Some Thoughts on Eliot

Wow, Eliot’s pretty deep. I had to read through his article, “Tradition and the Individual Talent” very slowly, but it was definitely worth my time. I like his idea that the best poetry is written with an awareness of its predecessors, but also has its own power, in its “newness,” to add to the overall meaning of the body of poetry. Additionally, I also agree with his assertion that the poet’s personal experiences should not be what causes the emotionality of a poem, but rather the content of the poem should cause emotion. When a poet is able to have the content of his poetry cause emotion, he is doing his job well.

Perhaps one of the reasons I appreciate Eliot’s article so much is because I can really see his view on poetry at play in “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.” First of all if the idea that poetry is not only a product of the past, but a continuation of its tradition. This is very evident in “Prufrock.” Clearly, Eliot is very aware of his predecessors with all the allusions he makes within the poem. Whether he is making Biblical allusions, quoting Marvell, or talking about Hamlet, Eliot is very aware of past literary traditions. Yet, he is also able to add to the overall tradition of poetry by including new literary techniques such as stream-of-consciousness and free verse. So, in his ability to acknowledge his predecessors while simultaneously his own new ideas, Eliot follows his instructions in “Tradition and the Individual Talent” as to what makes good poetry.

Additionally, Eliot also does a good job of creating emotionally inspiring content in “Prufrock.” In his essay Eliot says that poetry should have “an expression of significant emotion, emotion which has its life in the poem and not in the history of the poet” (947). This concept is evident in many portions of “Prufrock.” Take, for example, lines 64-64 which say, “Arms that are braceleted and white and bare/ (But in the lamplight, downed with light brown hair!)”. Arms, as a subject, do not normally cause emotion, but when considered in the context of the poem readers can understand the emotion of loneliness and longing that Prufrock experiences. Therefore, because Eliot is able to take objects which would normally be considered emotionally neutral and turn them into something emotionally significant, he once again completes his own definition of what comprises good poetry.

Poets everywhere have different ideas about what makes good poetry. Yeats focused on symbolism, whereas Eliot puts more emphasis on tradition and emotion. And, it’s not for me to say which one of them was “more right” than the other. Yet, comparisons of value aside, I think that Eliot’s article is helpful in my overall understanding of his work. He seems to have a very definite idea about what poetry should accomplish, and he does a good job of meeting these requirements within his work. So, with that in mind, I’m excited to read more of his poetry to see how the rest of his work fits in with the ideas presented in “Tradition and the Individual Talent.”