Print

Print


Hey Rickard,

I think that part IV is better where it is, rather
than between II and III.

Ok, some of the connections between II and IV(hyacinth
girl/pearls, death by water) and III and V
(burning/torches) are less obvious - but that is
probably a good thing!

I think part IV provides a welcome tranquil interlude
after the end of part III.

This way, there is also more of a jolt between each
section, suiting the fragmented feel of the whole
poem.

I think having IV as part III would make the poem seem
smoother, and possibly less moving! i cheerfully admit
i could be wrong.

This is a very interesting question, it has made me
think constructive thoughts about the structure of
TWL, that i wouldnt have considered before!  it would
be great in a classroom discussion!

Cheers,  

Tabitha

--- "Rickard A. Parker" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> In the thread "The Context of Marie ( Was Re: a
> Jeremiah sighting?)"
> Nancy Gish wrote (Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:43:25 -0400):
> > 
> > The poem was, as Aiken said, composed of many
> parts from many
> > periods--some at least as early as 1913.  So even
> if he fit them into a
> > mosaic with all the conscious intention you see,
> they do not fit into a
> > single unified intention in their creation.  I
> don't think they ever do,
> > but that is a different way of reading.
> 
> Peter Montgomery then replied (Sat, 14 Jul 2007
> 20:41:28 -0800):
> > 
> > Something on which we agree,
> > although the order is not necessarily arbitrary.
> > They work in this order. Their interpenetration
> reflects
> > perhaps an intuitive or subconcious sense of a
> state of mind.
> 
> 
> Calvin Bedient in his "He Do the Police in Different
> Voices: The Waste
> Land and Its Protagonist" (p. 159) brings up the
> point that if Part IV
> were deleted totally then TWL would have the imagery
> of the Buddha's
> fire sermon "burning" leading into Part V's "After
> the torchlight red
> on sweaty faces". (Bedient has some other pros and
> cons on the
> deletion but I'll leave them be for now.)
> 
> In correspondence between Eliot and Pound about the
> editing Pound
> suggested that most of "Death by Water" be left out.
>  Eliot then
> wondered if he should also remove the remaining
> portion about Phlebas.
> Pound replied:
>    I DO advise keeping Phlebas.  In fact I more'n
> advise. Phlebas is an
>    integral part of the poem; the card pack
> introduces him, the drowned
>    phoen. sailor.  And he is needed ABSOlootly where
> he is. Must stay in.
> 
> While Eliot may have had a reason for placing "Death
> by Water" after
> "The Fire Sermon" when he wrote his draft (perhaps
> to make an
> exception to lust for sailors ;-) with the deletions
> suggested by
> Pound maybe there should have more thought given to
> the placement of
> now much shorter section.  I'm suggesting that
> possibly "The Waste
> Land" would be stronger if the redacted "Death by
> Water" had been
> placed between "A Game of Chess" and "The Fire
> Sermon".
> 
> As Bedient wrote, with "Death by Water" out of the
> way, the image
> transition between "The Fire Sermon" and "What the
> Thunder Said" would
> be going from burning to torchlight.  But,
> additionally, the imagery
> in "A Game of Chess" would go from the "Good night"
> allusion to
> Ophelia and her later death by water (with her arms
> full of flowers, a
> la the hyacinth girl) to Phlebas entering the
> whirlpool.  This would
> have made connections to Part I and II's hyacinth
> girl and the phrase
> "Those are pearls that were his eyes" more explicit
> through closer
> proximity.  Also, the transition from "Death by
> Water" to "The Fire
> Sermon" would then have been from the current
> picking Phlebas' bones
> in whispers to the Thames River litter, an excellent
> contrast I think.
> 
> Besides the imagery, the broader ideas would be
> rearranged and I don't
> think that this would harm the poem much and may
> help.  I've assigned
> a keyword or two to each of TWL's parts to show how
> the progression of
> meaning would change:
>    ORDER  ORIGINAL              MODIFIED
>    I      Memory                Memory
>    II     Reality/trapped       Reality/trapped
>    III    Desire                Death
>    IV     Death                 Desire
>    V      Purgation/redemption  Purgation/redemption
> The new ordering would place Desire and Purgation
> closer together and
> I think that the sequence Memory -> Reality -> Death
> isn't too bad.
> Think past, present, future.
> 
> I'm seeking comments and opinions about this.  At
> any rate, this might
> make an interesting classroom discussion topic.
> 
> Regards,
>    Rick Parker
> 



      ___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/