Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why T.S. Eliot still matters

standpointmag.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#41

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #39
watwut wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is strange about it? The male only canon is result of morality that mandated sexism. If that was not strange, adding some women into mix is not strange and existence of some (apparently minority) people who prefer women should not be strange either.

It comes down to the old question, "Do two wrongs make a right?"

If racism is a function of power, then calling for readers to eschew white male voices in favor of disempowered female and minority voices is arguably not a "wrong".

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#42

Post by aaisola »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #2

In the public forum, Eliot’s stature does seem to be high. Yet I wonder how many people celebrating him are under the age of thirty. Readers over thirty are likely to have discovered him in decades past when, firstly, there was more of a culture of actual print books (Eliot’s long and intricate verse works best on the physical page), and secondly, much of the canon (and the whole idea of a canon) had not yet been so…

While I don't disagree with you, I think at some level we need to remove the "lens" with which we are appreciating poetry or any other art-form and to appreciate it for the art itself. In that regards his privileged upbringing or whiteness shouldn't take away from the merits of his actual poetry.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#43

Post by dilap »

watwut wrote: post #28
dilap wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for readers who believe that favoring female and minority voices is a moral and ethical issue A strange morality indeed that mandates sexism and racism...

What is strange about it? The male only canon is result of morality that mandated sexism. If that was not strange, adding some women into mix is not strange and existence of some (apparently minority) people who prefer women should not be strange either.

Adding some women into the mix seems like a whole different kettle of fish than saying that for moral reasons people are going to have to stop enjoying white male authors!

(Also, I don't think the prevailing western attitude was that it was immoral to enjoy women authors. They certainly existed and were popular! Shelley, Bronte Sisteres, George Eliot, Jane Austen, probably lots more... I think the situation was more like sexism was a thing and not contraindicated by prevailing morality. To respond to that historical fact by postulating that it's now morally required to not enjoy white + male writers, as some sort of psychic vengeance of evening of the scales, continues to seem strange to me.)

(Of course, on an individual level, read whatever you want.)

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#44

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

dilap wrote: post #43
watwut wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is strange about it? The male only canon is result of morality that mandated sexism. If that was not strange, adding some women into mix is not strange and existence of some (apparently minority) people who prefer women should not be strange either.

Adding some women into the mix seems like a whole different kettle of fish than saying that for moral reasons people are going to have to stop enjoying white male authors! (Also, I don't think the prevailing western attitude was that it was immoral to enjoy women authors. They certainly existed and were popular! Shelley, Bronte Sisteres, George Eliot, Jane Austen, probably lots more... I think the situation was more…

The Brontes originally had to publish under male pseudonyms (or rather, pseudonyms of intentionally indeterminate sex). George Eliot is a male pseudonym. Jane Austen arguably wasn't considered serious literature until recent decades; previously her status was more similar to, say, Miss Read in that she was a writer of rather lightweight tales for mainly a female audience.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#45

Post by throwit-hey15 »

preordained wrote: post #26

The Waste Land might be the most pretentious thing I've ever read. It just oozes self-importance. I've never seen any work that could be described as great that has an overt peacocking quality to it.

I feel the same way about both Joyce and Eliot: they make their readers do a lot of the interpretative work that other authors do on behalf of their readers. Some people enjoy doing that work, and some don’t. I think the latter group gets frustrated when the former does that work and then proclaim it as the highest form of genius. Sure, it’s genius, but it’s not _more_ genius than certain approachable prose/poetry, it’s just a different kind.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#46

Post by dilap »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #44
dilap wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding some women into the mix seems like a whole different kettle of fish than saying that for moral reasons people are going to have to stop enjoying white male authors! (Also, I don't think the prevailing western attitude was that it was immoral to enjoy women authors. They certainly existed and were popular! Shelley, Bronte Sisteres, George Eliot, Jane Austen, probably lots more... I think the situation was more…

The Brontes originally had to publish under male pseudonyms (or rather, pseudonyms of intentionally indeterminate sex). George Eliot is a male pseudonym. Jane Austen arguably wasn't considered serious literature until recent decades; previously her status was more similar to, say, Miss Read in that she was a writer of rather lightweight tales for mainly a female audience.

Perhaps we should republish Eliot under a female pseudonym?

But yes, fair points, and I'm not disputing there was sexism! But to describe the situation as "male only" is overstating things significantly.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#47

Post by dang »

preordained wrote: post #26

The Waste Land might be the most pretentious thing I've ever read. It just oozes self-importance. I've never seen any work that could be described as great that has an overt peacocking quality to it.

If you think that's bad, try Byron. "Overt peacocking" has been a thing in poetry for centuries. The hiphop of our era is an example.

I have the opposite impression of Eliot though. I thought self-erasure was a core principle of his poetics.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#48

Post by onemoresoop »

lostgame wrote: post #37
tines wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, which saddens me. Is it not possible for a while elite male to write about the universal? "I will show you fear in a handful of dust." Who could remain unmoved by words like these, regardless of sex or color?

Right? David Bowie, for instance; incredibly influential to me despite his white male-ness.

David Bowie, extremely influential to me as well and not caring what color his skin was, what religion or any affiliation he had. The status quo is irrelevant to me, rather think for myself, stumble on stuff and appreciate it all by myself.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#49

Post by IggleSniggle »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #39
watwut wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is strange about it? The male only canon is result of morality that mandated sexism. If that was not strange, adding some women into mix is not strange and existence of some (apparently minority) people who prefer women should not be strange either.

It comes down to the old question, "Do two wrongs make a right?"

I think it's closer to The Trolley Problem.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#50

Post by jaredklewis »

starkd wrote: post #32
jaredklewis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and for readers who believe that favoring female and minority voices is a moral and ethical issue, Eliot’s male and privileged background works against him. I find it strange that you suggest younger readers would pass over Eliot given his race and background. If one is going to mix ethics and art, surely the fact that Eliot was an adamant anti-semite would be considered long before Eliot's race or background. Even…

The literary critic, Christopher Ricks, disputes that characterization of Eliot as an anti-semite. He wrote a book in defense of him here: https://www.amazon.com/T-Eliot-Prejudice-Christopher-Ricks/d...

Does he? While I haven't read T.S. Eliot and Prejudice my impression is that the book is almost entirely devoted to literary analysis and doesn't attempt to exonerate Eliot himself or draw any definite conclusions about his character.

Perhaps you mean Craig Raine's Defence of T. S. Eliot?

The thoughts of great literary critics not withstanding, my own conclusion is that I think several of Eliot's poems are anti-semitic in a rather straightforward way.

Post reply on HN