Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Faulkner Relaxing after his AP Lang & Comp Exam
Faulkner Relaxing after his AP Lang & Comp Exam
Blog Archive
Contributors
- AParrish
- Alex
- Alice Rocha
- Ally
- Amanda
- Anna Burns
- Arjun
- Beth
- Celi
- Claire W.
- Dan A.
- Emma Sweet
- Eric
- Grace
- Kara Donahue
- Kate Walpole
- Katie Coyle
- Keriksen
- Lee Ving
- Lexi Cardenas
- Libbey
- Lord Byron
- Luke Clifford
- Maggie Brown
- Maggie Calcutt
- Maggie
- Maggie
- Maggie
- MeganLanglais
- Molly O'Connor
- Molly
- Nicole
- Rosie
- Sara Darcy Klik
- Sarah Wakefield
- Taylor Peterson
- brooke
- chia
- connor s.
- connor
- emily matis
- emma
- mfrasco6
- rhandler
No way did Parrish post that at 7:45 AM,
ReplyDeleteStupid Computers.
That being said, and as it appears that I am the first (as of the writing of this sentence) to respond to the above prompt, I propose to share a possible answer.
Seeing as we are discussing - hypothesizing really - what T.S. Elliot's opinion would be on the pieces we have read so far this year, I will start by analyzing the views that we know him to hold through his essay "Tradition and the Individual Talent." Namely that successful writing is a balance between tradition and individuality - that writing should be an infusion of the new into the old, lending new life to the hobbling of antiquity.
Essentially, this perspective turns the popular idea of tradition and individuality as constantly at odds. People are praised "upon those aspects of [their] work in which [they] least resemble anyone else" (Elliot 1), and tradition is viewed as leading to stagnation. However, a careful study of the works of great writers reveals them to be artful compilations of new and old. That is the path to greatness. The blatant disregard of either tradition or of individual talent leads inexorably to a reduction in the quality of work, whereas the flawless cooperation of the two produces masterpieces.
This concept shows up in crystalline clarity in "The Philosophy of Composition" by Edgar Allan Poe, in which Poe proclaims that "each of these lines, taken individually, has been employed before, and what originality the "Raven" has, is in their combination into stanza; nothing even remotely approaching this combination has ever been attempted" (Poe 6). Here, Poe, one of the greatest poets ever, is repeating Elliot's assertions. Almost without a doubt, Elliot would be inclined to agree unconditionally with Poe's essay.
Not only would Elliot agree with Poe's essay, but I feel that he would agree with Housekeeping, "On Keeping a Notebook," and "A House divided." The reason for this is that all works combine a knowledge and acknowledgment of the past with contemporary views in an original way. However, it is my opinion that Elliot would say that "Darwinism" and "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" are poor examples of literature as neither does a good job of combining contemporary and historical - they focus almost exclusively on the past. Don't get me wrong, both are excellent pieces of writing, but not in the manner outlined by Elliot.
For sake of length (I've probably written much more than expected by now) I will limit my examination to this cursory overview. Feel free to add on anything you guys want, or critique what I wrote.
I think T.S Eliot would agree that the texts we have read this summer fit into the American Literary Tradition because they allude to traditional texts and reflect a culmination of literary techniques that have been adopted from traditional American authors.
ReplyDeleteMarilynne Robinson alludes to Moby Dick with the opening line of Housekeeping: "My name is Ruth" - referencing to the opening of Moby Dick: "Call me Ishmael." By alluding to this American classic, Robinson pumps new life into Melville and continues the American tradition. Robinson utilizes this allusion to re-enforce the role of religion in the story just as Moby Dick does- both authors use biblical names for their main characters. While Moby Dick and Housekeeping do not share the same Biblical story, Robinson applies technique similar to Melville's in order to parallel her own story with the Biblical story (the Book of Ruth) thus continuing the American Literary Tradition.
Taylor pretty much summed everything up, but I'll do my best to add to it.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I like best about Eliot's essay is that it's point, "No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone," can not only be applied to any work of art, be it textual or visual, but to other aspects that transcend art (Eliot 2).
Take for instance Joan Didion's "On Keeping a Notebook." She speaks about how simply recounting exactly what she did everyday is too boring and a "pointless entry," and that instead she tells, "what some would call lies," explaining that something of a non-fictional element requires fictional elements as well to convey its overall importance (Didion 133). She talks about it further when using an example of how in one of her entries she added in a cracked crab that she ate for lunch, theorizing that it's exactly "that fictitious crab" that makes her revisit that previous afternoon all over again (Didion 4).
Didion also mentions how she likes to imagine that her notebook is about "other people" even though it's strictly about herself (Didion 5). By writing down her observations of what other people do around her, she's again not letting the importance of that specific entry be contributed to by only herself; this time, she's using the details of others' lives to go along with hers. She's letting in a different perspective other than her own, and all of that relates back to what Eliot is saying: no matter what point we try to make, it isn't completely our own, and to try and mask it as our own creation instead of letting its influences be shown along with our own touch is to remove its intended impact.
Anyone with me on this?
To go along with what Eric said, sometimes applying an allusion of another work in your own can help bring a sense of familiarity to the reader; if they understand the allusion, then they know that the writer has an understanding of previous works of literature.
ReplyDeleteAlso, where is everyone?
ReplyDeleteNot only where is everyone, why is the clock off?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erik and Eriksen's opinions. It is through the allusions to other works and the continuation/expansion of those works that furthers literary tradition. The addition of 'fictional' details - that is the new views, continuations of the old - to the 'nonfictional' elements - those already in existence - bridges the gap between the past and present. Not only do these bridges give the reader a sense of comfort (for they do not have to travel through tumultuous waters) , but they prevent any work from becoming isolated from the rest of the literary world. It is that which keeps literature from becoming stagnant, from reaching an evolutionary dead end.
As to Taylor's final few sentences, I disagree. Taylor believes that T.S. Eliot would have seen "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and "Darwinism" as bad examples of literature. It comes down to a simple concept- to be an accomplished writer, you must have an open mind. Despite the fact that both pieces of literature are not Eliot's 'cup of tea' and maybe he doesn't agree with their untraditional perspective, but the truth is that with an open mind, Eliot could learn from these writers. I don't believe that Eliot would be disgusted in their differing ideas, rather not as interested in their ideas, as he is in his own.
ReplyDeleteAs for Eric's thoughts, I entirely agree with the concept of T.S. Eliot would believe that our summer work would fit under the American Literacy Tradition, due to the texts are connected to traditional texts such as the Moby Dick.
Joan Didion expresses her ideas of passionate, and skilled traditional writing (similar to those ideas of T.S. Elliot's) by explaining, " the impulse to write things down is a peculiarly compulsive one, inexplicable to those who do not share it, useful only accidentally, only secondarily, in the way that any compulsion tries to justify itself" (Didion 132). Didion and Eliot talk about the individual as being passionate and creative with his or her writing. T.S. Eliot explains, " The poet's mind is in fact a receptacle for seizing and storing up numberless feelings, phrases, images, which remain there..." (Eliot 4). As you can see, both share a common notion of what it means to be a writer. More importantly, neither Eliot, nor Didion, specify that there is a particular type of writer that falls under the traditional American literacy category. This concludes that I believe T.S. Eliot would agree that our summer literary works do fit under the Traditional American Literacy concept.
i know the clock is driving me crazy too
ReplyDeleteAlright, type A students, I'll fix the clock!
ReplyDeleteAnyone who can read the comments but not comment, send me an email and I'll send you a new invitation. George, yours is on the way.
The blog thought we lived in California. Now it knows the sad truth.
ReplyDeleteTaylor- I agree that Eliot believes "that writing should be an infusion of the new into the old, lending new life to the hobbling of antiquity", but your answer ignores the relation of the texts we read to the American Literary Tradition. Both "Darwinism" and "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" can be directly related to American literature. "Sinners" is very similar to the Colonial poem "The Day of Doom" written by Michael Wigglesworth. Both texts use the second person and vivid descriptions of a religious judgment day to persuade their audiences into investing in the church. Robinson's essay also relies heavily on American literary traditions. What of Walden? What of Common Sense? Both created in separate literary movements but follow suit to very similar construction as Robinson's. The essays use the knowledge of the past to reflect on the present. "Darwinism" does not merely focus on Darwinian traditions, but encourages a re-evaluation of Darwinism- a belief that, as Robinson thoroughly articulates, assumes dogma and harshly discourages any questioning of its means. Countless American essayists focus on the past to reflect the present.
ReplyDeleteBoth "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and "Darwinism" hold their places in American literary tradition.
I would like to note that in my response I specifically pointed out that "Sinners" and "Darwinism" do have a place in literature, but that not in the sense that Elliot described. I fully agree that Elliot could learn from those peoples, but that is like saying fish can swim - there is always something to be learned, even though the source may seem worthless.
ReplyDeleteBrooke's point that "there is [no] particular type of writer that falls under the tradition American literacy category" is true in that every type of author, every stylistic choice, is the individualism which is so important to continued change in literature. However, it is important not to lose sight of the "traditional" aspect and to remember that all works of literature are related, whether by theme, by characters, names (as pointed out above), or by some other means.
The clock is back to normal!
ReplyDeleteT.S. Eliot’s piece “Tradition and the Individual Talent” emphasizes the importance and expertise of tradition in writing, and the acquired talent that corresponds with mastering tradition in literature. Tradition is achieved at the point when a writer is aware of its complexity. And one must be able to remain aware of the current time period while maintaining an awareness of literature in the past. This allows an author to create a timeless piece, which can be relatable to everyone. But in order to become an exceptional piece, writers have to attain the ability to pose new and challenging questions to readers. T.S. Eliot would say the pieces we’ve read over the summer fit in to American literary tradition through rhetoric, which makes us examine their portrayal of certain topics and contemplate the questions which are posed to us. He would agree that each piece accomplishes a skilled blend of the old and the new.
ReplyDeleteTexts such as “On Keeping a Notebook”, “Reading Like A Writer” and “The Philosophy of Composition” stress the necessity of examining rhetoric in a piece. In “The Philosophy of Composition”, Poe says, “no one point in its composition is referable either to or intuition- that the work proceeded, step by step to its completion with the precision and rigid consequence of a mathematical equation” (7). I think the mastering of rhetoric by portraying the desired message relates to mastering tradition. This is because a timeless, traditional piece is one that effectively uses language to the best of ones ability – and the language of which it consists has a complex message. “Reading like a Writer” and “On Keeping Notebook” also state close examination of text and perception is important in reading literature.
I agree with Brooke when she says, “to be an accomplished writer, you must have an open mind”. Writers, as well as readers, often explore perspectives other than their own. Taylor is basing his critique on “Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God” and “Darwinism” solely on the topic of the issue. The blend of tradition and talent should not simply be based on what topic a person chooses to explore, but the effectiveness of posing a question and portraying a message. If a writer is traditional, they will use the traditional effectiveness of rhetoric in their writing and talent to incorporate these elements.
Because of the way in which the texts we read this summer are reflective of both concepts as well as emotions that have previously been written about in traditional writing, it is apparent that T.S Eliot would believe that each of the texts read by our class fit the standards of American Literary Tradition.
ReplyDeleteEliot states that, "art never improves, but the material of art is never quite the same" What he is communicating by saying such a thing is that the emotions incorporated in and evoked by literature, in addition to the ideas presented in a piece of writing are limited to what has already been done. Only the presentation of these old emotions and thoughts can be altered to create a new piece of literature, and only the presentation can tell if the writing is "good" or "bad," or well or poorly written. Because of this, Eliot would agree that all of the reading we had for the summer was traditional, as each idea and emotion has already been written about and only the way in which these aspects were weaved into a new, never before seen plot differentiates them from other, earlier pieces of writing.
For instance, in Marilynne Robinson's "Housekeeping," the major themes are solitude, isolation, loss, longing and finding one's identity. Each and every one of these themes along with the emotions involved with them, have been previously explored and used in past writing, making it traditional to use.
Throughout the entirety of the novel, Ruth is stuck between Lucille, who is embarrassed by her aunt and knows who she wants to be and follows that path by moving out and completely leaving her sister and aunt behind, and also between Sylvie who is content with her bizarre and eccentric ways and does not care in the slightest when people stare a little too long or judge her for her different ways of living. Ruth, with two extremes on either side of her, is absorbed in the drastic differences between her two relatives, leaving her no time discover who she is as an individual. After Lucille leaves, within the pages near after, Ruth says, "When one looks from the darkness into the light, however, one sees all the difference between here and there, this and that...(Robinson, 158)" In saying this, Ruth seems to be suggesting that Lucille and Sylvie are the two extremes that she sees, as well as everything in between, however it is still difficult for her to determine who she is, herself.
This theme of not knowing one's identity and looking to find it is apparent throughout all of literary history and Housekeeping is only one example in which this theme reappears once again showing that it follows literary tradition. As i said before, i believe that Eliot would agree that each of these pieces of literature follow American Literary tradition, in that Eliot's definition of this is something along the lines of, "impressions and experiences combine in peculiar and unexpected ways...the emotions provoked by particular events in his life, that the poet is in any way remarkable or interesting," instead, it is the ability of the author to remake the presentation of old, traditional thoughts and emotions that are part of the past (and present!) of literature making every recent piece of literature connected to the past and therefore traditional!
wow sorry i wrote so much i couldn't tell when it was in this little box!
ReplyDeletebut i agree with brooke, that "sinners" and "Darwinism" would both be considered literary tradition as they contain ideas and evoke emotions that have been dealt with and presented in the past, although in different ways.
Well, I think we've got most of everything covered, but I'll try and add to it.
ReplyDeleteI think that Eliot would agree that the majority of the texts that we read over the summer agree with the American Literary Tradition, due to that fact that they combine literary techniques from the past, along with each author's own contemporary literary devices.
In Didion's "On Keeping a Notebook," she suggests that by keeping a notebook, you are keeping your past self alive, in order to reflect on the past, and remember things. Didion writes that she often writes "what some would call lies" (Didion 133), but in this way she is putting in her own ideas to her writing, allowing herself to remember her past in the way that she wants to. She opens the essay with a personal anecdote of a past experience. Because Didion describes the woman in the plaid silk dress as “she,” we don’t at first realize that the woman is actually Didion herself. Telling the story from a different point of view is her way of remembering this moment, perhaps changing the story just enough so that when she recalls it, she will have a fonder memory.
I think that in line with what Eliot says, "You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead" (Eliot 2). Didion is clearly able to set herself apart from other writers, and when you compare her with other authors, her writing seems to be more relaxed, and it feels as though you are almost having a conversation with her, rather than reading an essay. Using past techniques, and her own unique writing qualities, Didion is able to set herself apart from other authors, while still keeping in line with the American Literary Tradition. As Brooke said, both Eliot and Didion do not specify a particular type of writer that falls under the American Literary Tradition, leaving the space open for people to interpret and create work in their own personal style.
I was actually going to write what Eric did about "Housekeeping," and i completely agree with him in that while Robinson uses a biblical reference for the character of Ruth, she is still able to keep it contemporary by alluding to Moby Dick.
At first after I read Nicole's callous remark about my review, I was tempted to form a swift rebuttal, however, her words carry truth. Looking back, I realize that I myself was a bit harsh in my dealing of those two pieces, which, in fact, do fulfill both individual and traditional requirements. Though both seemed entrenched in the past, they manage to pose "new and challenging questions to readers" (Nicole), I still feel that neither has a progressive enough view.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who have not yet answered, or for those of you who feel you want to add to your responses--how do you think Eliot would define "American literary tradition"? Is there more to it than simply being written by an American and fitting in with Eliot's criteria otherwise? What makes something distinctively American? What if an American author wrote about predominantly Icelandic concerns? (Some of you have addressed this implicitly, which is fine, but I think it the definition is one we should grapple with explicitly several times during the course)
ReplyDeleteWe all seem to be following a common thread in that we all agree that Elliot would consider these works to be good literature. I feel that the lack of disparity of opinion was in fact a purposeful manipulation by Ms. Parrish, who chose the readings to follow a common thread.
ReplyDeleteThink about it, can anyone coherently and logically (logos, not pathos or ethos) argue the opposite to be true in such a way that it is above reproach, or at least able to withstand inspection?
Perhaps i did not articulate my point well enough. I agree with everything you are saying about Eliot's standpoint on the importance of tradition, but i think both of the essays that you disregarded would be praised by Eliot. Both of them draw on the works of their predecessors but also draw upon the issues of their present to make their arguments individual. I don't think the judgment of these works has to do with keeping an open mind to all types of literature- of course all authors have aspects of of their writing that makes them "individual". The judgment of whether or not Eliot would classify the essays as traditional American literature has to do with the relation of the works to previous pieces that may be classified as traditional American Lit.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with what Parrish said, what is America?
ReplyDeleteOur nation is naught but a cobbling together of other nations and cultures. Our national identity is not a unique one, but rather a spin on old ones.
I feel this almost mirrors Elliot's definition of "American Literary Tradition" - in that it is old, but new, divided, but whole. That paradoxical nature of literature is what makes good literature so difficult to achieve.
Fair point, Taylor: I did, of course, pick the readings deliberately.
ReplyDeleteMy most recent question to you all, though, is about more than what is "good" (aka beyond the CAPT prompt!) and asks what is "American"? If it helps, think about what (if any) things/ideas/philosophies are distinctly American and why. Puritanism? Evangelism? McDonaldsism? etc. How do geography, history, politics, ethnography, religion shape our sensibilities as a nation and how is this reflected in our "literary tradition"?
I think Eliot's definition of American literary tradition would have many components...First, containing a timeless and relatable theme, idea or emotion. Not, however, attempting to create or invent a new one, simply, or not so simply, expanding and recreating the representation of a previously used theme or emotion. Also important would be complexity. more than just a surface level meaning, but something deeper, more intellectual and more sophisticated than the apparent plot.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Larissa when she says that literature combines literary techniques of the past along with each author's own contemporary literary devices. Eliot states, "The difference between the present and the past is that conscience present is an awareness of the past in a way and to an extent which the pasts' awareness cannot show". This means that when being a traditional writer, one must be aware of the past and has that advantage, but also must utilize modern techniques and pose original questions. This is demonstrated in many of the summer readings,such as "Housekeeping". As Anna said, the main themes are solitude, loss, identity, etc. These themes have been explored before, but may be displayed in a different way, with rhetoric. The ability to portray a message effectively and the introduction of new perspective incorporates both tradition and talent.
ReplyDeleteWell it seems as of now that I am oly the fourth person to comment on this post, so allow me to jump in.
ReplyDeleteAlso I apologize in advance if there are some typos, this is a new computer and the keyboard is not always in sync.
All three of you have obviously thoroughly examined this topic and I agree with everything that has bee said thus far. I especially liked what Erik sid about Robinson's allusion to Moby Dick; I found that very insightful. And since I cannot really top what you guys have said already about many of the texts, I am going to focus on "A House Divided", as it had only been mentioned briefly as of yet.
I am going to start however, with my favorite quote from Eliot's essay, a line that I feel effectively sums up the essay's purpose. "...that the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed b the past" (Eliot,2). This line is basically describing how the past and present are intertwined and affect each other. While it is more obvius that the past determines the future, one of Eliot's goals is to get the reader to understand that the things that happen in the present alter one's view of the past, and thus present events will cause one to see past events differently all the time. As a result, Eliot's argument is that when an author combines tradition with his or her own individual talent, a new art alogether is born, and this new art will draw comparisons to the past that will ultimately change the way the past is viewed.
That being said, I think that Eliot would agree that Honest Abe's speech, "A House Divided", fits in to the american literary traditon, as Lincoln interweaves he traditional views of slavery with a modern solution to the problem of ridding america of it. Lincoln acknowledges that America is in a time of crisis and that a solution, either allowing or dissallowing slaves, must be reached or America will collapse upon itself. When Lincoln made this speech, anti-slavery views were nothing new. Therefore, he couldn't be effective by simply stating that slavery is wrong, and as a result creatively used past examples of the Nebraska Bill and the Dred Scott Decision to edg the audience onto his side. By combining the traditional views of slavery with his individual solutions and modern takes on past issues, Lincoln was able to make his speech memorable and inspirational to those who were anti-slavery.
Well that's my say as of now. Any comments or criticisms would be greatly appreciated. Also, Taylor, you might need to help me with my writing sometime. Your response is insane.
America is innovative, but based on past attempts at government, religion, etc....What America is today, is based around it's past. Just as traditional writing is based around past writing.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm obviously no longer the fourth person. Just saying.
ReplyDeleteAs to what Ms. Parrish said about "America", "A House Divided" exemplifies American literature. It is a presidential speech, for one, but also it is aimed at repairing the divide that america had become in the days of slavery. Lincoln is proposing that america should be even more diverse by freeing slaves, and is diversity not the focal point of american culture today?
ReplyDeleteI didn't see Taylor's response until now, and I didn't mean to sound harsh! I was just explaining that although topic does play a part, the evaluation of tradition is more than simply the topic. The most important aspect is the effectiveness of the rhetoric. And in response to what does it mean to be American, I agree with Taylor that we are shaped by our personal culture which influences our perspective, but also many other previous cultures. And possibly the influence of older cultures along with today's mainstream culture is what makes us American writers traditional?
ReplyDeleteAmerica is what it is today, because of past mistakes and the like. We are able to build off of the past not only as a country, but as writers as well, and in this way, we can improve ourselves and our writing.
ReplyDeleteAnna said earlier that the main themes in "Housekeeping" include loss, personal discovery, isolation, ect. These themes have clearly been used in literature before, but new and different authors are able to compose new stories using these themes by observing what past writers have created when using them. In the same way, America has looked to past leaders, organizations, religions, ect. to form what the country is today, and we still use some past tools today in our modern society.
How do form and content work together in breaking or establishing tradition? (Perhaps we should begin class tomorrow with this discussion... consider what is meant by "form' and "content")
ReplyDeleteP.S. I agree with what Luke said about "A House Divided"-- that it is truly American because it was written by an American president. But then that goes back to what Ms. Parrish mentioned before, about an American writing about Icelandic ideal. What would Eliot's view on that author be, due to the fact that he/she wrote about a different country? I think that the opinion would be a bit different, but as long as he/she continued to follow the American Literary Tradition, using past and present techniques, the views of others reading it would be mostly the same. Although now that I think about it, if someone was writing about a different country, wouldn't they be using that country's ideas on writing? so even if they were an American writer, the actual qualities that the work beheld would be different than that of an original American work... right?
ReplyDeleteIn today's world, there are very few things that distinctly belong to one nation over another, and those that commonly come up are more stereotypes than anything else. For example, the religious diversity that shaped modern America cannot be directly attributed to America herself, but rather that from which she spawned - in other words, England. For, it was in England that the Protestant branch of Christianity began, with the 95 theses of Martin Luther. And yet, America is credited with those philosophies, for their proponents were driven out of England as godless infidels by the prosecution of the ruling class and the religion they supported.
ReplyDeleteAs such, it becomes apparent that America, though it is vaunted as the superpower of the world, actually builds upon the work of others. In essence, our nation, as is literature, is build upon the backs of countless others. We are the pinnacle of the pyramid supported by those below us. Our culture is a merging and mutation of others, our language just a slight alteration of our founders, and our highly praised government (in its revolution of the governing of people, in which people were given control and power balanced, not in the efficiency of the political system), a combination and reformation of previous governments.
All of these, when disassembled, reveal in their parts, an inventory of history, but when reassembled, are the present.
T.S Eliot’s essay, Tradition and the Individual Talent is one where he clearly makes his opinion clear about the importance of historical timelessness and its connection to a writer’s success. Throughout his paper he states that an author must represent the past all the while expressing the modern environment around them. He firmly challenges our view that an author’s greatness is determined in the difference from previous pieces, saying “the most individual parts of his work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously”. He speaks of an awareness and understanding that must be incorporated in each piece to fully ensure its immortality. He preaches of the author surrendering themselves to “the whole of the literature of his own country” and the “simultaneous existence [and] simultaneous order.”
ReplyDeleteTaking such views into account I believe T.S Eliot, as Taylor already said, would see the work he demands in Poe’s essay, as well as Robinson’s Housekeeping, Lincoln’s “A House Divided, and “On Keeping a Notebook”. For example, in “On Keeping a Notebook”, the author clearly recognizes her place in this world and the melding of past and present as well as the effects of each. She says “See enough and write it down, I tell myself, and then some morning when the world seems drained of wonder, some day when I am only going though the motions of doing what I am supposed to do, which is write—on that bankrupt morning I will simply open my notebook and there it will all be, a forgotten account with accumulated interest, paid passage back to the world out there…” (134). She clearly recognizes the passage of time as well as the ability of journaling to link time together into one whole, something Eliot asks writers to do within their work. In “A House Divided” the critical element of timelessness is demonstrated simply by the fact that the speech, although written 100 plus years ago, can still be related to past and present events. This timelessness is further demonstrated in the line “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” This line is directly quoted from the bible, and as stated in Eric’s post about Housekeeping and its connections to the bible and other works of literature, this continues the flow of literature as a whole. In Housekeeping Robinson’s immortality simply cannot be refuted (to keep it short).
Hahahah NO TAYLOR. What are you doing?? You can’t give up now. Although I can see the connections between T.S Eliot’s requests and “Sinners of an Angry God”, I still believe that “Darwinism” does not fit in with what Eliot says of tradition and literature. Maybe this is just because my judgment is clouded or something by my hatred for this piece, but I feel that this piece does not belong with the other essays we examined over the summer. Although an admiral piece of literature, I personally don’t see the immortality in this essay. In my opinion, I think this woman uses her big words and intimidating language so that she can trick us into thinking she knows what she’s talking about. But she really doesn’t.
So this is kind of long and late, so I apologize.
Going back to Luke's question on diversity as the focal point of American culture, if diversity is the basis of our culture, as it undoubtedly is, then why is racism a rampant, unremitting force in our nation?
ReplyDeleteWhy are some people able to get further in life because of their social position, the color of their skin, or ancestry?
In response to Taylor, I believe that this all goes back to Eliot's claims that the new is a combination of tradition and originality. Racism is still present because it was part of the traditional view of america, and the present is simply a mix of the past and present. Therefore, we have progressed incredibly as a nation, even though some of the traditional racist views are still present in today's society.
ReplyDeleteHAHAHA. I love your response on my comments on "Sinners" and "Darwinism." It is totally true that Robinson tries to bully us into believing her. However, it is also true that she uses past writings to bring up new questions we had never though about before.
ReplyDeleteI am not so sure about "Sinners" to me though. It seems more like the belligerent rantings of a deranged madman than a logical, compelling argument. If anything, people followed in the preacher's footsteps out of fear of him than out of belief.
So Luke, because we were racist in the past, our society is doomed to forever discriminate against others?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, racism is always present in society in some way, and a society completely void of racism is almost impossible. There are bad people out there and there always will be.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that T.S. Eliot would classify the texts we read over the summer as works of the American Literary Tradition. WIth his explanation of poetical examination and literary criticism, Eliot believes that literary tradition must incorporate classical elements as well as new, contemporary ideas. Eliot says, "No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to dead poets and artists," demonstrating his theory that all writers and artists must pull from numerous works of art from the past to combine them and make their own unique work of art.
ReplyDeleteI think that Nicole's opinion of creating a "timeless piece" that all generations can relate to is a strong component in the American Literary Tradition, so that "one must be able to remain aware of the current time period while maintaining an awareness of literature in the past."
However, I disagree with Taylor's statement that Poe would agree with Eliot's essay. In "The Philosophy of Composition," Poe equates the idea of constructing a poem like "The Raven" to using a mathematical equation of sorts, and tries to walk his audience through a procedure of composing a piece of literature, always having the denouement in sight. He says, "it is my design to render it manifest that no one point in its composition is referable either to accident or intuition- that the work proceeded, step by step, to its completion with the precision and rigid consequence of a mathematical problem."
Eliot, on the other hand, introduces more of a chemical equation, combining tradition and individual talent, which results in a new substance, a 'good' piece of literature. Both Eliot and Poe's opinions are supported with evidence and validity, but I think that Poe and Eliot would not classify our summer essays in the same manner or with the same criteria. Nonetheless, I agree that the texts we read this summer are a part of the American Literary Tradition, combining past author's ideas with original and individual talent.
Sorry I posted so close to 10:00, I was thinking about the assignment more than I was writing :)
That is of course not saying that all of society is racist. Even one racist person out of a million still means that there is racism present.
ReplyDeleteTaylor, you're question directed towards Luke actually invokes some interesting thoughts on tradition. What is the limit to how traditional something may be?
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I must give you all my sincere and heartfelt thanks for making me read 10 minutes worth of material and then another five when I realized that I was still not caught up (I'm probably STILL not yet caught up).
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I'd like to give my opinion as to what T.S. Eliot really means when he refers to the "American Literary Tradition" as it seems that as a collective group we are tiptoeing around the subject a little.
Thus, I'd like to get my quote out there (hopefully no one mentioned it while I was busy writing this) - "To conform merely would be for the new work not really to conform at all; it would not be new, and would therefore not be a work of art," (Eliot). In other words, while Eliot certainly condones the idea that imitation is a necessary skill in writing, he tells us that American literature is based off of nonconformity. This, unfortunately, puts me somewhat at odds with the rest of the class who (it seems to me) are expressing the idea that to write requires great knowledge of the past and the followings of their teachings, and simply adding a modern twist to the same writings.
While clearly it is a good idea to follow in others' footsteps, I don't believe that one ought to EVER say what has been said before in an original piece, whether thematically or in terms of literary devices. Certainly, it is acceptable to rewrite a classic and modernize it, but that is it's own art altogether, and not what I would call "tradition".
Thus, in my opinion, T.S. Eliot is telling us that as part of the American tradition, we must learn from the past, but always write our own ideas that come with the changes in humanity (centuries ago, the idea of mechanical revolutions would have been deemed insane and it is now one of the most popular themes in literature).
Isn't it this idea that one does not want to flat out copy anyone what differentiates America's very backbone from others? Aren't we known as one of the foremost countries known for it's quick reaction to change, while others lag behind?
Finally, I asked myself whether or not the pieces we read were part of the infamous American Literary Tradition. The answer, unfortunately, was a mixture of yes and no. Certainly it many of the thoughts expressed in our books, movies, and essays were pretty original and not blatant copies of previous works; they were influenced by other classic texts (See: Moby Dick/Housekeeping) and still managed to keep their own. Yet, something still irks me that their ideas and literary devices were probably not powerful enough to earn clarity among the blurred history of literature.
Excuse me if this didn't really make much sense/wasn't clear. I was writing fast and my mind likes to jump around without any coherent flow.
Kara, chemistry is math.
ReplyDeletePoe's views on the development of a piece walk a reader through the process of writing a piece that has both the traditional (types of meter and line arrangement) as well as individual (the sum total of those traditional values).
As such, the 'equation' for good literature is:
Old Traditions + Individualist Twist---->new
As such, the 'equation' for good literature is:
ReplyDeleteOld Traditions + Individualist Twist---->new
That's a bold statement!
George, and other dissenters, the onus is on you to find textual evidence (in Eliot's essay) to refute Taylor's (I'm assuming) tongue-in-cheek reduction of Eliot's definition of tradition. I, too, think it is more complicated than that...
George, you say that the goal is to say something new and completely original, yet the argument we are making is that there are over 6 billion people in the world, and many billions more dead, who have written about these same things. It is rare for any to be on the frontier, for most of those frontiers have been swallowed up by known quantities, the gap they left on the map filled in.
ReplyDeleteAs such, though it would be wonderful if we all could write with originality and complete individualism, the sheer volume of writing which precedes us makes it all but impossible to hope to create something completely original.
I can’t keep up with this! This is a very intimidating blog to add to, I think everyone has made very good arguments.
ReplyDeleteI’m going to add to Nicole. Nicole said earlier that “the mastering of rhetoric by portraying the desired message relates to the mastering of tradition”. Since the mastering of tradition is, according to T.S Elliot, the awareness of the “historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together...what makes a writer most acutely conscious of his place in time, of his contemporaneity”, authors like Marilyn Robinson (as Eric mentioned) showcase their mastery of tradition by incorporating allusions. Nicole also sighted Poe’s quote, “no one point in its composition is referable either to or intuition- that the work proceeded, step by step to its completion with the precision and rigid consequence of a mathematical equation”. As Poe sites, it is obvious that these allusions are deliberate and intentional, and they prove to us that the author is aware that he/she does not hold their “complete meaning alone”, suggesting their understanding of tradition. Elliot says that “not only the best, but the most individual parts of the [author’s] work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously”, and perhaps this could be related to the allusions that author’s consciously incorporate into their work. Housekeeping proves itself an even more profound and influential novel through Robinson’s allusions to the Book of Ruth, Jonathon Edwards draws upon a reference to the bible (a therefore “historical sense) to make his culminating impression on the congregation, and similarly, Abraham Lincoln’s central point of his speech, that “A house divided against itself cannot stand”, is a reference to Mathew 12:25- the bible. T.S Elliot would agree that not only are all of these allusions the places where the author/speaker is asserting our ancestors “immortality most vigorously”, but they also aid in the advancement of the “individual parts” of the author’s ideas, and contribute to convincing arguments (Edwards and Lincoln).
To add to Luke’s point, I think that “A House Divided” would be commended by T.S. Elliot. Lincoln’s advice, “Let his consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning”, could very well fit perfectly within the context of T.S Elliot’s points in Tradition and The Individual Talent. Elliot’s point that a successful artist must know and understand the art of the past, presumably the concept of tradition, in order to achieve a position and influence on the art of the present day could equate in Lincoln’s speech, to how to achieve an influence in government.
And I further agree with you Luke in the fact that Taylor, you must be a genius! Teach me your ways!!!
Good quote Grace, I didn't even notice that but it absolutely fits in perfectly with what I was trying to say.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that our aptly chosen summer texts were all genreally from American authors and American settings, it is evident that American literature takes on many forms. I am especially thinking of Housekeeping when I say this, because of Robinson's fixation on the setting of her novel. She chose the background of her story in the quiet, northwestern town of Fingerbone in the United States of America, and makes the lake as a central metaphor of the novel. Fingerbone can be contrasted with places norhteastern cities such as New York City and Boston, southern places like Florida and Texas, midwestern locations like Kansas City and the Ohio Valley, and even suburban towns like Fairfield. This ties in the diversity of our country as mentioned before. Therefore,there is no set definition of "What it means to be an American." Granted, all Americans may share a unifying pride in their country, but Americans like Lucille, Ruth and Sylvie may have a differnt opinion to the question than I would.
ReplyDeleteI would like to commend Grace on her incorporation of quotes into her post. The textual support is utilized in a nominal manner.
ReplyDeleteYes, that is true and I understand what you're saying (I had the same doubts as I was writing). But, I believe that that is simply the key point in defining Traditional Writing. While you say that something that may belong to the ages is something that can be more or less easily accomplished, I believe that Traditional Writing is something that must be worked for, perhaps for more than a lifetime (pass it on through family?). Granted, it might have been easier in Shakespeare's day when there might not have been that many writers around and less stress in finding a new frontier to explore. But, that's just the challenge isn't it? Rising above those 6 billion people who have already explored a topic and taking a new angle, or exploring it deeper than ever before. Or even going in the complete opposite direction.
ReplyDeleteI think one thing we can agree on though, is that it is pretty hard to find something completely original. But, what I'm saying is that while not completely original (that's where the learning from the past part comes in), your ideas and themes certainly ought to extend beyond or explore the uncharted regions of the topic. And thus was the world proved round, America discovered, and the sun proven to revolve around the earth.
God exists.
I have one final question for you all to consider tonight (or tomorrow in class)...
ReplyDeleteOkay, we are still not at a point of defining tradition generally, let alone American literary tradition specifically (though we are getting there!), and we will talk about these things more tomorrow, and probably every time we encounter a new text for the rest of the year, so it will be an ongoing discussion.
But, consider these questions:
When do traditions start? Who/what starts them? How?
(and we'll talk about form and content, too). Nice job blogging, everyone.
George! You seem to have anticipated my question...
ReplyDelete"Religion is the opium of the masses." It is nothing but a method of control for leaders, and a source of comfort to people. People do not like to feel as if things are out of their control and as such turn to a imaginary God for guidance.
ReplyDeleteAnd George, didn't you just prove my point?
And that's why He exists, no? He exists out of necessity for His being there.
ReplyDeleteAnd you weren't exactly opposing me either, Taylor...
Clarification: I say that writing ought to be continuously expanding, probing the edges of darkness, building upon others. What I read was that there is only so much ground to be covered before expansion is made impossible.
And Parrish: I've gotten on top of this whole "blog" thing. I'm now caught up into the FUTURE.
HAHAHA.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry George, but if you're in the future then you will know what I know before I know. And then, if that is true, what I know is actually what you know. Therefor, it is inevitable that I realize the impossibility of my situation, that anything I think has been thought before, in the past, in the future. Thus, it is the paradoxical nature of the world that my opposition can bend the space-time continuum.
PS I agree with your point which is why I didn't ague it, but you already knew that, didn't you?
So...if I had a doughnut, would it be straight?
ReplyDeleteThe question is not would it be straight (that is not the question you are looking for), but that if it were straight, would it be a donut?
ReplyDeleteENOUGH!
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHA
ReplyDeleteRingling has spoken!
Well that would depend on whether or not your perception of time is future-then-past or past-then-future or future-and-past. In the first case, it would be a churro. In the second, it would remain a doughnut. In the third, it would be simply a mass of atoms in a shape of glucose.
ReplyDeleteI agree, both in the theoretical aspects of you comment, and in the apology which follows.
ReplyDeleteWe should figure out some way to experimentally test those conclusions.
Perhaps a churro-donut hybrid then is the case?
ReplyDelete/thread
ReplyDelete