welcome to my brain

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.

What's better: reading, or writing?

That's kind of a "what came first: the chicken or the egg?" question, because don't you have to learn how to read before you can learn how to write? Hmm...is that how it goes? Not sure. It's tough, because in school, I think we are taught that both reading and writing is important. When I was little, my dad read to me a lot, and when I learned to read, I read a lot, and eventually I became a good writer. I still read a lot, and I've found that because of this, I am able to think critically about the ideas of the books I read, and consequently, I begin to cultivate my own ideas that kind of spin off of those ideas. I think Emerson would say that this is a good thing, and that's what reading should do.

So back to that question. Is it more important to be a voracious reader of books, or to be a skilled writer? To Emerson, and I think most of the Transcendentalists, creation is divine. In "The American Scholar", Emerson says that the "theory of books is noble." He discusses how books are the best type of influence of the past, and how books can inspire the oppressed multitude to open their eyes to Reason and outcry. This made me think that, to Emerson, reading is something to be praised. Then, on the contrary, he writes: "Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst." He refers to the English dramatic poets being "Shakespearized" for years. When we simply read the thoughts of others, and just absorb those thoughts and assume that that's the way things are and accept those ideas and thoughts, that's not creative. Even those English poets that read Shakespeare and actually were inspired to write poetry, they simply regurgitated what Shakespeare did, and basically imitated him. That still isn't being creative.

So, what are books good for, then? To inspire, Emerson writes. What is divine is not reading books- what is divine is creation. Reading an amazing book, or poem, or play, gives us joy and gives us insight into the minds of great thinkers of the past. But reading books and absorbing those ideas should inspire us to create thoughts of our own, and, even better, to write those thoughts down, and in turn, inspire others. We can inspire and be inspired- we can all be connected intellectually. (That is a very Transcendentalist thing to say!) I think maybe this is how reading and writing and being a Poet could actually improve the world. When we read, we can write; when we write, we become divine; we become seers, we become intellectuals- we become, as Emerson would say, "the American Scholar." Well, maybe it isn't that easy, but you know what I'm getting at. We become "Man Thinking," (or should it be Man or Woman Thinking?) and not the bookworm.

In conclusion, I'd say that reading and writing are both equally important. Each has its own function, and I think each is dependent on the other. A writer must also be a reader, and reader must also be a writer.