eliot ultimately finds the play lacking in artistic merit, saying that the essential emotion of the play is a son's reaction to a guilty mother, and because it is that essential emotion that rules hamlet, rather than revenge, the play can never resolve itself, and that in hamlet, shakespeare attempted a project that was too big for him to successfully complete or manage.
"The Metaphysical Poets" (1921)
all right. at first, this essay seemed like it was going to be one big snooze-fest and i was asking myself why it was on my list but then 3/4 of the way through it all finally clicked. there a few key points i'll take from this essay. one is eliot's differentiating between the intellectual poet and the reflective poet. he also says that the poets of the 17th c. possessed a mechanism for sensibility, but that the poets of the latter part of the 17th c. dissociated from this sensibility and english poetry has never recovered from that dissociation. two, eliot asks the question: what would have been the fate of the "metaphysical" had the current of poetry descended in a direct line from them, as it descended in a direct line to them? in other words, it seems to me that one of the things that eliot is concerned with in this essay is tracing the history of poetry from Milton and Dryden, who he holds out as exemplars, the disruption of their line by the metaphysical poets, to his current poetical moment. he seems to view the metaphysical poets as a kind of aberration and that their movement in some way broke the poetical line of descent they had inherited from Milton and Dryden and consequently, that break forever altered the course of english poetry. three, the thing that interests me most in this essay is eliot's assertion that a poet does not have to be interested in philosophy by necessity, or in any other subject. however, the poet of his day must be difficult, and the reason for this is that civilization at the time was various and complex, and so the poet must produce various and complex poetry. "the poet must become more and more comprehensive, more allusive, more indirect, in order to force, to dislocate if necessary, language into his meaning." this made me wonder what year the waste land was written (i can so rarely keep those kinds of dates in my head!) and it makes me wonder if this is the very reason why the waste land is so "difficult".
