Print

Print


Forgive me.
I thought you were pointing to what you call the problem that Eliot
didn't follow Weston.
He may have spiked a few guns because of his critics to send them down
the path
of a few untamed ornithologicals by using Weston.Weston's take is
irrelevant.

P.

Nancy Gish wrote:

>I didn't forget:  I just pointed to the review where he defined the term.
>
>
>
>>>>[log in to unmask] 11/29/04 4:49 AM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>Don't forget that at  roughly the same time he wrote a review
>of Stravinsky's RITES OF SPRING which employed a
>myrhical interpretation to explain S.'s EFFECT.
>
>P.
>Nancy Gish wrote:
>
>
>
>>The phrase "mythical method" is Eliot's from his review of Joyce's _Ulysses-, and HE meant the structure or myth as a unified backdrop for all the disparate material in a modern text.  That was used as a template for then reading Eliot as doing the same by using Jesse Weston as Joyce used Homer.
>>
>>The problem then arose that Eliot actually did not follow Weston in the way Joyce followed Homer.  So it has been a large topic.  Weston is only incidental in TWL and then only in the final section except for a few lines or images that can be read through her or not.
>>
>>The last chapter of my book on TWL is entirely on the "mythical method," and although it was aimed a students and is now dated, I would stand by my argument that the method evacuates meaning as much as fills it because it shifts attention from what is, in fact, the immediate scene.
>>
>>In any case, the starting point needs to be Eliot's own definition--since he was quite precise about what he meant--and the way it was used by early scholars like Cleanth Brooks and Grover Smiiith--and how those readings have been reconsidered.  [Perhaps the most detailed example of it is an article by Bud McGrath, who extended the early versions extensively.  But I think he would not read it the same way now.  Nonetheless, it is a concentrated example of the way it was applied.]
>>Nancy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>[log in to unmask] 11/28/04 10:47 PM >>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>So then, Mr. Parker, that means that Eliot doesn't mean to allude to the
>>myth for the sake of an example or something...but he uses the mythical
>>character as a character in TWL. That makes sense and that might prove
>>useful when I write my paper.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Advait Praturi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Reply-To: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: Eliot's Mythical Method
>>>Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:42:26 -0500
>>>
>>>Advait Praturi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>1. To what extent does Eliot implement myth into the Wasteland?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I've grabbed what I think are some of the significant myths
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>from TWL and listed them below.  I've left out scripture, Dante
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>and, for the most part, the English playwrights although I can
>>>see a point for classifying them as myths too.
>>>
>>>1) Sibyl
>>>2) Tristan and Isolde
>>>3) Hyacinth girl (Hyacinthus)
>>>4) Aeneid (via Laquearia)
>>>5) Philomel
>>>6) Parsifal
>>>7) Actaeon and Diana
>>>8) Tiresias
>>>9) Götterdämmerung
>>>10) Voice of the Thunder
>>>11) Philomel (Quando fiam uti chelidon)
>>>12) Orpheus
>>>
>>>What I see as odd here is the level of indirection employed.  Eliot
>>>seems to allude to a work that brings up a myth about as much as to
>>>a myth itself. That is the case with 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12.  I
>>>bet something interesting could be made of that.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>   Rick Parker
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
>>hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>