Skip to main content

My Conflict with T. S. Eliot

In my final year of university,  sat at my desk, surrounded by empty energy drink cans, head collapsed upon my annotated copy of T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land, I would often drift away and contemplate what it would be like to meet the man. Choosing to write my dissertation on Eliot's poetry was a rather straight forward decision for me. His poems were complex, but they were compelling. I very much thrived on the challenge of deciphering his poems, but he also spoke of a disillusionment with modernity that, despite coming from a different cultural viewpoint, still spoke to me. Eliot to me is a genius; an artist. He is a literary behemoth who not only contributed enormously to poetry, but to the field of literary studies as a whole. Eliot, as a poet, I adore, but Eliot, the man, is a different proposition. Here I am an atheist, socialist and progressive thinker in admiration at the work of a man who was deeply religious, conservative and a bigot. It is a difficult conflict to resolve when my instinct is I should dislike the work of this horrible man, but I just don't.

With Eliot this is not a simple case of detaching the man from the art, because it is within his art that we become aware of his bigoted attitudes. I spent the whole of my 10,000 word dissertation, A Marxist Literary Study of T. S. Eliot, picking apart the ideology of his poetry, and its very clearly a conservative, traditionalist ideology. He often reveals glimpses of contempt for the working class, misogyny, antisemitism, and scholars have also found racism in his earlier unpublished works. Despite this, his better works are beautifully constructed masterpieces. His magnum opus,  The Wasteland, is the most important poem of the 20th century. It is an expertly constructed poem of disjointed scenes, incorporating tons of allusions and quotations from scriptures and high brow works, down to popular culture and music hall. He ingeniously keeps the reader at an arms length away from full meaning at all times, and in doing so, perfectly demonstrates the desolation that he sees in modernity. The poem is elitist and oozes snobbery, but is an example of expertly executed poetic technique.


As someone from a fairly uncultured and working class background, I am certain Eliot never intended me to read the poem let alone find meaning in it, and yet, I cant help but find admiration in its construction. How do I resolve these deeply conflicting reactions to Eliot and his work? Well I think its best that I don't. In occupying this middle ground between contempt and admiration, I am able to appreciate his works while holding an air of skepticism that is of great value in critiquing poetry. There is no need for me to denounce a piece of art because of the views of the artist, nor do I really need to denounce art because I fundamentally disagree with its message. I am perfectly content in the middle ground highlighting and criticising the ideology while respecting an artist at work. So what would I have done if I had got to meet Mr Eliot? I like to think I would have rose to the challenge and confront his views and his ideology in an intellectual clashing of minds, but perhaps I would have stood in awe and meekly asked him to sign my copy of The Waste Land.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

My Guide to Literary Theory: Russian Formalism

Boris Eikenbaum Russian Formalism and New Criticism very much go hand in hand under the umbrella term of formalism. They share similar qualities in that the focus of their study is on the text itself and dismisses the importance of the author. This school of literary theory came out of the will to reform outdated approaches to literature, in Russia, in the early part of the 1900s. It was Boris Eikenbaum who set about recording the principles of this school of theory in his text Theory of the Formal Method. As with  New Criticism, close reading is the key tool for the Russian Formalists with a heavy focus on language, syntax, grammatical construction and the sounds of words. It is the job of formalist critics to consider how these elements function and contribute to the form of the poem. Remember that the form is not what the poem is saying, but how it is saying it. What the poem is about is of no interest to formalists. The very basis of Russian Formalist theory is centered

What's in a Name? Naming and Denaming in Romeo and Juliet's Balcony Scene

How now reader? With my Masters course entering that busy time of year, I have been inundated with work and the blog has been somewhat neglected (and will probably continue to be so). Having said that, I thought I would take a few minutes to share some thoughts on Romeo and Juliet 's infamous balcony scene and the importance of naming and denaming. In Romeo and Juliet names are an integral part of the character’s lives - particularly their family name. Whether they are Montague or Capulet will determine who they can associate with and where they can go in Verona. Shakespeare knew the importance of titles in early modern England first hand. In the same year he wrote this play, his father, John Shakespeare, was refused the right to a coat of arms, and the use of the title “gentleman” that came with it. In 1596, Shakespeare himself was successful in renewing the petition on the family's behalf. Shakespeare had also already written about perhaps the most famou

Close Reading: Bright Star! Would I Were Steadfast As Thou Art

Key Terms: Alliteration  - Repeated sound of the first consonant in a series of multiple words. Apostrophe  - Directly addressing something, someone or an abstract concept not present in the poem. Volta -  The turn of thought or argument in a sonnet. Iambic Pentameter -  Line of five feet of unstressed followed by stressed syllables.   Personification -  Human qualities given to animals, objects or ideas. Speaker  - The voice narrating the poem. Not necessarily the poet.  It has been a long time since I have done a close reading, and with all my blogs on theory and criticism, I think its important not to lose sight of our appreciation for the art. So in today's blog we will go back to the basics of appreciating and admiring poetry for what it is. I have chosen to look at this sonnet by John Keats -  Bright Star! Would I Were Steadfast As Thou Art. BRIGHT star! would I were steadfast as thou art—   Not in lone splendour hung aloft the night, And watching, wi