Print

Print


Well, the 'grouse' resounds loud and clear as much in TWL as in the rest    
of Eliot's poetry as is evident in the lines I have quoted. 

CR

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 9, 2013, at 8:42 PM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It does not confirm any such thing. He does not say what the grouse was, and during the War period it was about many things
> On the other hand, it one simply applies whatever Eliot said to the poem at any given time, it does confirm that it was not about the despair of a generation or, indeed, about love either. He says "against life." That is a pretty broad category, so it's useful to read the whole thing.
>  
> N
> 
> >>> Chokh Raj 08/09/13 6:22 PM >>>
> We must also keep in mind Eliot's later description of the poem as “the relief of a personal and wholly insignificant grouse against life … just a piece of rhythmical grumbling." It only confirms that the poem was essentially a lament on the loss of love. 
> 
> CR
> 
> From: Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 12:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Eliot and WWI
> 
> PS - fructify life and redeem it in terms of divine love
> 
> CR
> 
> 
> Forgive my rushing in but I just wished to say that I'd concur with Tom. 
> 
> Just a word, vis-a-vis Tom's observations, about Dante's Inferno that keeps coming to my mind vis-a-vis TWL. Hell to Dante was, in effect, the absence of 'love' with all its attributes including those Eliot lists in What the Thunder Said: Datta (Surrender in love), Dayadhvam (the opposite of pride/ego), and  Damyata (Control). Eliot's wasteland is a waste essentially because it is devoid of love, and it is this alone (i.e. love) by which we //fructify life//.
> 
> CR  
> 
> 
>