Skip to main content

Paper -09 The Modernist English Literature : The waste Land


The Waste Land

Name:- Krishna K. Patel
Roll No. :- 16
Batch :- 2018 – 2020
Enrolment no. :- 2069108420190035
Course :- MA English
Paper :-   09 The Modernist English Literature
Topic :-   The Waste Land
Submitted to :- Smt. S. B. Gardi Department of English MKBU




The Waste Land

First published in ‘The Criterion’, ‘The Waste Land’ has undoubtedly become the poem most commented upon of all poetry published during the twentieth century. It certainly occupies a central position in the discussion of literary Modernism. One of the very first readers – in fact, almost a co-author Ezra Pound considered it ‘the justification of the ‘movement’ , of our modern experiment, since 1900.’ However, not all criticism, was favourable.  I.A.Richards noted in 1926 that Eliot’s poetry, including ‘The Waste Land’, had elicited an unusual amount of irritated or enthusiastic bewilderment among its readers, and that the charge most usually brought against Mr Eliot’s poetry is that it is over – intellectualized. Edmund Wilson also referred to the mixed reception of ‘The Waste Land’, in Axel’s Castle, where he observed that it enchanted and devastated a whole generation. Wilson interpreted the Waste Land itself as a symbol borrowed from the myth of the Holy Grail, as ‘a desolate and sterile country ruled by an impotent king, in which not only have the crops ceased to grow and the animals to reproduce, but the very human inhabitants have become incapable of having children. This symbolic interpretation does not exclude references to the ‘terrible dreariness of the great modern cities, to a place not merely of desolation, but of anarchy and doubt. Wilson comments on the many quotations and allusions in the poem and believes that the tendency to echo the writings reference to more than once. Yet he holds Eliot to have been effective, precisely where he might be expected to be least original. The display of erudition and the method of fragmentary allusions did not prevent Wilson from valuing the poem highly perhaps because he considered Eliot to be a complete man, characterized by intellectual completeness and soundness.
Leavis expressed himself similarly, but added some pertinent observations on Eliot’s place in the history of English literature. He pointed to the ‘urban imagiary’, which, which, as he  remarked, makes Eliot’s poetry contrast sharply with that of Thomas Hardy. Leavis uses many of the keywords characteristics of a Modernist world view: detachment, impersonality, the role of science, cosmopolitanism, consciousness and perception. He has no great difficulty in arguing that the notion of visual perception is crucial to the poem, uniting all the rest. What Tiresias sees, in fact is the substance of the poem, he also rebutted the attempt to read it as an effort to weld various fine fragments into a metaphysical whole. In rejecting the metaphysical interpretation and positing that ‘the unity the poem aims at is that of an inclusive consciousness, Leavis seems to draw a line between a symbolist and a Modernist reading – although, from hindsight, we would prefer to quality or delete the adjective ‘inclusive’.
The critical reader may wonder to what extent the idea that the poem ‘aims at’ unity can be substantiated. Not only is the biological metaphor misleading  - texts have neither will nor intentions, although their makers may have them, but one may also questions whether indeed Eliot aimed at unity or rather at disjointedness. Rather convincingly, Leavis distinguish between the message and method of fragmentation on the one hand, and the unity of the poem on the other. Eliot himself wrote that Tiresias  is ‘uniting all the rest’, and perhaps wanted the poem to preserve a certain coherence; but the judgment that the text in fact presents unity must rely largely on belief, or rather on a convention stipulating that all literary texts and in particular poetry – are characterized by a high degree of coherence. Leavi’s assertion that the poem possesses unity is a proposition which cannot be tested empirically, but which follows directly from his judgment that The Waste Land remains a great positive achievement, and one of the first importance for English poetry.

Nevertheless, the idea of the poem as a unified whole perpetuated itself among the critics, in particular the New Critics, who in many respects based themselves on a symbolist rather than a modernist poetics. In one of the most elaborate interpretations of the poem, Cleanth Brooks, characterized The Waste Land as a unified whole explaining that it presents a chaotic experience ordered into a new whole, though the realistic surface of experience is faithfully retained. Here analysis interpretation and value judgment have been inextricably confounded.

The New Critics’ reading of The Waste Land inevitably called for a reaction. Leavis was aware that there was only an ‘extremely limited public’ for the poem, but this was no reason for him to change his positive evaluation. Stephen Spender, writing in 1936 , made a similar observation which, however, led him to a rather negative value judgement. According to Spender, Eliot seems to describe the contemporary post war situation of a certain very small class of intellectuals in Europe and America. And rather persuasively, he adds that no charwoman or prostitute in London would recognize herself in the second part of the A Game of Chess section of The Waste Land. He certainly saw the anti realist purport of the poem, as appears from his observation that Eliot’s ‘mind is always on the poem, on what is created by the mind. He never appeals to a material reality outside the mind. He noticed a link with the French Symbolists, but also observed a number of features which we would call modernist: ‘Eliot indicates the whole modern world, but in a subjective way, full of these fragmentary, intellectualized sense – imprerssions. Eliot is the very opposite of everything this is that Eliot’s poetry is not a powerful and originating force and that he has not succeded in forming the kind of synthesis which one finds in James’s work. Spender was disturbed by the presentation of a closed world in The Waste Land and perhaps also by the certainly with which the symbol were interpreted the closed reading.

In our view, the issue of whether the poem should be regarded as a unified whole is a debatable one – and, as appears from Spender’s judgement, it was debated. If read as a Modernist text, The Waste Land could very well be considered an open structure, an incomplete series of fragments, with pointers to a vast and international cultural tradition, but without a claim of completeness. I. A. Richards  came close to this view when he observed that ‘the poems as a whole may elude us while every fragment, as a fragment, comes victoriously home. In comformity with the conventional belief that all good poetry should be coherent, however, most critics claimed that The Waste land presented a unified whole.

Not only the symbolism, but also the compositional frame of The Waste Land was provided by an anthropological study of the Grail legend by Jessie L. Weston. This is what Eliot says in his Notes on the wate Land. There are two Modernist features here; first the reliance on intellectual views of rituals, and secondly the explicit metalingual  reference to this indebtedness which amounts to revealing the semantic and compositional code. The major theme of the poem is the universal opposition in ritual of death or life, drought/water, decay/fecundity. As with The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock’, there is nothing typically Modernist in this theme. The invariant opposition of life and death is common to all epochs, and we should rather look at the way Eliot dealt with the theme than delve into the anthropological back ground.

 The intellectual scaffolding of the poem is partly broken up by its fragmented organization. The text gives the impression of being a collage of fragments from different times, different places and different languages ‘You cannot say, or guess , for you know only/ A heap of broken images may be considered as providing a metalingual explanation of how the poem was constructed. The same applies, as Bronzwaer observed, to one of the last lines. These fragments I have shored against my ruins. Yet the poem is more than a collage of fragments.  Certain themes are dealt with several times in different ways, certain words are repeated, certain other words have been prompted by preceding ones for phonemic reasons, and family, as Richards points out, there is the effect of the rhythm which also connects the various fragments. Moreover, the poem has been divided into five parts, which are interrelated the Unreal  City, for instance, appears in lines 60, 207 and 376 the undone of line of line 64 recurs as  ‘undid’ in line 294; the title of section 4, death by water is announced  in line 55 as well as by the title of section 1; I was fishing is repeated as I sat upon the shore/ Fishing ,etc. The fragments are kept together by repetition, parallelism and reference to earlier poems by Eliot as well as to a large stock of half – forgotten traditional texts. This brings us back to the problem of coherence , which has to remain undecided for want of a workable definition of that  term.
The treatment of the same theme in different ways which allow for minor or major qualifications strikes us as a modernist device. The poem contains several stories of sexual love and death. The epigraph contains a reference to the death wish of the Sibly, the section on the Unreal City describes both London and Dante’s Inferno, in section 4 the drowning of Phlebas the Phoenician is related, and there are numerous shorter references to death.

With The Hollow Men a new stage in Eliot’s poetry begins. The vocabulary is still partly Modernist, but the monotonous repetition – particularly in the last stanza – has no connections with the Modernist repetition particularly in the last stanza- has no connection with the moderenist code. Whereas a Modernist reading of The Waste Land is rather convincing and may eliminate difficulties which cannot be solved by a different decoding, a Modernist interpretations of The Hallow Men solves very little.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Online discussion on Oneness of literature

Literature is a term used to describe written and sometimes spoken material. Derived from the Latin word literature meaning "writing formed with letters", literature most commonly refers to works of the creative imagination, including poetry, drama, fiction, nonfiction and in some instances, journalism and song.       Literature is like a flowing river. It has many way to flow but its root is one. Hence, as per many theorist like T. S. Eliot, Northrop Fry etc, that the structure of literature are somewhat connected with each other like similar in symbols, signs, structure, etc. Northrop Fry in his theory of Archetypal criticism based on the whole idea that whole of literature has oneness of its existence. All literature shares common DNA or Skeleton. While, T. S. Eliot said in his translation and individual talent that past is very important for new because any kind of literature bring the basic structure from the past work of art. Hence, he said that poet should know ...

A Grain of Wheat and Robinson Crusoe

Introduction:- Colonization is a process by which a central system of power dominates the surrounding land and its components. Colonization refers strictly to migration. For example, to settler colonies in America or Australia, trading posts, and plantations, while colonialism to the existing indigenious peoples of styled new territories. A Grain Of Wheat A Grain of wheat is a novel by Kenyan novelist James Ngugi first published as part of the influential Heinmann African Writers Series. It was written while he was studying at Leeds University and first published in 1967 by Heinmann.  The title is taken from the Gospel According to St. John. The novel weaves together several stories set during the state of emergency in Kenya’s struggle for independence , focusing on the quite Mugo, whose life is ruled by a dark secret. The plot revolves around his home village’s preparation for Kenya’s independence day celebration, Uhuru day. On that day, former resistance f...

Da Vinci Code

1,. Which of the following symbols are used in the novel The Da Vinci Code? A.       The Pentagram      C. Holy Grail B.       Fibonacci Sequence   D. All of Above 2. Which of the following Symbol is not used in the novel?   A. Red Hair B. Red Lips C. Rose D. Blood 3.   Teabing was known as a Teacher……… A. True B. False 4. The Da Vinci Code novel published in…. A. October 2003 B. October 2004 C. April 2003 D. April 2004 5. Who was the murderer of Jacques Sauniere? A. Silas B. Teabing C. Robert Langdon D. Non of above 6. Teabing was died at the end of the novel… A. True B. False 7. Who was the main leader of Priory of Sion? A. Silas B. Robert Langdon C. Bishop D. Sauniere 8. The duty of the group of Priory of Sion is to protect The Holy Grail. A. True B. False 9. Holy Grail is the literal meaning of Sangreal. The phrase de...