Print

Print


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........


On 2 December 2012 05:48, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> To paraphrase a great colleague who studies how students learn, students
> are novices; faculty are (or should be) experts. Our job is to help novices
> become experts. That requires that their prior learning is valid, or they
> just add on more error. So scholars come from advanced study; they are not
> already ready as undergraduates. They definitely do not come from being
> affirmed as scholars long before they are prepared. It is not being
> compassionate or encouraging to treat novice work as if it were already
> expert scholarship. In the case presented, the student needed a great deal
> of work on basic terminology and on the kind of research that goes far
> beyond just reading the Norton intro, let alone imagining himself capable
> of totally dismissing Stallworthy, who is a very serious scholar and
> extremely knowledgeable. I repeat that I don't always agree with him, but
> that is irrelevant. There is no one critical position, but there are many
> that can be argued with logic and evidence and research.
> Nancy
>
> Since I am treating this as a serious question, though it may be meant as
> sniping, I would appreciate it if this could remain serious.
>
> >>> P **12/02/12 12:26 AM >>>
>
> From where else are the new scholars to come?
> P.
>
> "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Still, this is a student and one must encourage such endeavors even though
> a student's perspective will always be limited by his or her limited experience
> and understanding.
>
> The Norton Anthology is a standard compilation used in colleges to study
> periods of literature.  Introductory and basic but if one reads it cover to
> cover one does get a good dosage of a period's prose and poetry, albeit
> edited.  Not the best but not a bad starting place.  The ideal of course is
> that the student wants more after reading a writer and goes forth into the
> promised land on his or her own.
>
> As I said, encourage such stufents ventures and be compassionate of the
> young eager for poetry.
>
> Eugene Schlanger
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 1, 2012, at 5:59 AM, David Boyd <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>  Sorry, CR, found this pretty underwhelming - readable style, yes, but
> rather stating the obvious, and very thin on any review of any Eliot
> commentary, other than this 'Norton Anthology' (which I've never read.)
>
>
>
>
> On 1 December 2012 04:17, Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>   amazing student scholarship
>>
>> CMC Senior Theses / CMC Student Scholarship / 2012
>> T.S. Eliot's Anti-Modernism: Poetry and Tradition
>> in the European Waste Land
>> John Bedecarré
>> Claremont McKenna College
>>
>> http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/472/
>>
>> most worthy of scholarly note
>>
>> CR
>>
>
>