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

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#51

Post by watwut »

dilap wrote: post #46
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Males currently have no problem to get printed, get publicity and get attention. It is just not true that it would be impossible or hard for male writer to get success.

So, there is not reason to reprint male under female pseudonym. With exception od romantic literature, male pseudonym is not disadvantage at all.

But, my original point was that there is nothing strange or unusual about morality that is sexist in one way or the other, that was actually norm.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#52

Post by dilap »

watwut wrote: post #51
dilap wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Males currently have no problem to get printed, get publicity and get attention. It is just not true that it would be impossible or hard for male writer to get success. So, there is not reason to reprint male under female pseudonym. With exception od romantic literature, male pseudonym is not disadvantage at all. But, my original point was that there is nothing strange or unusual about morality that is sexist in one…

How about: strange post-Enlightenment to see explicitly sexist morality become trendy? I take your point that viewed from a broader historical context it's not strange at all.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#53

Post by dntbnmpls »

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...

"And the Jew squats on the window sill, the owner,

Spawned in some estaminet of Antwerp,

Blistered in Brussels, patched and peeled in London."

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47254/gerontion

There is no disputing Eliot's antisemtism. Eliot was born in the late 1800s. Back then pretty much everyone, especially the educated, were antisemites and racist. Even the "lovable" Albert Einstein was racist. It was a different world/time. And the racism of Eliot or Einstein doesn't detract from the work. You have to separate the art/science from the artist/scientist.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#54

Post by starkd »

dntbnmpls wrote: post #53
starkd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

"And the Jew squats on the window sill, the owner, Spawned in some estaminet of Antwerp, Blistered in Brussels, patched and peeled in London." https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47254/gerontion There is no disputing Eliot's antisemtism. Eliot was born in the late 1800s. Back then pretty much everyone, especially the educated, were antisemites and racist. Even the "lovable" Albert Einstein was racist. It was a dif…

"Back then pretty everyone were antisemites and racist".

That's a pretty bold statement, but I will add that the modern state of Israel could not have come about without some key luminaries who stood up for the Jewish people. One being Benjamin Disraeli, UK prime minister. Among many others. In fact, it could be argued that the uk in the 1800s was one of the friendliest places for Jews to live and work.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#55

Post by [deleted] »

onemoresoop wrote: post #48
lostgame wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#56

Post by starkd »

dntbnmpls wrote: post #53
starkd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

"And the Jew squats on the window sill, the owner, Spawned in some estaminet of Antwerp, Blistered in Brussels, patched and peeled in London." https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47254/gerontion There is no disputing Eliot's antisemtism. Eliot was born in the late 1800s. Back then pretty much everyone, especially the educated, were antisemites and racist. Even the "lovable" Albert Einstein was racist. It was a dif…

Also, much of 19th century English literature has a history of jewish friendly works. Look at such works as George Eliot's "Daniel Deronda", William Blake's Jerusalem, Lord Byron's Hebrew Hymns.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#57

Post by watwut »

dilap wrote: post #52
watwut wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Males currently have no problem to get printed, get publicity and get attention. It is just not true that it would be impossible or hard for male writer to get success. So, there is not reason to reprint male under female pseudonym. With exception od romantic literature, male pseudonym is not disadvantage at all. But, my original point was that there is nothing strange or unusual about morality that is sexist in one…

How about: strange post-Enlightenment to see explicitly sexist morality become trendy? I take your point that viewed from a broader historical context it's not strange at all.

> strange post-Enlightenment to see explicitly sexist morality become trendy?

Enlightenment period ended in 1815, it is 2020 now.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#58

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

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 still has considerable cultural weight even amomg some people distrustful of white males, purely because he presented as queer. This turns out to have been an act -- Bowie was comfortable hanging out with queer personalities but he himself was quite vanilla -- but that act was successful.

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#59

Post by dilap »

watwut wrote: post #57
dilap wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about: strange post-Enlightenment to see explicitly sexist morality become trendy? I take your point that viewed from a broader historical context it's not strange at all.

> strange post-Enlightenment to see explicitly sexist morality become trendy? Enlightenment period ended in 1815, it is 2020 now.

post

but we're still living in an era largely defined by enlightenment ideas/ideals

(tho, increasingly less so, as evidenced by eg this thread)

Re: Why T.S. Eliot still matters

#60

Post by pyuser583 »

artsyca wrote: post #34
pyuser583 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I discovered Eliot in my 20s. I’m still discovering him: I’ve been working my way through Four Quartets for about five years. Spent about 10 years discovering The Waste Land. Yes he’s a privileged white male. But even for younger readers, that’s not a huge turn off. Besides, he may have been gay. Regarding his public stature - he’s still present - more so than, say, Ezra Pound. For example, “Better You Believe” ( htt…

I view the waste land as a form of hiphop before the concept ever existed. It's the pinnacle of rhythmic language and I guess it came before the beat generation? But yea it's like reading Ulysses by James Joyce -- you're better off reading it with a guide

The Waste Land was heavily influenced by radio. It’s as if you’re flipping through different channels.

Also Eliot included rigorous footnotes. Still helps to have a guide, but the footnotes go a long way.

Post reply on HN