[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 14 KB, 181x240, 565467587765.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4480972 No.4480972 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /lit/,
How do I into T.S. Eliot?

>> No.4480982

>>4480972
Don't. Just don't. The Wasteland is the most overrated, bloated and meaningless shit ever written.

>> No.4480985

His poems are about the personal modernist experience of the world. Parse his writing as closely as possible and try to relate it back to that single idea at all times no matter how abstracted it might seem.
>>4480982
Look at this faggot and laugh.

>> No.4480988

Probably best to start with Four Quartets, or possibly even some of his essays.
if you want to tackle The Wasteland, I'd recommend brushing up on your classical literature, as well as having a general knowledge of canonical literature, otherwise a lot of the references (which make up about 80% of the poem) will go straight over your head.
You can just dive straight in and read it without any pre-existing knowledge, it'll just make very little sense

>> No.4480990

>>4480985
where should I start, anon-kun?

>> No.4480992

>>4480988
I was thinking of maybe starting with 'The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock'?

>> No.4480994

>>4480992
That's a good starting point.
>>4480988
>if you want to tackle The Wasteland, I'd recommend brushing up on your classical literature, as well as having a general knowledge of canonical literature, otherwise a lot of the references (which make up about 80% of the poem) will go straight over your head.
I'll politely disagree as you could get a literature degree and still miss about 80% of the references. Better to just have some kind of reference with you while going over it.

>> No.4481002

>>4480972

such Jew hatred

>> No.4481006

>>4480994
>you could get a literature degree and still miss about 80% of the references.

Then whats the point of this poem? It surely is not its beautiful prose or flow and it doesnt seem to have any deeper meaning behind it.

Serious question, I just cant understand modern poetry.

>> No.4481007

>>4480992
Prufrock and The Hollow Men are what you should start with as you can get a decent understanding of the general themes without having to know all of the references.

>> No.4481012

>>4481006
It is a gorgeous poem though. It's also got immense literary significance and, pardon the pedestrian term, depth. The references aren't necessarily there for commentary, they're more to enhance his meaning once you've gotten the surface level message about how shitty post-war European life is and how secularism is damaging to society.

>> No.4481039

>>4481006
It most definitely is beautiful.
What The Thunder Said always gets to me, it's just such an intense build. The way the narrative of the fisher king is resolved with the destruction of civilisation and with the huge, resounding words of the 'thunder', and how the poem decays into a babble of words like white noise, words with potent meaning just out of our reach; the tension is just so palpable.

>> No.4481055
File: 54 KB, 889x886, ELIOT LOVECRAFT MOORCOCK.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4481055

I CONCUR WITH HOWARD PHILLIPS LOVECRAFT.

>> No.4481094

>>4481055
wut?

>> No.4481111

>>4481055
pardon me?

>> No.4481146

>>4481055
explain yourself to these good anons
>>4481094
>>4481111

>> No.4481167

>understanding a piece poetry is getting the classical allusions
and that's why lit is so shit at poetry

>> No.4481224
File: 139 KB, 579x527, 1372173770692.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4481224

>>4481167

>> No.4481228

>>4481224
you're a complete retard who obviously hasn't read eliot.

>> No.4481237

>>4481228
>tfw English Lit MPhil thesis on Eliot

come at me, friend

>> No.4481235

T.S. Eliot was such a big fan of Dante. I love him even more for that. Also start with Prufrock.

>> No.4481266

>>4481237

I feel a little bit of pity for you.

>> No.4481271

>>4481235
>Poi s’ascose nel foco che gli affina
That final stanza is simply awe inspiring.

>> No.4481275

>>4481167
Considering around 80% of the poem is made up of references, allusions and entire lines taken from other poems, it helps quite a bit to have even a general understanding of what Eliot is alluding to.

>> No.4481280

>>4481237
then you'd know that eliot himself didn't expect anyone to get all the allusions. hence him having to write footnotes himself

>> No.4481311

>>4481280
Not him, but no one is saying you have to get all the allusions.
It just helps in understanding the narrative progression to have the references at hand (the internet, your own memory etc.) while reading the poem.
Also bear in mind Eliot was very much of an elitist, he wouldn't want people to understand his poetry if they hadn't put the effort in - those footnotes you mentioned have quite a few red herrings in them in order to lull readers into a false sense of security.

>> No.4481709

>>4481266
why? lol
I work in the City now (UKfag) so it's not like it didn't pay off. And I can make people like you butthurt :)

>> No.4481712

Eliot wrote for academics, Borges was right.

>> No.4481723

>>4481712
plebs can enjoy it too tho

>> No.4481725

>>4481709

Not saying your job is bad or your formation is bad, but to specialize in Eliot’s work? Why? Dude, you speak English, you are a son of the glorious culture of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Keats, Coleridge…I must confess I am jelly of the easiness you must have to read those guys on the original.

Why you are going to waste your talent of Eliot? If you wanted something more modern, why didn’t you choose Frost?

>> No.4481736

>>4481725
wtf, why would you go with Frost as an example of a better poet than Eliot

you could have gone with Ted Hughes, Wallace Stevens, Ezra Pound, tons of other poets who were actually interesting and innovative, but no. you went with Robert fucking Frost. good lord.

>> No.4481747

>>4481736
>you could have gone with Ted Hughes, Wallace Stevens, Ezra Pound,

Never read Hughes. Like Stevens a lot, but hate Pound.

My problem with him is his poetic theory, which, firstly, saw the sound and sonority in poetry as more important than the metaphors and imagery. Well, this is one of the main reasons for today’s poetry (and even Pound and Eliot’s poetry) be filled with poems were words are glued together in nonsense sentences only for the stupid desire of making striking sound-patterns. This is ridiculous, for words and poetry will never be music. Of course you might try to create more wild and rough passages, or more drowsy and silken ones, but only if you do not sacrifice the sense and the imagery for this sake.

Secondly, Pound thought that the fusion of concrete language with abstract language should not be used. This is crazy! The marriage of concrete and abstract language is one of the most powerful tools of a poetical arsenal. Want an example? If concrete and abstract language should not be mixed many of the most glorious passages of Shakespeare (better that almoust anything else in recorded literature) would not exist, such as:

that his virtues
Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongued, against
The deep damnation of his taking-off;
And pity, like a naked newborn babe,
Striding the blast, or heaven’s cherubim, horsed
Upon the sightless couriers of the air,
Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye,
That tears shall drown the wind.

(here, for example, Pity is an abstraction, but is connected with the concrete image of a babe)

Or

By heaven, methinks it were an easy leap
To pluck bright honor from the pale-faced moon,
Or dive into the bottom of the deep,
Where fathom line could never touch the ground,
And pluck up drownèd honor by the locks,
So he that doth redeem her thence might wear
Without corrival all her dignities.
But out upon this half-faced fellowship!

(here the most string passage is that of honor being plucked by its locks; well, Honor is an abstraction, and it certainly had no locks and cant drown. But this passage is better than anything that Pound ever wrote).

But Frost is great: you must hate him only becuase he is very formal.

>> No.4481789

>>4481006
>Then whats the point of this poem?
>It surely is not its beautiful prose

>> No.4481926

>>4481725
I read his work at undergrad and just sort of went with it tbh :)

>> No.4481947

>>4481926

Well, not problem if you like him. I was kind of dumb with my comment: I don’t like Eliot’s work, but that’s just me. Who am I to say what is good or bad?

But I love Shakespeare with my entire hearth. Wish I was a natural in English to read him fluently in the original.

>> No.4481974

start with Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats, then go see Cats on Broadway