PS - Eliot does specify the grouse as 'personal' which you conveniently ignore in your observation.
Sent from my iPhone
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.
>>> Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]
>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.
PS - fructify life and redeem it in terms of divine love
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//.
<[log in to unmask]