I come and go over Eliot, mainly, I go. He is held to be such a towering figure in 20th century poetry, and perhaps that's so. And terribly deep. Hmmm....

I am now wondering if that is what he wanted to be, but really didn't succeed, whereas he was good at the odd pithy, if not overly complicated, line or phrase. The bang and the whimper is memorable, but could have been slipped into a thousand poems. April being the cruellest month is somehow touching. Or Prufrock:

For I have known them all already, known them all:
Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;

What do you think? Did he succeed in his ground-breaking attempts? Or were his one-liners his best shot?

(The coffee-spoons resonates with me, btw)

(10-23-2013, 10:22 AM)abu nuwas Wrote:  I come and go over Eliot, mainly, I go. He is held to be such a towering figure in 20th century poetry, and perhaps that's so. And terribly deep. Hmmm....

I am now wondering if that is what he wanted to be, but really didn't succeed, whereas he was good at the odd pithy, if not overly complicated, line or phrase. The bang and the whimper is memorable, but could have been slipped into a thousand poems. April being the cruellest month is somehow touching. Or Prufrock:

For I have known them all already, known them all:
Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;

What do you think? Did he succeed in his ground-breaking attempts? Or were his one-liners his best shot?

(The coffee-spoons resonates with me, btw)

I think T. S. accomplished both. He was definitely a master of the "line" and you could easily cite 100 lines that by themselves would have carried him into memorability. Perhaps it is his "mastery of the hook" that made him so popular to the masses, far more popular than more accessible poets.

But he left gold there for the poetry snobs to dig up as well. Certainly he was unsurpassed in the use of allusion. his symbolism was top notch. He was a master of meter, creating his own "eliot"-esque voice that has resonated through free and metric verse for decades.


wait, what was the question again?

"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"

" 'Or', that fearful demon of false dichotomy. " - Laurence Tribe

Both.

But damn, that answer admits to the dichotomy, even if negatively.
To say that lines are separate from the poem means you don't
understand them in the context of the poem. Not understanding
their context, by the way, doesn't mean there is or isn't an overall
context; it's possible he could be raving. (Thus admitting personally
to not understanding a whole bunch of it.)

But anyway...

For Prufrock alone I'd consider him a fucking genius innovator. That one's my
2nd fav with the Dry Salvages as my 3rd. My favorite (of course) is his Book of
Practical Cats.

That said, after reading his stuff for awhile, I start to feel myself slipping into a
dissociative state and have to stop and take my meds. And all the religious
stuff (even taken metaphorically) is too authoritarian for me. Still, he's a genius;
it's just that I'm much more of a William Carlos Williams kinda guy.

(10-23-2013, 10:28 AM)milo Wrote:  

(10-23-2013, 10:22 AM)abu nuwas Wrote:  I come and go over Eliot, mainly, I go. He is held to be such a towering figure in 20th century poetry, and perhaps that's so. And terribly deep. Hmmm....

I am now wondering if that is what he wanted to be, but really didn't succeed, whereas he was good at the odd pithy, if not overly complicated, line or phrase. The bang and the whimper is memorable, but could have been slipped into a thousand poems. April being the cruellest month is somehow touching. Or Prufrock:

For I have known them all already, known them all:
Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;

What do you think? Did he succeed in his ground-breaking attempts? Or were his one-liners his best shot?

(The coffee-spoons resonates with me, btw)

I think T. S. accomplished both. He was definitely a master of the "line" and you could easily cite 100 lines that by themselves would have carried him into memorability. Perhaps it is his "mastery of the hook" that made him so popular to the masses, far more popular than more accessible poets.

But he left gold there for the poetry snobs to dig up as well. Certainly he was unsurpassed in the use of allusion. his symbolism was top notch. He was a master of meter, creating his own "eliot"-esque voice that has resonated through free and metric verse for decades.


wait, what was the question again?

"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"

Milo,
You are much more knowledgeable than me, I'm sure.

I find it off-putting, that he felt the need to leave some notes, which although plainly not comprehensive, are still voluminous. There is no likelihood of anyone, apart from himself, having picked up the references to references to references, and so in that way, I find that much is no more than mumbo jumbo. Having said which, if he were writing chiefly for himself, then it leaps out of the mumbo jumbo category, since he, at least, knew, while he was writing anyway, what all this was for. For me, he chose to communicate in the most obscure way possible, yet, as you say, was not short of memorable lines. Perhaps he was a good minor poet, who suffered from the attractions of modernity's cutting-edge.

What was your comment?

---

(10-23-2013, 11:48 AM)rayheinrich Wrote:  
" 'Or', that fearful demon of false dichotomy. " - Laurence Tribe

Both.

But damn, that answer admits to the dichotomy, even if negatively.
To say that lines are separate from the poem means you don't
understand them in the context of the poem. Not understanding
their context, by the way, doesn't mean there is or isn't an overall
context; it's possible he could be raving. (Thus admitting personally
to not understanding a whole bunch of it.)

But anyway...

For Prufrock alone I'd consider him a fucking genius innovator. That one's my
2nd fav with the Dry Salvages as my 3rd. My favorite (of course) is his Book of
Practical Cats.

That said, after reading his stuff for awhile, I start to feel myself slipping into a
dissociative state and have to stop and take my meds. And all the religious
stuff (even taken metaphorically) is too authoritarian for me. Still, he's a genius;
it's just that I'm much more of a William Carlos Williams kinda guy.

Ray,

A I don't understand the context, and nor, I hazard, does anyone. I have no problem with religious stuff --it is strange how often we say 'Everyone's different' but then froth at the mouth when we encounter someone who mildly is.

Genius? Hmm...

William Carlos Williams? Wot? Like this? Crikey!

The Red Wheelbarrow

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.

(10-24-2013, 02:33 AM)abu nuwas Wrote:  

(10-23-2013, 10:28 AM)milo Wrote:  

(10-23-2013, 10:22 AM)abu nuwas Wrote:  I come and go over Eliot, mainly, I go. He is held to be such a towering figure in 20th century poetry, and perhaps that's so. And terribly deep. Hmmm....

I am now wondering if that is what he wanted to be, but really didn't succeed, whereas he was good at the odd pithy, if not overly complicated, line or phrase. The bang and the whimper is memorable, but could have been slipped into a thousand poems. April being the cruellest month is somehow touching. Or Prufrock:

For I have known them all already, known them all:
Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;

What do you think? Did he succeed in his ground-breaking attempts? Or were his one-liners his best shot?

(The coffee-spoons resonates with me, btw)

I think T. S. accomplished both. He was definitely a master of the "line" and you could easily cite 100 lines that by themselves would have carried him into memorability. Perhaps it is his "mastery of the hook" that made him so popular to the masses, far more popular than more accessible poets.

But he left gold there for the poetry snobs to dig up as well. Certainly he was unsurpassed in the use of allusion. his symbolism was top notch. He was a master of meter, creating his own "eliot"-esque voice that has resonated through free and metric verse for decades.


wait, what was the question again?

"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"

Milo,
You are much more knowledgeable than me, I'm sure.

I find it off-putting, that he felt the need to leave some notes, which although plainly not comprehensive, are still voluminous. There is no likelihood of anyone, apart from himself, having picked up the references to references to references, and so in that way, I find that much is no more than mumbo jumbo. Having said which, if he were writing chiefly for himself, then it leaps out of the mumbo jumbo category, since he, at least, knew, while he was writing anyway, what all this was for. For me, he chose to communicate in the most obscure way possible, yet, as you say, was not short of memorable lines. Perhaps he was a good minor poet, who suffered from the attractions of modernity's cutting-edge.

What was your comment?

---

It is true that some of his stuff really takes a lot to get everything out of. I remember reading somewhere that the voluminous notes for "The Wasteland" were required by the publisher in order to make it a book length project and justify the enormous sum Eliot was demanding for it. From what I remember, Eliot deliberately included a number of red herrings as protest.

Still, i think most of his work can be enjoyed on the surface level without understanding all of the nuances or the tangle of references you would need. Also, it makes re-reading really worthwhile as you can try to glean that one new vantage each time.

(10-24-2013, 05:48 AM)milo Wrote:  

(10-24-2013, 02:33 AM)abu nuwas Wrote:  

(10-23-2013, 10:28 AM)milo Wrote:  I think T. S. accomplished both. He was definitely a master of the "line" and you could easily cite 100 lines that by themselves would have carried him into memorability. Perhaps it is his "mastery of the hook" that made him so popular to the masses, far more popular than more accessible poets.

But he left gold there for the poetry snobs to dig up as well. Certainly he was unsurpassed in the use of allusion. his symbolism was top notch. He was a master of meter, creating his own "eliot"-esque voice that has resonated through free and metric verse for decades.


wait, what was the question again?

"I will show you fear in a handful of dust"

Milo,
You are much more knowledgeable than me, I'm sure.

I find it off-putting, that he felt the need to leave some notes, which although plainly not comprehensive, are still voluminous. There is no likelihood of anyone, apart from himself, having picked up the references to references to references, and so in that way, I find that much is no more than mumbo jumbo. Having said which, if he were writing chiefly for himself, then it leaps out of the mumbo jumbo category, since he, at least, knew, while he was writing anyway, what all this was for. For me, he chose to communicate in the most obscure way possible, yet, as you say, was not short of memorable lines. Perhaps he was a good minor poet, who suffered from the attractions of modernity's cutting-edge.

What was your comment?

---

It is true that some of his stuff really takes a lot to get everything out of. I remember reading somewhere that the voluminous notes for "The Wasteland" were required by the publisher in order to make it a book length project and justify the enormous sum Eliot was demanding for it. From what I remember, Eliot deliberately included a number of red herrings as protest.

Still, i think most of his work can be enjoyed on the surface level without understanding all of the nuances or the tangle of references you would need. Also, it makes re-reading really worthwhile as you can try to glean that one new vantage each time.

Milo,

That is interesting about the publisher, though I always supposed that he was Faber, and would have no problems of that kind. Fabers was being run by Walter de la Mare's son (which made life easy for Walter) and I vaguely thought Eliot and he worked in tandem, but I may have my chronology all wrong.

The 'in-joke' of deceiving the publisher -and readers, and expecting them to try, try,try and try again to unravel some conundrum is, I think, perhaps the very stuff of failure: unless you enjoy cryptic cross-words,, or Sudoku, it is pointless, and a waste of time. I would rather play chess. It is, naturally, a matter of taste, and for me, the door is still open.

(10-24-2013, 07:28 AM)abu nuwas Wrote:  

(10-24-2013, 05:48 AM)milo Wrote:  

(10-24-2013, 02:33 AM)abu nuwas Wrote:  Milo,
You are much more knowledgeable than me, I'm sure.

I find it off-putting, that he felt the need to leave some notes, which although plainly not comprehensive, are still voluminous. There is no likelihood of anyone, apart from himself, having picked up the references to references to references, and so in that way, I find that much is no more than mumbo jumbo. Having said which, if he were writing chiefly for himself, then it leaps out of the mumbo jumbo category, since he, at least, knew, while he was writing anyway, what all this was for. For me, he chose to communicate in the most obscure way possible, yet, as you say, was not short of memorable lines. Perhaps he was a good minor poet, who suffered from the attractions of modernity's cutting-edge.

What was your comment?

---

It is true that some of his stuff really takes a lot to get everything out of. I remember reading somewhere that the voluminous notes for "The Wasteland" were required by the publisher in order to make it a book length project and justify the enormous sum Eliot was demanding for it. From what I remember, Eliot deliberately included a number of red herrings as protest.

Still, i think most of his work can be enjoyed on the surface level without understanding all of the nuances or the tangle of references you would need. Also, it makes re-reading really worthwhile as you can try to glean that one new vantage each time.

Milo,

That is interesting about the publisher, though I always supposed that he was Faber, and would have no problems of that kind. Fabers was being run by Walter de la Mare's son (which made life easy for Walter) and I vaguely thought Eliot and he worked in tandem, but I may have my chronology all wrong.

The 'in-joke' of deceiving the publisher -and readers, and expecting them to try, try,try and try again to unravel some conundrum is, I think, perhaps the very stuff of failure: unless you enjoy cryptic cross-words,, or Sudoku, it is pointless, and a waste of time. I would rather play chess. It is, naturally, a matter of taste, and for me, the door is still open.

I will try to remember where i read it a little later and see if I can't dig up a link or something.

(10-24-2013, 02:33 AM)abu nuwas Wrote:  

(10-23-2013, 11:48 AM)rayheinrich Wrote:  
That said, after reading his stuff for awhile, I start to feel myself slipping into a
dissociative state and have to stop and take my meds. And all the religious
stuff (even taken metaphorically) is too authoritarian for me. Still, he's a genius;
it's just that I'm much more of a William Carlos Williams kinda guy.

Ray,
A I don't understand the context, and nor, I hazard, does anyone. I have no problem with religious stuff --it is strange how often we say 'Everyone's different' but then froth at the mouth when we encounter someone who mildly is.

Genius? Hmm...

William Carlos Williams? Wot? Like this? Crikey!

The Red Wheelbarrow
...
beside the white
chickens.

Yeah, it's more the authoritarian part than the religious one
as everyone, it seems, has a 'religion'.

No mak'n fun o' th' white chik'ns.
WCW fit more profound in a chicken than T.S. could in a
whole bushel of his peaces.

Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats are his best works for me, i can relate to them, i only know of them because i put them on the site in a few places. i'm sure i've read or heard a lot of his one liners though i have no idea what they are.

(10-24-2013, 12:36 PM)rayheinrich Wrote:  

(10-24-2013, 02:33 AM)abu nuwas Wrote:  

(10-23-2013, 11:48 AM)rayheinrich Wrote:  
That said, after reading his stuff for awhile, I start to feel myself slipping into a
dissociative state and have to stop and take my meds. And all the religious
stuff (even taken metaphorically) is too authoritarian for me. Still, he's a genius;
it's just that I'm much more of a William Carlos Williams kinda guy.

Ray,
A I don't understand the context, and nor, I hazard, does anyone. I have no problem with religious stuff --it is strange how often we say 'Everyone's different' but then froth at the mouth when we encounter someone who mildly is.

Genius? Hmm...

William Carlos Williams? Wot? Like this? Crikey!

The Red Wheelbarrow
...
beside the white
chickens.

Yeah, it's more the authoritarian part than the religious one
as everyone, it seems, has a 'religion'.

No mak'n fun o' th' white chik'ns.
WCW fit more profound in a chicken than T.S. could in a
whole bushel of his peaces.

I was never a huge fan of wcw, I find his verse slightly dull. Perhaps it is because I hate "profound" which I suppose is the draw for you.

(10-24-2013, 01:38 PM)milo Wrote:  ...
I was never a huge fan of wcw, I find his verse slightly dull. Perhaps it is because I hate "profound" which I suppose is the draw for you.

'Profound' is like 'taste'; it varies with shoe size.

Which is my corruption of this old saying:
"Politics is like religion; it correlates with shoe size."

Which comes from the scientific slang for bad data:
Scientist A: "So how'd your experiment turn out?"
Scientist B: "The data is crap, the only thing it correlates with is shoe size.

So maybe it's not the same kind of 'profound' as you're thinking of;
this one happens unexpectedly like when:

You're walking across a dry stream bed, thousands of stones,
you bend down and pick one up, smooth and warm from the sun.

Three poems by William Carlos Williams for anyone who likes
slightly dull verse:

(10-26-2013, 04:00 AM)rayheinrich Wrote:  

(10-24-2013, 01:38 PM)milo Wrote:  ...
I was never a huge fan of wcw, I find his verse slightly dull. Perhaps it is because I hate "profound" which I suppose is the draw for you.

[font=Courier]
'Profound' is like 'taste'; it varies with shoe size.

oh, then I suppose reading this:

Quote:No mak'n fun o' th' white chik'ns.
WCW fit more profound in a chicken than T.S. could in a
whole bushel of his peaces.

was pretty much just a waste of time. Not as much as writing it though.

Ray,

It does grow on a fellow. There must be some good in a bloke who talks to his missus' shoes--obviously autobiographical! I don't know him. just a name, but will have a go.

(10-26-2013, 04:05 AM)milo Wrote:  oh, then I suppose reading this:

ray of the eternal shoe size had indeed Wrote:No mak'n fun o' th' white chik'ns.
WCW fit more profound in a chicken than T.S. could in a
whole bushel of his peaces.

was pretty much just a waste of time. Not as much as writing it though.

But a step up (requiring smaller shoe size) from this:

(10-26-2013, 04:05 AM)milo Wrote:  William Carlos Williams? Wot? Like this? Crikey!

Science will out, whether in shoe size or some other logical operation
of the deducibility relation. And as we retrogress down this chain of
idiopathic indubitability we shall, in time, arrive at the prime notion,
not of shoe or sock size, but of the transmundane voluminosity of
pawness.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of shoes, I will
fear no bedevilment: for thou, supreme paw, art with me; thy claw
and thy pad, they comfort me in the presence of mine own socks,
as well as the socks of others, for YOU give unto me the power
to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the powers of falsifiers
and fabulists and nothing shall, by any means, aggrieve my humble
sentience for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever
and ever or at least to the extent that you correlate with shoe size.

---

(10-26-2013, 09:53 AM)abu nuwas Wrote:  Ray,

It does grow on a fellow. There must be some good in a bloke who talks to his missus' shoes--obviously autobiographical! I don't know him. just a name, but will have a go.

and thense to the sock and yea, verily, to the paw it very self!

(But yes, well worth a read if only to determine if such commonplace
simplicity correlates with your particular foot size.)