Eliot...Emerson...Shelley...which one of these is not like the others?
Thursday by Caitlin
As I was reading T.S. Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent," I couldn't help but notice how much his views differ from Emerson's. I guess that's because Eliot was considered to be an "anti-Romantic," and Emerson was considered to be a Romantic...so of course they're different. But, those differences are still really interesting.
While Eliot loved tradition, and sees incredible value in being conscious of the past and tradition, Emerson hated tradition and saw it as submitting to authority, and being the opposite of creative (which is the worst possible thing that could ever happen to anyone. He pokes fun at the "umpires of taste," who have knowledge of already admired and esteemed pictures and sculptures- basically, traditionally revered pictures and sculptures. Eliot, on the other hand, pokes fun at the fact that just saying the word "tradition" is commonly perceived as a negative thing. He also says that "the most individual parts of [a poet's] work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously." Regarding reading and books, Emerson says that reading "looks backward but not forward" and talks about young men growing up in libraries, reading the classics, and they end up being bookworms instead of "Man Thinking," which is what they should be striving to be. On the other hand, Eliot says: "Someone said: 'The dead writers are remote from us because we know so much more than they did.' Precisely, and they are that which we know." Emerson was probably rolling in his grave when he heard that!
One really important distinction, I think, is that while Emerson and Shelley (yes, I'm bringing Shelley into this!) laud the Poet (deserves a capital 'P') and say that the Poet is the "quasi-divine seer," the essence of truth, and who every human should look to in order to see what's beyond this world, Eliot says that the author should be irrelevant. He writes that the life of the poem should be in the poem, not the poet- essentially, he says that a good poem stands alone and the author isn't important. To me, that's the most important distinction between Eliot, the anti-Romantic, and Shelley and Emerson, the Romantics/Transcendentalists (which one were they? I guess I should know this....if you know this, let me know!
So that's what I think. I was thinking that Eliot and Emerson had some similar views on some things, but I couldn't find evidence to back that up. I really did think I found something when I was reading a few days ago, but now I can't find it. Hmm....
Here's a video of Eliot reading "The Waste Land." It's pretty cool to hear his actual voice, reading what is thought of as the most influential poem.
While Eliot loved tradition, and sees incredible value in being conscious of the past and tradition, Emerson hated tradition and saw it as submitting to authority, and being the opposite of creative (which is the worst possible thing that could ever happen to anyone. He pokes fun at the "umpires of taste," who have knowledge of already admired and esteemed pictures and sculptures- basically, traditionally revered pictures and sculptures. Eliot, on the other hand, pokes fun at the fact that just saying the word "tradition" is commonly perceived as a negative thing. He also says that "the most individual parts of [a poet's] work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously." Regarding reading and books, Emerson says that reading "looks backward but not forward" and talks about young men growing up in libraries, reading the classics, and they end up being bookworms instead of "Man Thinking," which is what they should be striving to be. On the other hand, Eliot says: "Someone said: 'The dead writers are remote from us because we know so much more than they did.' Precisely, and they are that which we know." Emerson was probably rolling in his grave when he heard that!
One really important distinction, I think, is that while Emerson and Shelley (yes, I'm bringing Shelley into this!) laud the Poet (deserves a capital 'P') and say that the Poet is the "quasi-divine seer," the essence of truth, and who every human should look to in order to see what's beyond this world, Eliot says that the author should be irrelevant. He writes that the life of the poem should be in the poem, not the poet- essentially, he says that a good poem stands alone and the author isn't important. To me, that's the most important distinction between Eliot, the anti-Romantic, and Shelley and Emerson, the Romantics/Transcendentalists (which one were they? I guess I should know this....if you know this, let me know!
So that's what I think. I was thinking that Eliot and Emerson had some similar views on some things, but I couldn't find evidence to back that up. I really did think I found something when I was reading a few days ago, but now I can't find it. Hmm....
Here's a video of Eliot reading "The Waste Land." It's pretty cool to hear his actual voice, reading what is thought of as the most influential poem.
