Poll:
Sorry, no Jesse or Apathy or Anas options here.
But basically, should Eliot have pointed out exactly where he was nodding his head at the great works of the past, or should he have left it to the reader to spot them? I mean, Eliot certainly owes a lot to the literary canon and the weight of the "dead poets", but does he actually need to point out exactly which works of the past he is citing? Eliot writes "Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things.". Now this is pretty darn elitist and pretensious, but surely then putting the references means that he's taking a step away from such modernist elitism?
Posted by
Grim..., 12:00, 16th December 2003:
How about a "WTF are you on about, Doc?" vote?
Example 1 of Eliot's 'nodding his head at works of the past'.
These are the first four lines of
The Waste Land
APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
This is the opening of Chaucer's General Prologue
Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
or, in a more modern translation;
When April with his showers sweet with fruit
The drought of March has pierced unto the root
And bathed each vein with liquor that has power
To generate therein and sire the flower;
So, perhaps Eliot is suggesting a somewhat bleaker version of Chaucer's april.
But then Eliot sticks a little footnote at the base of his poem going "Look, I'm referencing Chaucer!".
Well, perhaps I over-simplify a bit.
Posted by
tommorris, 12:15, 16th December 2003:
Yes, because it kickstarted the idea of literary modernism and "poetic sampling". It depends on how you look at it. I'm glad he did though.
And it also protected him from any legal problems. Not that copyright lawyers were as zealous then as they are now. Heh heh.
Posted by
tommorris, 12:18, 16th December 2003:
Oh, and: poststructuralism rawks. l0l!!!1
Posted by
cal, 12:58, 16th December 2003:
if he didn't, would people have just written it off as plagerisim?
;)
They'd have to be quite bold, to accuse T. S. Eliot of plagarism.. plus I think he'd actually have to be trying to rip off Chaucer's verse rather than just make reference to it..
Poststructuralism does indeed kick ass.
Well, I shall consider myself, not just harshly cussed, but my arguments also refuted.
You sure are one persuasive chappie.