Response to Eliot video

--Brittany Lodge

The fragmentary nature of “The Waste Land” has continued to frustrate me, even as we have discussed various parts of the poem in class. In literature, I tend to find logical content more attractive than imaginative content. One of the commentators in the movie described the poem as appealing more to imagination than logic. I think this is due, in large part, to the different scenes and themes that are addressed in each section of the poem. There is not a logical plot progression, or progression of any kind. The poem seems to be occurring simultaneously, rather than linearly.

The video we watched in class explained this fragmentation a bit. I was encouraged when I learned that “The Waste Land” was originally published in sections. Although Eliot traced themes through the sections, he originally saw them as individual pieces and wasn’t entirely convinced of their coherence. Somehow this set my mind at ease and allows me to accept the fragments more readily.

Another question addressed by the movie was the issue of Eliot’s notes. Were they originally included to just fill pages? Did Eliot intend to mislead later scholars by citing obscure sources? These questions were addressed by the movie’s commentators, and they interest me too. Eliot seems like quite the genius, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he intended to baffle scholars a little bit.

Back to TS Eliot Makeup

I have to agree with you about being frustrated by the fragmentary nature of it and the lack of logical or illogical progression.  I like what you said about the poem "occurring simultaneously, rather than linearly," but I have to ask how do you understand something happening simultaneously when you must read it linearly?  I also noticed the part about it being published in sections, except instead of setting my mind at ease, it only frustrates me more, as it is more fragmentary then.  And I must say, I agree with you that Eliot probably intended to mislead scholars.

--Alexandra Bindon

Response from Heather Smith:

I am with you on being relieved that "The Wasteland" was originally published in sections as it explains some of the fragmentation and obscure allusions that Eliot uses. I can't help by wonder why Eliot decided to combine each of the individual sections to create one entire poem composed of different poems. It almost seems a little bit cheap on Eliot's part because anyone could take a few poems that they have written, mesh them together and create and entirely "new and innovative" poem that must be decoded and analyzed for connections. On the other hand, Eliot was probably one of the first poets to do such a thing with his work, in which case it would have been a very bold move. Whether they were meant to be individual or to compose an entire piece, the fragments are still frustrating.

Response from Amy Smith:

I found the question of the notes very interesting as well.  The commentators definitely made a point that Eliot's notes were added to fill space because the poem itself wasn't long enough to publish as a book.  They also made several implications that at least part of the reason Eliot included them was to make the poem more difficult to understand and lead scholars on a "wild goose chase."  However, I don't think we're should reduce the notes to such a point where they are purely misleading filler.  I think Eliot definitely wanted it to be known that he was using and manipulating works from the past, since much of the poem's meaning is derived from those very instances.