Nancy as usual you make a strong argument. But if the significance of all of Eliot's characters and images were as confused and confusing as his use of water, the poem would be nonsensical, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." But it does communicate clearly the hallucinatory breakdown of a psyche that cannot at the moment integrate inner and outer stimuli, so something in the poem must be working better than the poet's use of water does.

Very best, Diana


From:  Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:  "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
To:  [log in to unmask]
Subject:  Re: Water in TWL--why?
Date:  Thu, 2 Aug 2007 12:45:28 -0400
All the elements--which are major structuring forms--appear as their
opposites.  Fire is both lust and purgation; earth is both generative of
lilacs and hyacinths and destructive as a handful of dust or cover for a
corpse; air is the medium of the hysterical voices and raped girls songs
and of the Thunder's message.  Eliot does that all the time:  in 4Q
"rose" is memory, love, wars of the roses, dust on an old man's sleeve,
the multifoliate rose of heaven.

Stetson, on the other hand, seems to have been in the Punic War AND in
the World War and to live now; he planted a corpse and shares the
narrator's (of that section at least) resistance to digging it up and is
called a hypocrite reader, double, brother.  This is clear?

What is different about water?
Nancy


Nancy, I think Eliot's use of water in TWL differs significantly from
his presentation of mysterious figures like Stetson and Sosostris. As I
said, reading the poem as the internal monologue of a focalizing
character to whose thoughts, memories and sensations we are privy works
for me. I see nothing inconsistent with that reading in the poem. The
reader does not need to know who Stetson is to appreciate that the
narrator places some importance on him as the possible appearance of an
old war comrade. Nothing puzzling or muddled about that. The reader's
experience of the images and figures and speech fragments in the poem
parallels that of the narrator. Their relative significance is
ambiguous. We can make no more sense of them than he can.

But Eliot's use of water is not ambiguous, but arbitrary. Water is first
a death-bringer for the drowned Phoenician sailor, then its lack is
death-bringing, dessicating the living. Both water and its absence
accomplish the same end, so water at times is its own opposite. But
water is presented in a duality with rock, which acts as its opposite:
"Here is rock but no water." Then water dripping is life-bringing, and
then thunder and the storm, which bring shantih, peace.

Perhaps some intricate and convoluted rationale could attribute
intratextual consistency to Eliot's use of water, but I'm guessing it
would be a stretch. All of the other scenes and images and characters
are consistent as to what they offer the narrator, however impossible it
is to precisely define what that is. Even Sosostris, about whom I
maintain the narrator has mixed feelings, is stable in herself;
representing the commercialization and vulgarization of the
supernatural. Both  vulgarity and the prophetic gift are present in her
as human qualities; Sosostris does not cancel herself out as the use of
water does.

This random attribution of significance to water operates whether or not
you allow the narrative reading.

Diana



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:  Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:  "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
To:  [log in to unmask]
Subject:  Re: Water in TWL--why?
Date:  Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:31:57 -0400
Frank Kermode, in 1967, said, "Eliot ridiculed the critics who found in
The Waste Land an image of the age's despair, but he might equally have
rejected the more recent Christian interpretations."  I think the notion
that a trope "must serve the whole in some meaningful way," is quite
different, at least, from my resistance to disparate commentaries
because, if I understand you, it assumes some "whole" is there as a
unity to be found.  But why?  It is not only water that is a puzzling
muddle in TWL; it is pretty much all the images.  Except I would not use
"muddle" because they are not just that; they are complex and not
constrained within a "scaffold."  Who, for example, is Stetson?  Is he
an "everyman" as Brooks claimed or someone identifiable by the name who
had been in London that year or an image of the American or a soldier
and comrade?  It can go in as many directions.  And why is the
accusation of the quotation at the end of I spoken to him, as it is?
Nancy



Nancy wrote: "Water, for example, can be linked to the Thames in
"Epithalamion" or
lusty nights or Conrad's HEART OF DARKNESS or whatever.  But these all
lead in different directions.  In any case, it does not fit Eliot's
description of an objective correlative: when given, it does not evoke a
specific emotion. "

Still, a trope must serve the whole in some meaningful way. Water in TWL
may be a multivalent sign or symbol, but if it were working with the
synergy of Eliot's usual signifiers each of its possible meanings would
inform all of the others. But water in TWL alternates its significance
with no intratextual consistency, producing a hodge-podge of referents,
a puzzling muddle.  Diana



>>> Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 08/01/07 11:02 AM >>>



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>> Diana Manister <[log in to unmask]> 08/02/07 12:02 PM >>>


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