In my diagnostic essay (our first essay), I wrote that poems are merely consequences from the evolution of storytelling. They are used simply because it was easier to remember than prose and are appreciated for their aesthetics. With the invention of the printing press, poems become less practical and would eventually die out. Of course, I was playing devil’s advocate, inspired by dystopias like the artless, pleasure-less world in the movie Equilibrium.
The Waste Land transcends my argument.
Certainly, there’s nothing more enjoyable than to flip pages to read a note, go back and reread the lines, stumble across another reference, flip more pages to read more notes, reread for the context, and forget what the entire passage is about in the first place. Eliot truly captures the essence of ambiguity in poetry. He lets the reader interpret almost all of his lines (via his notes) bringing so much depths that only the true intellectuals can understand his point. He is free from the bonds of structure; Eliot needs no rhythm, no pattern, and certainly no meter.
Not only is he a genius writer, he is also well-versed in German, has studied the eastern culture, and knows everything that is within 50-mile-radius of London. We need to dedicate ourselves to truly understand the brilliance of his work and the message he is trying to deliver.
--what was his point again?
Something about death, I recall. Eliot has already made a much greater impression on me than my dinner yesterday—greater than a meal that nourished and sustained me1. I am truly ashamed that I got distracted while reading his work. My apartment-mate needed a favor from me; he seemed lonely playing Mario kart2 by himself. I’m trying to be a nice guy, after all, and I’m sure Master3 will forgive me.4
Note 1: Referring to the biblical manna bread.
Note 2: Mario kart is a popular racing game series by Nintendo.
Note 3: Andrew is trying to mimic how Dante calls Virgil in the Inferno.
Note 4: Andrew is going on a series of digression like Eliot’s The Waste Land.
Really, now, I don’t know whether Eliot was exceedingly arrogant and wanted to show-off his “vast” knowledge or that he really thought it was a good idea to throw an allusion every three lines. But it’s frustrating to read The Waste Land. I really wish Eliot had written it in prose. Then maybe, just maybe, I won't have to scratch my head every minute trying to make sense of what he is saying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I really agree with your thoughts Andrew. The night before the reading was due, I spent countless hours just flipping the pages to read the notes in the back. It wasn't until the discussion in class did I really understand what the poem was even about. I understand your pain and so does probably everyone else in the class. But I have to admit, Eliot really is a genius. Maybe he did go a little overboard with the allusions but he was actually able to use so many of them and still make the poem work. For that, I applaud him.
I think you're pointing to something interesting here, Andrew.
I wonder if your frustration isn't less with Eliot than with the editorial principle that Frank Kermode used. The little superscripts scattered throughout the poem were constant reminders of outside information that you might need (or think you need).
Imagine if you'd had nothing to go on except Eliot's own notes, which are relatively sparse. Then if you caught an allusion, you'd just feel smart for having caught it. If you didn't catch them, then as far as you would be aware, it's just a weird poem.
How would that change your feelings about the poem?
yes i can totally agree with you. i tried to read the wasteland without the notes but it seemed very difficult to comprehend. So i had to keep flipping back to the notes and to the actually poem. Its such of hassle. However, the notes gave me insight on key points. For example, in "A Game of Chess," i used the notes to get a firm understanding of the poem. But imagine reading the wasteland without any notes. now that would be extremely difficult!
yes i can totally agree with you. i tried to read the wasteland without the notes but it seemed very difficult to comprehend. So i had to keep flipping back to the notes and to the actually poem. Its such of hassle. However, the notes gave me insight on key points. For example, in "A Game of Chess," i used the notes to get a firm understanding of the poem. But imagine reading the wasteland without any notes. now that would be extremely difficult!
Like my fellow classmates, I agree with you as well. I did not get a book because I was able to find the poem online, and I forgot to copy the notes. So when I read the poem, I was completely lost. It was not until the class discussion that showed me that I needed the notes in the back to understand a little more. But even with the notes in the back, I had a hard time with The Waste Land just because it was way above my level of thinking (yes I’m in Berkeley even to my amazement). But because of the discussion, I was able to understand a lot. And I do agree with Jennifer about Eliot being a genius because if he wasn’t a genius then he would not have been able to use so many outside things to come up with a poem (even though that confuses pretty much everyone who reads the poem).
Post a Comment