It is very interesting that someone so against the chaotic disorder of the modern world would make such a complex, chaotic poem; one that needs footnotes to explain it's references yet only adds to the confusion of it all. This poem begs many more questions. Why was T.S. Eliot so interested in dramatic forms? Why did Eliot incorporate so many voices into The Wasteland? How could one explain the juxtaposition of his disgust for the developing modern culture of American society with this poem which seemingly breaks the restrictions and banality of poems of the time to create a more modern, innovative form of poetry?
In fact, the personality of his poem is quite in tune with the developing culture in Europe. Take the art of the early 20th century as an example.
The Wasteland has the same brilliantly conceptual yet discombobulated feel to its bits pieced together, like early 20th century artistry such as the cubism shown above. Eliot's style is relatively reflective of the culture for which he longed, as he held European modernity in very high regard compared to his negative feelings towards the modern culture developing in the United States. Additionally, poetry had lost its importance in culture because it had become so simplistic. The modernists valued complication for this reason and as a useful antidote for frivolity and the lack of discipline found in american culture.
However, perhaps within Eliot's genuine attempt to revive poetic flare there is an aspect of his poem that is intentionally mocking of America's modern culture along with counterbalancing it. American culture had developed a taste for the messy and crude. Similarly, there's a lot going on in Eliot's poem, almost too much. It is possible that he intended for the reader to feel overwhelmed by the many voices in the poem as if he were standing in the middle of a crowded room with music blaring, someone whispering in their ear and a movie playing on top of all the noise, in order to make the reader realize that this rapidly developing world had reached the throngs of chaos, and was replacing a more dignified, calm, old world that he lamented was being destroyed.
Therefore, in a work so colored by its voices and its narratives, most of whom are difficult to identify, it is significant to point out that Eliot chooses to highlight Tiresias as the narrator in the third section, having Tiresias explicitly declare himself as such. Eliot goes even further as to include in a footnote that
So too, in the play of Oedipus, Tiresias himself is often the bearer of truth yet those around him are still incapable of seeing the truth that he directly points out to them. Again, there is that ironic juxtaposition of Tiresias’ literal blindness and the metaphorical blindness of those who refuse to accept the truth.
Tiresias is the character that points out the obvious that we, as human beings, choose to ignore. The new American culture was catapulting itself into a world of immediate gratification and turmoil. They were blinded by their desire to move forward, to change, and to be innovative. Could it be that Eliot wanted to channel Tiresias in a poem whose predominant plot is underlined with his pleas to reverse the disgusting and destructive path that the United States has, in his opinion, ignorantly and blindly chosen?
In fact, the personality of his poem is quite in tune with the developing culture in Europe. Take the art of the early 20th century as an example.
However, perhaps within Eliot's genuine attempt to revive poetic flare there is an aspect of his poem that is intentionally mocking of America's modern culture along with counterbalancing it. American culture had developed a taste for the messy and crude. Similarly, there's a lot going on in Eliot's poem, almost too much. It is possible that he intended for the reader to feel overwhelmed by the many voices in the poem as if he were standing in the middle of a crowded room with music blaring, someone whispering in their ear and a movie playing on top of all the noise, in order to make the reader realize that this rapidly developing world had reached the throngs of chaos, and was replacing a more dignified, calm, old world that he lamented was being destroyed.
Therefore, in a work so colored by its voices and its narratives, most of whom are difficult to identify, it is significant to point out that Eliot chooses to highlight Tiresias as the narrator in the third section, having Tiresias explicitly declare himself as such. Eliot goes even further as to include in a footnote that
Tiresias, although a mere spectator and not indeed a 'character,' is yet the most important personage in the poem, uniting all the rest. Just as the one-eyed merchant, seller of currants, melts into the Phoenician Sailor, and the latter is not wholly distinct from Ferdinand Prince of Naples, so all the women are one woman, and the two sexes meet in Tiresias. What Tiresias sees, in fact, is the substance of the poem.One of the more striking characteristic about Tiresias is that he is blind and yet he can see the truth. This theme is also found in Shakespeare's King Lear in which the character Gloucester was metaphorically blind and ignorant to the truth about who his truly loyal son was. Only when he is physically blinded at the end of the play is Gloucester able to recognize the faultiness of his ways and "see" that in reality, his illegitimate son Edmund had been trying to turn Gloucester against his loyal, legitimate son Edgar.
Tiresias is the character that points out the obvious that we, as human beings, choose to ignore. The new American culture was catapulting itself into a world of immediate gratification and turmoil. They were blinded by their desire to move forward, to change, and to be innovative. Could it be that Eliot wanted to channel Tiresias in a poem whose predominant plot is underlined with his pleas to reverse the disgusting and destructive path that the United States has, in his opinion, ignorantly and blindly chosen?
Great post Rachel! I particularly liked how you paralleled the conceptual style of the The Wasteland to 20th century modern art.
ReplyDeleteArt was also filled with new experimental styles at that time: Fauvism, Cubism, and Dadaism to name a few. Though all had a different purpose, they were united in the way they challenged existing ideas on perception. They attempted to break down art into it’s barest form —line, shape and color— and through that, change the way people perceive both art and the world.
So too Eliot breaks down the normal structure of a poem, and challenges people’s complacent view of the world to show that their, so-perceived, modern world has been irretrievably corrupted.
Hi Rachel, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog post as it brought to my attention the connection between Eliot's The Wasteland and the Cubism movement. Why, of course! I never thought to put the two together, but now that you mention it, it makes perfect sense. The fragmentary nature of both works of art is indicative of the thought processes at the time that was very Modern. In reaction to the world war, before which the world really believed that humanity was advancing to a more civilized place, artists and writers began to pare things down, to deconstruct them, to break them into pieces so that they could be analyzed individually, or, when juxtaposed together, may tell a higher truth than if they had been one fluid picture. Though I never particularly liked Modern art, I like the concept of it, and I have come to semi-like Modern literature, as the Wasteland was a poem I thought had a lot of depth. The more I read it, the more I was able to piece together and understand what Eliot was trying to say. I especially like the way in which Eliot juxtaposes the high classical works, such as Shakespeare, with the common street language heard in the pubs - I think that this is a really effective way in contrasting the two periods. In the same way, Cuban-style artists, such as Picasso, commonly took everyday items from their homes or cafes, such as newspapers, menus, pieces of rope, and even industrial paint (as opposed to refined, high quality painter's paint) in fashioning their art. When looking at these pieces, you would have to question the true definition of art, for if a piece of napkin can become art, what exactly constitutes non-art? In this way, I think Eliot, though his main purpose in bringing in the street language was to show just how society has declined, is also showing how anything can be art - as his work, which contains such phrases, is known as one of the most celebrated works of poetry in our time.
ReplyDeleteInteresting analysis of Eliot's poem in regards to 20th century American culture. I liked how you said that Eliot's poem, notes and all, can be rather overwhelming, mocking the over stimulation of 20th century life. I can imagine that the jazz age, with electricity, large cars, and paintings like your cubist shot above, would appear "too much" to the conservative Eliot. He seems to have been a big quantity over quality guy. Come to think of it, when his more deplorable characters speak, they always seem to need to repeat things, like, "What are you thinking of? What thinking? What? I never know what you are thinking. Think." and "O O O O that Shakespeherian rag" and "'What shall I do now? What shall I do?'"
ReplyDeleteThe effect is both glaring and vapid, more like bird-calls than poetry.
I wonder what Eliot would think if he could see our smart-phone oriented world now.