(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"
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.

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. Smile

Messages In This Thread
Stearns - by abu nuwas - 10-23-2013, 10:22 AM
RE: Stearns - by milo - 10-23-2013, 10:28 AM
RE: Stearns - by abu nuwas - 10-24-2013, 02:33 AM
RE: Stearns - by milo - 10-24-2013, 05:48 AM
RE: Stearns - by abu nuwas - 10-24-2013, 07:28 AM
RE: Stearns - by milo - 10-24-2013, 07:57 AM
RE: Stearns - by rayheinrich - 10-24-2013, 12:36 PM
RE: Stearns - by milo - 10-24-2013, 01:38 PM
RE: Stearns - by rayheinrich - 10-26-2013, 04:00 AM
RE: Stearns - by milo - 10-26-2013, 04:05 AM
RE: Stearns - by rayheinrich - 11-01-2013, 09:34 PM
RE: Stearns - by abu nuwas - 10-26-2013, 09:53 AM
RE: Stearns - by rayheinrich - 10-23-2013, 11:48 AM
RE: Stearns - by billy - 10-24-2013, 12:46 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!