I just watched the beginning and will have to see it later.  But at this point in the history of reading Eliot, no one at all simply "[loses] sight of" claims for unity.  There is difference of opinion on that and a long history of that disagreement.  It is one thing to disagree; it is another to write as if anyone were simply unable to see the obvious or managed to discuss the poem with no awareness of decades of assertions that it there is a unifying theme.

>>> Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]>05/01/10 5:10 AM >>>
Thanks for the link to a fascinating discourse on The Waste Land.
However, here, as so often elsewhere, what is easily lost sight of is the double role the fragments play in this condensed epic. Derived from a wide variety of sources in literature, religion and myth, these do on the one hand, justly and fittingly, signify the splinters of a shattered civilization. Quite remarkably, though, these do end up reinforcing each other thematically -- the theme of a waste land. Like different musical notes in a symphony, these disparate voices in the poem work in tandem to create a coherence that is both rich and diverse. A certain, and essential, unity in diversity is what, IMHO, underscores the true beauty of this masterpiece.

--- On Fri, 4/30/10, Tom Gray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
English Professor Nick Mount examines T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land. This lecture was part of the Literature for Our Time series at University of Toronto.