I think the "objective details of the situation" were central to the creation of
the poem, and as such they matter very much.  The initial "popular
response" was also largely due to the pushing of the poem by Eliot's
friends and colleagues, and that was not simply because it was published
post-war.  But one could as easily claim that the way it was read by many
when it did come out (propelled by the Dial prize and a series of deliberate
reviews --as well as its own brilliance) was simply one aspect of the
"objective details of the situation."  Are you not chosing which details to
treat as signficant?
Nancy



Date sent:              Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:48:16 -0800
Send reply to:          "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From:                   Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:                Re: OT: Great war and 'honour'
To:                     [log in to unmask]

Whatever the objective details of the situation were,
they don't really matter. The popular response was what
propelled the poem into its archetypal status, and a
whole lot of that had to do with its being read as a
response to WWI and to a sense that it defined the
sensibility of the time. Eliot himself, as I recall,
was shocked with the response and the heavy weight that
was put on the poem and on his shoulders as a result.
So, regardless of the timeline, WWI made the poem possible.

Dr. Peter C. Montgomery
Dept. of English
Camosun College
3100 Foul Bay Rd.
Victoria, BC CANADA V8P 5J2
[log in to unmask]
www.camosun.bc.ca/~peterm


-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Gish - Women's Studies [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 3:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT: Great war and 'honour'


I don't think it is really the case that TWL was "made possible" by
WWI in the sense I understand from your message because it was
written before, during, and after the war.  Key passages precede
the War.  But I agree that the War was extremely important in its
creation.  It was just not a result that came after.
Nancy

On 26 Nov 2002, at 16:47, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> INGELBIEN RAPHAEL wrote:
> >
> > >From Tom K:
> >
> >
> > I was only taking Ireland as an example. I admit I sometimes have a
> > soft spot for Luxemburg, but you won't catch me saying that the
> > Bolsheviks' attitude in the war only reflected their high-minded
> > pacifist
principles.
> >
>
> I regard pacifism as deeply mistaken. But you don't have to be a
> pacifist to oppose a given war. Neither Luxemburg nor Lenin acted (or
> claimed to act) from pacifist principles -- they were against workers
> slaughtering each other in the war of imperialist against imperialist.
>
> Since 1788 the u.s. has fought 1.66 legitimate wars -- the war to crush
> the insurrection of the slave drivers and WW 2 up to the point where the
> stupid doctrine of unconditional surrender kicked in. All other u.s.
> wars (declared & undeclared) have been at best incredibly stupid, and
> usually a crime.
>
> Against the slave drivers unconditional surrender made sense, but not
> otherwise.
>
> Incidentally, has anyone on this list ever invoked the distinction
> between the meaning and the significance of a poem (or any other text)?
> The meaning of a text may be partly at least within the writer's
> control, but he/she has no control whatever over the significance others
> find in it. I suspect the Wasteland is a poem in which the significance
> that some (many / most) readers have found (still find) in it absorbs
> whatever meaning it might have or have had. The poem was made possible,
> whether or not Eliot (consciously or unconsciously)so so intended it, by
> the vast irreality and illegitimacy of the slaughter of the Great War.
> The opening line, with its bow to chaucer and rebirth (Renaissance),
> evokes willy-nilly the "few thiusand battered books" of Mauberley.
>
> Carrol