Peter I could not agree more. Language theory responded to modernist art. Yes. Diana

From:  Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:  "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
To:  [log in to unmask]
Subject:  Re: a Jeremiah sighting?
Date:  Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:16:37 -0800
From: Diana Manister
Subject: Re: a Jeremiah sighting?

I often think that Eliot was a premature post-modernist in the sense that he
foregrounded the indeterminacy of meaning. The struggle to interpret his
poems pits not only one reading against another, but also requires readers
to question the conventions of interpretation.
I don't wish to take away from your point, which is thoughtful, and worthy
of further commentary,
but an alternate way of viewing the subject, given the fragility of the
concept of post-
modernism, is that the work of postmodernism was already achieved as a
to modernism in the hands of people like the Vorticists (Wyndham Lewis,
Pound, Eliot, &c.).

The modernists, with the mythic method, created a platform for the future,
included the degredation of 19th century imagery into fragments, and the use
of them
along with new material for new structures and ideas. It was, de facto,
-- a beginning, not an end. The transformation has to do with moving out of
a static sense
of space into a continuously transforming sense of time as the world speeds
on the endless rails of time future and time past, those endless rails being
of technology. Einstein's theories relating to the speed of light were no
inspiring in this matter.



See what you’re getting into…before you go there