Print

Print


I don't know what the Yoruba still have to do with this, but the issue
seems to be the same problem of unity or non-unity of The Waste Land
that has been in question since 1922.  Regardless of how one reads it,
it is not simply a given that there is any resolution, any "whole," or
any continuity of lust as the only problem.  These are all topics for
analysis rather than facts, and there is not agreement on them.

For example, I do not see any implication of lust at all in the specific
image of Stetson unless the murder is taken as a sexual-sadistic one, a
view for which I do not see any language in the text.  Where is it if
you see it?

And the ending sticks "Shantih" immediately after a collapse of language
and an allusion to Hieronimo, who used a play in several languages to
constuct a murder of all the players, though he was not mad at the time.
 I do not see how this resolves even a theme of murder.

Please explain.
Cheers,
Nancy




>>> cr mittal <[log in to unmask]> 06/05/07 7:12 PM >>>
Carrol,
   
  One may not agree here -- in Eliot's case, at least. There's hardly
  a passage in TWL that doesn't reverberate with the thematic leitmotif 
  of the work as a whole -- ramifications of lust and the way through
  the impasse. The poem opens on a note of "breeding/Lilacs" and 
  closes neatly on a note of resolution that may usher in "Shantih",
  a freedom from this affliction that is responsible for the wasteland
  condition. 
   
  Regards,
   
  CR
  

Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
  cr mittal wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your very valid questions, Marcia. As I said, it's just a
> reading
> of sorts. It's only in the overall context of the TWL that I view "the
> corpse"
> and associate it with an act of savagery/lust/violence, an act of
> guilt/sin.

You can't do that. The "overall context" has no existence except in the
local passages. It's an old hermeneutic principle that makes a lot of
sense: In construing a local passage, _first_ make sense of it in
isolation. There are of course difficulties here: It's called the
Hermeneutic Circle. But not honoring those difficulties leads to utter
nonsense. Anyone can make a text mean anything they want it to mean --
but then others have no recourse but just ignore the resulting
construals as not contributing to any useful conversation.

Carrol


 
---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.