So then what is it?  or are they?

Are you denying "The Waste Land" unity based on how it was written and its
lack of traditional narrative structure?

I am well aware of the many early attempts at describing a traditional
structure for TWL.  I am not aware of "everyone" denying all those attempts.
I am aware that most have given up trying to define a structure and I assure
you I am not trying to come up with another attempt.

I seem to have much trouble with people reading what I write.  I am not
trying to debate your declarations concerning structure.  I am asking what
it is that seems to contain the poem as a unity if it is not structure.  It
was not simply TSE who described the poem as a unified entity.  EP saw it as
such and Vivien saw it as such.  "The Dial" published it as such.
Translators have translated it as a single poem.  I know of no where that it
is referred to as "a collection".  For some reason a large amount of
critical ink was spent trying to find a "structure" because the critics saw
it as a unified whole and "knew" that it therefore had to have a structure.
Perhaps they were wrong about "structure" but are you calling them wrong
about its unity?

The question is why do we read TWL as a single poem?

Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM