http://www.bartleby.com/200/sw4.html
Here is my critique on a genius mentor:
The encouragement of literature and literature studies thrives on the basis that literature provides a universal truth and meaning. T.S. Eliot argues through “Tradition and the Individual Talent” that as a poet or artist, one must remain completely disinterested. There is certainly merit to this claim, however, Eliot also states that complete repression of emotion is also necessary, to create the most beautiful pieces of art. He states that the author must step away from the writing and disengage entirely and that as a new critic, apart from the piece being analyzed, absolutely no external information should be taken into account; I for one believe this is impossible and there are subtle contradictions in Eliot’s words which agree.
One of Eliot’s main theses is that ‘the progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.’ When looking at this line in particular, it can be questioned whose personality is being ignored? The word ‘self-sacrifice’ states that the author must repress his own persona. This is in fact a reasonable claim, especially with the objective of providing a universal message. All humans perceive differently, which advocates the idea of being disinterested. If the author were to write only with the lens of his or her own, it would be very difficult to interpret ideas as a member of the audience without any knowledge of the author. This in general complies with Eliot’s claim; however, if the author were to wholly banish personality from the piece of art, no living being would be able to correctly interpret such writing. Instead the author must take a disinterested, neutral personality. This of course means that personality is not being repressed, it is just being monitored
Eliot also says that ‘the business of the poet is not to find new emotions, but to use the ordinary ones and, in working them up into poetry, to express feelings which are not in actual emotions at all.’ This would further prove that some type of emotion is necessary while writing. The idea of expressing feelings which are not true emotions would hint that the author must strive to provide the reader with something different. In order to achieve great writing or poetry, the author must be able to provide the reader with something different; otherwise the author can fall victim to blatant paraphrasing or plagiarism. This would mean that the new feeling the author unearths is so magnificent that the author is only striving share his or her discovery.
In order to create and express this new feeling, ordinary emotion is necessary. In order to do this, Eliot also says that ‘impressions and experiences combine in peculiar and unexpected ways’ and this is in order to create great poetry or art. There is merit to this statement, however experiences that an author may have and choose to write about, will certainly contain some extraordinary implication behind it. It would be impossible for the extraordinary instance to not have derived some type of emotion for the author as well, which would mean that the author is reporting on an incredible emotion they experienced. Impressions are also combined, and impressions are subsets of opinions, which can also be derived from emotion.
Also knowing that an initial experience or emotion is necessary, the objective correlative or calculated emotion becomes prevalent. Like any reaction, scientific or not, an action needs to take place. Eliot uses a scientific analogy using platinum as a catalyst between two gases. The idea behind his analogy is that the author be the platinum catalyst and engages in a reaction in order to create a new compound. Being the catalyst, the author is involved in the reaction however not used or consumed within the reaction. In essence, Eliot’s argument is that the author is simply the medium transfer a word from one place to another, more specifically, that the author writes without emotion (as a catalyst) and as the audience we read his art which is the end substance. The fallacy within this analogy is that the catalyst is necessary for a reaction. Of course the author is necessary for a piece to be written, however a catalyst must engage in a reaction for it to truly be successful. Therefore, by extension, an author must truly engage in his or her writing, in order to successfully create a true piece of art. The very nature of being engaged is to be knowingly involved. This would state that the author is involved with his or her writing and this would carry some type of personal involvement. In essence, the author is incorporating some of him or herself within the writing.
Eliot also states that tradition is important within writing and that as authors we must be knowledgeable of our predecessors and take into account their contributions to the literary world. He states that new pieces of writing involve past ideas, however with some distinct change within the literature. This of course would also require additional exterior knowledge in order for the author to write. The art itself would need additional care and attention. Also, in order to come across a distinct change within a new piece of writing, some type of variance must occur between the author and the words of his predecessor. If such a variance is not present, the very idea of producing a new piece of literature becomes null. In addition, such a variance can only become present if the present day author discovers something new, perhaps by way of experience, and this of course would imply additional knowledge and/or emotion that the author has encountered.
With regards to our predecessors of the literary world, Eliot also says that new pieces of writing and new authors should be set for ‘contrast and comparison.’ This would be necessary in order to find the distinct difference between the pieces of writing. Eliot also mentions that the aesthetics or style of writing may differ. This would implicate that the personality of the writers are different, and it would show through within their writing.
The very notion of keeping the dead poets in mind is to preserve some type of tradition. Eliot also states that in order to achieve this tradition, it takes a type of taxing and rigorous labour. This would encompass additional knowledge. As a critic, while reading, in order to understand the literature itself, the reader must also have some type of knowledge of past writers or events. In order to truly appreciate and understand the literature, the reader must be able to acknowledge the variance in the writing. This shows the flaw of new criticism in general. In order to be an active and concise reader, one must be knowledgeable or aware of matters outside the text at times. It is by very nature that an engaged reader would also make connection to his or her own life. This nullifies the notion of dealing with the text and the text only. However, this does not retract the power of close reading because the reader would be applying his or her own thoughts to the text in order to discover the universal meaning.
It would be impossible to identify the exact persona of the author will not be shown through their writing; however traces of their personality will be present. This is clear through the different aesthetics from writer to writer. With regards to personality and emotion, Eliot states that ‘poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things.’ In a sense, this is very agreeable, as authors and even readers may consider pieces of art as an escape from both personality and emotion. Eliot also then states that it is essential to have both, personality and emotion, in order to escape them. I would argue that this is what makes the most successful writing, however, not in the sense that there is no emotion or personality present within the writing. If stated without any emotion or persona, the end result would be nothing short of a bland and monotonous failure. However to articulate ideas and thoughts through a new personality, with a new extraordinary emotion is what makes writing successful. The idea is that the writer can, for an instance, step away from his or her own shoes in order to articulate a perception that is new or striking. This in essence is an escape from the writers own persona and emotion, but stepping into a new unknown persona and sense of emotion. Within the quote itself, it states that it takes an author with persona and emotion to step away from it. Literally, this means that the author must step away from his or her own emotion and persona, and then articulate a universal message with a slightly different attitude.
Eliot also mentions ‘that criticism is as inevitable as breathing, and that we should be none the worse for articulating what passes in our minds when we read a book and feel an emotion’. Criticism itself is the analysis or judgement of a particular subject. This inevitable criticism may be a parallel to emotions. It is inevitable as a human being to feel some way in order to stir up some type of judgement. In the line above, Eliot also mentions that we are better for articulating our thoughts and emotions as we read a book and this further proves that emotions are inevitable, whether they be mundane or extreme. In fact, this thought encourages the formulation of opinions and advocates processing our emotions while criticizing, and this process will come directly from the writing.
Eliot’s notion of being disinterested as a critic and an artist carries significant merit. However the idea of disengaging personality and emotion entirely as a writer is seemingly short-sighted and it would be inevitable as a critic or reader to relate a piece of art to the outside world. The idea of being disinterested only caters to subjectivity; it would be impossible to create or perceive true art without unique emotion, personality or knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment