 |
 |
Dear Nancy - hope this connects All Best David On 2 December 2012 18:18, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear David, > > Where did Nicholson say this? I'm on a new project, and I would very much > like to read this in context. Can you send a citation? > Thanks, > Nancy > > >>> mikemail **12/02/12 12:46 PM >>> > > *Congratulations to Judith,David. I'm sure the course was most > gratifying. > > Mike* > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: David Boyd > > Sent: 12/02/12 01:32 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: T.S. Eliot's Anti-Modernism: Poetry and Tradition > > Absolutely agree: I count myself very fortunate indeed many years ago to > have been taught by the UK Open University's estimable team who compiled > their original 'Twentieth Century Poetry' Course (D306), a key part of > which was devoted to lengthy and wideranging discussion of 'Modernism' and > all the uses and abuses and half-truths etc implied by this very imprecise > term, etc etc > > Jewel Spears Brooker a few years ago delivered a fascinating lecture to > the UK TSE Society etc Little Gidding Festival, in which she reviewed all > the similarities she saw - as well as the obvious dichotomies - between > Eliot and Wordsworth. From memory, one major similarity, she argued, lay in > their shared propensity for strongly-dialectical argument and expression. > > Very strange bedfellows, on the face of it, but, beneath that, further > illustration (to use Nancy's most helpful distinction) of Eliot's acute > modernity, but not of his modernism. I know I'm always banging-on about > Norman Nicholson, but I was somewhat, as they say, gobsmacked, to discover > that he himself had made similar connections in 1948! - crudely pasted, as > follows:- > > > ........Mr Eliot had burst through the seams of a > > worn-out and shabby diction - this had been done before. > > Wordsworth had done the same thing for his generation by > > relating poetic diction to common speech. Moreover > > Wordsworth > > > > succeeded better than anyone before or since because > > he had a wonderful sense for those words which are so > > essential, so basic to the language and the emotions, that they > > scarcely change their significance from age to age. If you > > examine the poems like the > > > > *Matthew *and the *Lucy *series you > > will find that hardly a word he uses has become debased in > > meaning. Mr Eliot, however, related poetry not so much to > > common speech (though he made some experiments in that > > line in his dramatic works and monologues) but to that great > > commerce of language from which the modern reader draws > > his vocabulary - slang, journalism, literature and every other > > possible source. The result was that in these earlier poems he > > did not so much create a poetic diction as make it possible for > > other poets to create theirs...... > > Sadly, the OU's *Twentieth Century Poetry* Course has long ago been > subsumed by more general 'Literature' courses, but I was very pleased to > note that similar things are afoot across the www - see attached, which my > partner recently very much enjoyed (I drag her to Eliotic events, so that's > made her want to learn more...). I did find it very odd, though, that Eliot > was largely excluded - for being UnAmerican, presumably........ > > > >> >>> >> > >