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 --