Print

Print


am 10.10.2002 20:25 Uhr schrieb [log in to unmask] unter [log in to unmask]:

>>>> - As far as I know, German bombers didn't dive, and their speed was nothing
>>>> like that of a jet. They generally flew overhead at night, in relatively
>>>> close formation, and dropped their bombs from a fairly respectable height.
>>>> The bombs themselves did of course 'break the air'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As far as I know, the Germans employed the sort of bombing techniques you
>>> describe over London.  We could both be wrong, but that's my understanding.
>>> However, the Stuka dive bomber, so famous from newsreels of the blitzkrieg,
>>> certainly "breaks the air", and Eliot may have transposed that image.  I
>>> believe the Stuka was widely used in bombings early in the war (although,
>>> again here, I could be wrong) and, if so, Eliot may have been more likely to
>>> have them in mind.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I should head this as a discussion of the aerial poems. . .
>>>
>>> Tom K
>>
>>
>> What an interesting connection,
>>
>> dear Tom,
>>
>> it would never have occurred to me that TSE might have used such banal
>> imagery.
>>
>
> I don't find it banal.  Of course, I don't see it simply as "bird flies, plane
> flies, ergo bird = plane."
>
> Rather, I find it inspiring to speculate (and it is of course speculation) as
> to Eliot, in his duties as air raid warden, working his way through the
> infernal wreckage of London while the bombers head off from their overnight
> run (heading toward the horizon of their homing), and converting that
> experience into the beauty of this passage -- God and death each, in its own
> way, the "one" discharge from sin and error.
> How can two be "one"?  Why, when the tongues of flame are infolded into the
> crowned knot of fire, of course.  Or something like that.


Perhaps banal was not the right word.

Edward Lobb wrote in his Essay "Limitation and Transcendence in East Coker":

The Irish poet Austin Clarke once defined his poetics by saying that he
loaded himself with chains, then tried to get out of them. Within the
strictures of a repeated form, Eliot creates or discovers freedom, largely
through his use of the two dominant and contrasting styles already mentioned
-- one characterized by figurative language and elevated ('poetic') style,
the second close (occasionally too close) to prose. These two styles are not
there primarily to create variety within the poems, not to facilitate ironic
cross-fire (That was a way of putting it -- not very satisfactory.). Each
represents a cluster of associated characteristics and values which we can
summarize roughly as follows:


high            low
lyric             prosaic
subjective     objective
visionary       quotidian
religious      sceptical


-- or, to use terms we employed in discussing points of view, Ecclesiastes
and the ironist. The presence of the two styles, and the fact that neither
overcomes the other, suggest that the final aim is reconciliation of what
they represent -- a recognition that they are not alternative but
complementary visions of reality.


Cheers,


Gunnar