Of course, having said all that one tends to go full circle and begin to wonder whether Eliot's experiments in time were inspired by Einstein's relativity & the 4th dimension.
P <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Since people were either literally eating out of his hands or rejecting him out of hand, I think he didn't need much finesse. It would be a mistake to judge the early Eliot (much of which he himself rejected) by the standards of the later Eliot. In this particular case I think he was really defending TWL , rather than big U which needed no defense. TWL intertwines very deftly several time lines which allows the past to give shape to the present. He didn't have anything like big U as a blatant map. In fact it is the lack thereof which gives TWL its beautiful sense of mistery. Both works are trips through cities. TWL is through 2 cities at the same time - early & late London. The use of early London allows expansion into earlier cities. Falling towers … unreal.
>Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>As prediction Eliot's claim fell flat. (I myself don't even think it was
>>accurate in respect to Ulysses, but that's another topic.) The claim that
>>"discoveries" are made in literature as they are made in science is simply
>>silly. And of course writers have gone on happily both using methods several
>>thousand years old and inventing new ones for particular purposes. That
>>Eliot would try the trick of making literature lean on science for prestige
>>lowers one's opinion of Eliot's rhetorical finesse.
>>From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>>Of Rickard Parker
>>Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 4:59 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Eliot, the past, and the mythical method
>>Tom. below is one of your earlier posts for this subject. You and CR
>>have gone over this some since but this seems the best one for me to
>>reply to. But let me repeat Eliot's statement here:
>> "In using the myth, in manipulating a continuous parallel between
>> contemporaneity and antiquity, Mr. Joyce is pursuing a method which
>> others must pursue after him. . . It is simply a way of controlling,
>> of ordering, of giving a shape and a significance to the immense
>> panorama of futility and anarchy which is contemporary history. . . .
>> It is a method for which the horoscope is auspicious. . ."
>>The last sentence of this could be written as
>> "The forecast for the method is good."
>>Is that Eliot's meaning? I'm not sure.
>> Rick Parker
>>On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 07:13:01 -0400, Tom Colket <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>I wrote (in reference to TSE's Tradition essay):
>>>T> Is he being sarcastic when he says "It is a method for which
>>>T> the horoscope is auspicious"?
>>>And Rick wrote:
>>>R> Sorry, I've thought some on this but I have no idea how to read
>>>R> this other then to ignore it as an aside.
>>>Rick: In context, here is the line in the essay:
>>>"In using the myth, in manipulating a continuous parallel between
>>contemporaneity and antiquity, Mr. Joyce is pursuing a method which others
>>must pursue after him. . . It is simply a way of controlling, of ordering,
>>of giving a shape and a significance to the immense panorama of futility and
>>anarchy which is contemporary history. . . . It is a method for which the
>>horoscope is auspicious. . ."
>>>Given the line's prominent placement, it's got to be more than an aside.
>>>I've been thinking that the idea of a horoscope, the idea of astrology, is
>>that the planets and the stars greatly influence our individual lives and
>>fate. In other words, something "bigger than ourselves" plays a vital part
>>in our lives.
>>>Perhaps what TSE is alluding to is that the "mythical method" is also
>>trying to establish a link between us and something "bigger than ourselves".
>>In other words, when Joyce uses the Greek myths of Ulysses' amazing
>>multi-year voyage and his eventual return home, and parallels it with a
>>one-day "journey" around a city in Ireland (and his eventual return to Molly
>>Bloom), Joyce is stating an implicit comparison/equivalence between the
>>mythical Ulysses from antiquity and a contemporary "ordinary person". So
>>maybe, for Eliot, the horoscope/astrology, which claims that the fate of an
>>"ordinary person" has its roots in the heavens is "auspicious", that is, is
>>yet another promising metaphor by which some other author can "control,
>>order, give a shape and a significance to the immense panorama of futility
>>and anarchy which is contemporary history".
>>>Just a thought.
>>>-- Tom --