Peter wrote in part:
It is his punishment for becoming
> a Christian and so betraying the age that thought it could rise
> above superstition, and thought TWL was the prime statment of that
I would like to see more development of this line of thought. It seems to
me that reason and superstition do not dwell well together and that poetry
has always been an excellent vehicle for superstition/myth/faith and not a
good vehicle at all for reason.
I do not understand how anyone can read TWL as a prime statement of a world
rising above superstition when In the prefacing note to the *Notes on 'The
Waste Land'*, Eliot directs the reader into a mythic/superstitious world.
Are you saying that the very presence of myth and superstition in the poem's
world is the "cause" of the wasted land and that redemption of that world
rests in the rejection of myth and superstition? This would constitute a
very different reading of the Poet's purpose for the mythic elements of TWL
than I have become accustom to.
I am not challenging such a reading. I am merely remarking that I find it
unusual and would like to see it developed.