T.S.

Eliot, 1888-1965

The Wasteland (1923)

This poem begins with the famous line “April is the cruellest month.” It was edited by
Ezra Pound as well as Eliot and it became a significant Modernist document. This poem,
like Pound’s “Cantos,” contains languages other than English. It is also written using the
voices of several different speakers who talk about of despair, an inability to consummate
love and a lack of spirituality. This long poem is made of fragments which seem
unconnected, partially as a result of the various speakers in the poem. William Carlos
Williams once stated that the poem hit the world “like an atom bomb." His comment is
particularly interesting because there was no atom bomb during that time.

http://www.utoledo.edu/library/canaday/guidepages/Eliot.html

Piled Up Sketches
Posted in Uncategorized on May 15, 2009 by thompsonkn

1972 William Empson pointed out that Eliot seemed to have piled up sketches in hope of
finding a theme for them, and so was hardly surprised when Pound threw half of them
out.

Eliot’s The Waste Land is certainly fragmented, but to say such an arbitrary method was
the birth of the work is simply ridiculous and ill-supported. As we heard Eliot himself say
of his play writing, he begins with an emotional state he wishes to portray, and it is from
this characters, plot, and dialogue flow. Eliot even begins the poem’s notes saying, “Not
only the title, but the plan and a great deal of the incidental symbolism of the poem were
suggested by Miss Jessie L. Weston’s book on the Grail legend: From Ritual to Romance
(Macmillan).”

Upon reading Weston’s text, the truth of Eliot’s claim is elucidated (just as Eliot goes on
in his notes to say). The Grail legend, as Weston, a Frazerian, documents it, is the
continuation of the nature cult fertility myth tradition (that an intertwined fertility). In the
Grail tradition, the King of the Wood character has simply evolved into an injured or sick
king who must be healed by a quester to heal the land. Eliot’s poem is the Waste Land.
Through the couple’s stilted conversation, Lil and Albert’s tale, the typist and young man
carbuncular’s interaction, and intermingled allusions (Philomela’s rape, ect.), Eliot
presents a bastardization of the Sacred Union — what would create a Waste Land. This
bastardization is reflected by the poem’s recurrent mention of a lack of water. A land is
infertile without water. It is also my feeling, shared by many of my classmates, that there
is indeed a quester. The male voice’s mention, “I remember/ Those are pearls that were
his eyes (124-25),” in A Game of Chess, is a clear indictation he is the man who went to
Sosostris. I believe this man to be the quester, and it is the importance of this quest,
begun appropriately at the clairvoyante, that keeps the thought in his mind even resting
with his spouse. I think it is he who ends “I sat upon the shore/ Fishing, with the arid
plain behind me/ Shall I at least set my lands in order? (423-25)” The fish in many
traditions (presented in Weston’s book) represents knowledge, wisdom, and fertility. So,
here our quester sits — fishing for the answer.

Above I have utilized The Waste Land in its published incarnation, but the same
connections prove true to the unpublished and vastly discarded facsimile of the early
poem. The first page of He Do the Police in Different Voices was not discarded because it
was one of a number of sketches “hoping to find a theme.” It was discarded because it
was verbose and too easily accessible for a work of such intention. It is simply an Eliot
brainstorm. The actual poem must be refined. Thematically, the original The Burial of the
Dead deals with the same matters as the published poem. Its tale of drunken revelry is in
the same vein of futility we find in the poem’s relationships. There is even a brothel
mentioned (19). What may be the basis of Empson’s claim is that in the original, Eliot
had not settled on actual male, female relationships for a primary vehicle, so while his
vehicles may be many, the message is the same (clearly something Empson did not
agree). The real proof is the relatively untouched What the Thunder Said. This is how
Eliot intended to end the poem, so obviously it must follow logically from the rest of the
poem. Since this part is unchanged, it seems quite obvious the early work was not merely
an assemblage of images hoping for a theme. All evidence is contrary to Empson’s
statement. It seems he simply failed to grasp Eliot’s experimental vehicles. The Waste
Land was far from an arbitrary pile of sketches even in its onset. Eliot undertook a great
task in attempting to modernize the fertility myth that proved a thread of mankind. So, it
was his duty, in this undertaking, to choose the proper vehicles. The original manuscript
was his trial and error process.

Leave A Comment »

Baba O’Riley
Posted in Uncategorized on May 15, 2009 by reinhardtt

1964 C.K. Stead states that The Waste Land only “works if it ‘modifies and enriches the
sensibility of the reader’”

In other words, Stead is arguing the point that The Waste Land only effects a person who
has read it if he or she is changed in some way by it. This change would most likely be
some sort of mental change in a person’s way of thinking or reasoning. Personally, I
think that I have changed from reading The Waste Land especially after numerous reads.
I can’t say that it had a negative or positive effect on me because there is no real way of
knowing that at this point in my life.

I do believe that Stead is true in the sense that one must read the poem with a purpose
perhaps. This is not to say that the poem is not enjoyable to read but rather that one
should read it with some sort of purpose. They should read it thinking that they want to
get something out of it. It is almost impossible to declare what that ‘something’ might be
because different readers will encounter a different experience from it. Nonetheless, it
will be an experience and that is what matters.

Leave A Comment »

Meta-History
Posted in Uncategorized on May 14, 2009 by newfielda09

“1971-Harvey Gross says that WL is a social commentary. That myth=a meta-historical

search for meaning in human events.”

History often appears described as humanity’s quest through success and tragedy. We
are presented with a view of history as a series of events with a goal in mind, be it
the American colonies’ campaign for liberation against Britain or the Allies’ fight against
the Axis. Regardless of the subject, history is typically presented, if not overtly named,
as a human quest toward the betterment of the species. However, despite this view,
oftentimes history lacks overt meaning on a deep, spiritual level. Religion and myth,
therefore, are turned to as one resort for those who want to find deep purpose in the scope
of human behavior and events.

Religion and mythology are infused with constant reminders of Man’s interest in quests.
The Israelites must journey for many days to reach the Promised Land; Muslims are
encouraged to make a pilgrimage to Mecca; the comparisons go on. In a sense, all
religion is one big quest for salvation, happiness, or simply meaning. And through it all,
the theme of a quest or goal initiated by all human beings persists.

In this way, The Waste Land is a representation of humanity’s search for meaning in
chaos. The voices who appear in the poem look to their pasts and their beliefs for ideas
on what to do, but not a one has a hope of finding real meaning. They stumble about in
their ways, unsure of themselves and each other. They are the prototypical humans–
confused by the events of their pasts, they search for meaning in religion. Finding none,
they look to myth or simple stories. In this way, The Waste Land is one long
commentary on human nature. It is not quite a caricature of humanity’s long search for
meaning in any place possible, but it comes close with its consistent reference to myth,
history, and religion.

Leave A Comment »

The Nature of Pound’s Cuts

Posted in Uncategorized on May 14, 2009 by lyled
“1972 – William Empson pointed out that Eliot seemed to have piled up sketches in hope
of finding a theme for them, and so was hardly surprised when Pound threw half of them
out (26).”

I beg to differ with Empson’s assessment of The Waste Land and its thematic
development. Looking at the material cut from early drafts, there is unquestionably a
common theme and/or emotion (which term is used is very much a matter of personal
preference) that ties all together, both the final version and the numerous deleted
sections. It is clear that when writing, Eliot knew that his theme involved the decline of
modern society, its seeming fruitlessness, pointlessness, meaninglessness. All that he
wrote deals with this theme. The original beginning of “The Burial of the Dead”
recounting the drunken night out on the town, Fresca’s tale in the original “The Fire
Sermon,” “Exequy” and “The Death of the Duchess,” and all the rest, all of these sections
that did not make the final cut still adhere to and demonstrate this initial theme of an
empty, repetitive, mundane middle-class life, and the tragedy of it.

Pound’s cuts are not because anything did not fit a theme, because Eliot knew his theme
as he set out to write. Rather, the cuts represent sections’ viability (or lack thereof)
poetically, in regards to; the theme present in the content is fine. Fresca’s story, for
instance, did not work as far as form is concerned, because the lengthy heroic couplet
section simply didn’t fit. But the content and its theme easily fit the rest of the poem, and
Eliot’s almost parody-like tone of the upper-middle class, laid out so extensively here, is
still evident in the final poem in the brief mention of Mr. Eugenides. Eugenides was
present in the same draft as Fresca, but presumably, the mention of just him simply
provided a more effective way to get across the same tone that Eliot was trying to convey
with Fresca. In other instances entire lines are taken verbatim from cut sections and
inserted elsewhere in the final draft. For example, “The Death of the Duchess” contains
the lines:

In the morning, when they knock upon the door

We should say: This and this is what we need

And if it rains, a closed carriage at four.

We should play a game of chess

The ivory men make company between us

We should play a game of chess

Pressing lidless eyes and waiting for a knock upon the door.

The rest of the section “The Death of the Duchess” was cut, but these lines are obviously
the basis for part of “A Game of Chess.” Because the lines work both here in their
original context and in their final placement, it clearly shows that the thematic elements
of both the cut material and the final work are comparable. The same transposition of
lines from cut sections to finalized sections occurs elsewhere, as well; the theme of all
that Eliot wrote is constant, it is simply refined and better represented in the final work
than in that which was ultimately cut.

Leave A Comment »

Social Commentary of Human Events

Posted in Uncategorized on May 14, 2009 by stilesj

In 1971, Harvey Gross criticized The Waste Land because he believed that it was merely
a list of historical events thrown together in an attempt to find meaning.

When a reader begins The Waste Land, they will almost certainly have great difficulty in
understanding many of the complex allusions. Eliot hardly writes more than a few lines
before throwing in an allusion to a historical event or another literary work. In order to
fully understand the true meaning of the poem, the reader will not only have to read the
poem itself, but also many other literary works. By beginning to read The Waste Land,
the reader is starting a quest the Eliot has created, and without the completion of this
quest the poem has no true meaning. To understand the poem, the reader becomes
educated on many other subjects. The quest is the actual journey of reading and learning
about the other subjects. The completion of this quest leads the way to a true
understanding of the poem itself, but without the quest the poem has no true meaning.
Eliot makes the quest for meaning difficult and time consuming in order to insure that
only those worthy to know the poem’s true meaning can complete it.

Eliot does not right The Waste Land as a historical search for the “meaning in human
events” (Gross 26). The Waste Land uses these historical events to give meaning to his
poem. Without these historical events, the poem would not be called one of the greatest
poems of the twentieth century. Eliot already knew the meaning of these historical
events, so he used their meanings to give meaning to his poem.

Eliot does not use The Waste Land to find meaning of historical events, but rather he uses
them to because he knows their true meaning. These events give meaning to the poem.

Leave A Comment »

Lack of a Protagonist
Posted in Uncategorized on May 14, 2009 by halseyp

According to CB Cox there is no “protagonist” in The Waste Land. Clearly, there is no

narrative in which the actions of a specific character are explicitly detailed and analyzed,
but there are some connections throughout the different fragments of the poem. There
may not be a protagonist, but the various thoughts and observations are clearly
connected.
There are certain themes and motifs that appear throughout the poem. The importance of
water is stressed by the various speakers. Beginning with the prophetic voice’s “fear in a
handful of dust”(30) and continuing to Tristan’s relationship with the sea, and ultimately
the overwhelming lack of water in “What the Thunder Said,” water, or the lack of water
is on the mind of each speaker. Clearly the speakers are different, and are not even from
the same time or place. Each, however, has the understanding of the renewing powers of
water. There is not one protagonist who is overwhelmed by the absence of water, but
there is the common experience that each speaker and presumably all men take part in.
The other theme that is predominant throughout the poem goes hand in hand with the
lack of water. The voices discuss different historic male-female relationships or current
examples of such relationships. The most basic role of a relationship is to renew society.
As there is a lack of rejuvenating water, however, there is also a lack of positive
relationships. None of them achieves reproduction, or even passion that would invigorate
a wasted society. There may be no protagonist who is a part of one of these relationships
and witnesses the rest, but there seems to be an understanding in each of the voices and
characters of the lack of production between men and women.
There are some similarities that reveal the possibility of one character experiencing at
least a few different sections of the poem. He may not be the protagonist for the entire
work, but his presence exists for a substantial amount of the little action that takes place.
For example, the same person who spoke to Madame Sosostris who witnessed the “pearls
that were his eyes” (48) could have easily remembered the card when he was arguing
with his wife in the following section. Such repetition by the characters of the poem,
however, is infrequent. The common responses and choices of words are not used to
identify one protagonist, but rather to emphasize a common reaction to situation of
society at present.

Leave A Comment »

The Complexity of The Waste Land

Posted in Uncategorized on May 14, 2009 by wellforde

1972 William Empson pointed out that Eliot seemed to have piled up sketches in hope of
finding a theme for them, and so was hardly surprised when Pound threw half of them out
(26).

This criticism seems to oversimplify Eliot’s process of piecing together allusions and
perspectives that constitute The Waste Land. His speculation is not completely unfounded
given that much of Eliot’s work was edited and “thrown out” by Pound; however, Eliot
was the individual responsible for creating the work. Had Eliot simply thrown together
vague ideas without giving each its own purpose, the poem would have suffered and the
element of carelessness would become very evident. Eliot must have meticulously
worked to include allusions in his writings to convey a message. Albeit the central
message is not necessarily obvious, but it is certainly not the result of “piling up
sketches.”
 The fact that meaning can be extrapolated from the poem proves that Eliot must
have had some sort of process. The unedited versions of The Waste Land still display the
common themes of fragmentation and degradation of society; therefore, they were not
taken out because they were irrelevant, but most likely because Eliot wanted to express
the poem differently.

In creating a complex plot with no unity, Eliot poses a challenge, encouraging

readers to decode his poem. If they can find meaning within the fragmentation of his
words, perhaps they can find meaning in the fragmentation of society. The Waste Land
unmistakably has several levels of interpretation, and Empson seems to be addressing
only the first.

Leave A Comment »

I, Narrator
Posted in Uncategorized on May 14, 2009 by blanchardc

In T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land, Eliot addresses questions towards his feeling of the
pessimistic and inevitable fall of mankind, based on the chaotic revelations of the First
World War. The structure of Eliot’s poem reflects this shattered outlook by consisting of
fragmented excerpts and incomplete thoughts. Many opinions of his work identify that
these incomplete scenes create a complete emotional feeling through their disarray. There
appears to be a conscious effort on the part of Eliot to create a central character to, in
some way, unite these vastly different pieces while still maintaining the jagged discord
that creates the complete tone of the work.

According to C.K. Stead’s criticism of The Waste Land, Eliot’s attempt to place a central
narrator in the poem, possibly portrayed by Tiresias, is futile because of the extensive
number of conflicting, opposing views expressed throughout the poem. Eliot’s placement
of a central narrator is imperfect simply because of the nature of the poem. The themes of
having a “presiding consciousness,” however, as Stead claims it lacks, are not only
present, but are an integral part of the poems meaning. However inadequate the narration
may seem, it still act as an important element of the poem. By at least hinting at a narrator
or a narrator figure, Eliot establishes a degree of order in his mayhem. The concept of
tying all of the fragmented events of the poem together is essential to understanding the
greater emotions or feelings that Eliot is trying to portray. Without a unifying connection,
the poem loses meaning, and the narrator figure that Stead claims is unnecessary is in fact
crucial in reinforcing this idea of a unified mess to establish the whole. Though the poem
may have no presiding structure or logic, a presiding consciousness, as Stead says is
lacking, is exactly what the poem has and portrays so effectively. The Waste Land
contains a presiding consciousness through a confusing series of scenes and excerpts, tied
together by a central narrator who describes the action at various parts in the poem.

Eliot directly alludes to Tiresias as a narrator figure as he describes the scene of the typist
and the young man carbuncular. Here, C.K. Stead’s view of Tiresias as an inadequate
narrator figure is also unjustified. Tiresias can act as the narrating entity of the poem
because of his unique perspective on the world at any one time. He can not only see the
present and past, but also the future, all from an objective viewpoint from the afterlife. He
also can empathize with the characters and scenes of the poem because he is both man
and woman, has been dead, alive, and suspended in the in between. Whether or not
Tiresias is the narrating entity of the entire poem, is questionable. He certainly acts,
however, as narrator through many different recognizable sections, and because of the
plurality of his character, other characters in the poem may also be a representation or
alternate form of Tiresias himself. Tiresias’ plurality makes him so effective as a narrator
because he matches the plurality of the structure of the poem. Eliot’s use of Tiresias and
of a narrator in The Waste Land is influential in combining the fragments of the poem to
create a significant, powerful emotion, contrary to C.K. Stead’s commentary that Eloit
lacks a presiding consciousness.

Leave A Comment »

I, Wood
Posted in Uncategorized on May 14, 2009 by revercombj

1970 C.B. Cox said that a protagonist of The Waste Land doesn’t exist.

I think Cox is right because it seems impossible for one character to be involved
in all of the different happenings of the poem. The only character with even a remote
possibility to be the protagonist is Tiresias. Tiresias could be the protagonist for two
reasons. One, Tiresias has the capability to understand both male and female like few in
history. Two, Tiresias has the ability of foresight. Even with these capabilities it seems
unlikely that he is the protagonist.

Despite the note by Eliot about Tiresias, there is no one protagonist in The Waste
Land . The collection of scenes presented by Eliot should be taken on an individual basis.
The emotions and feelings that the reader receives after each scene is the point of the
poem. The summation of these feelings into one theme is the mystery behind The Waste
Land.

Leave A Comment »

The Search for Meaning in Eliot’s Work

Posted in Uncategorized on May 14, 2009 by irankunzes

1971 Harvey Gross says that WL is a social commentary. That myth = a meta-historical
search for meaning in human events.
 Harvey Gross gives a very insightful remark on The Waste Land. That the poem
represents a “search for meaning” can be well-supported by Eliot’s clear indications of
allusions to The Golden Bough, From Ritual to Romance, and the bible.

The references to “son of man” (ln 20), Satan’s view of the Garden of Eden (ln 98), and
the subtle hints of psalm 127 (ln 182) accompanied by the appearance of Madame
Sosostris the tarot card reader and Tiresias characterize Eliot’s injection of a clerical
presence in the poem. The existence of this presence is further supported by Eliot’s note
concerning Tiresias that he is “the most important personage in the poem.” It is no
coincidence that Eliot attaches such significance to Tiresias—a main character in the
collage of the clerical presence. The evidence of a clerically-related or prophetic presence
implies a search for meaning in the events in The Wasteland.

Gross’s remark is further supported by the lack of water and its symbolism. The thunder
is “sterile…without rain” (ln 342) and there is “no water but only rock” (ln 331). As we
have observed in The Tempest and in From Ritual to Romance (see Fisher King section)
water plays a critical part. It is the source of renewal, rebirth, and of baptism. The lack of
water thus represents a lack of excitement in the typist and young man carbuncular’s
relationship, it represents the absence of sanctity in Albert and Lil’s marriage, and the
general absence of spiritual direction in modern life. The poet’s search for meaning is
exemplified in these instances because of the use of the essentially spiritually symbolic
element of water. This usage suggests that the poet believes meaning can be found
through a spiritual renewal—in other words, a baptism by water.

Eliot’s note about Frazer and Weston’s influence on the poem can by itself stand as an
evidence of Gross’s assertion. Both The Golden Bough and From Ritual to Romance are
commentaries on the search for meaning and renewal in life. Weston’s study of the grail
romances indicates that the quest and success of finding the grail was directly linked to
the revitalization of the king and the land. Frazer similarly shows the influence of
vegetation ceremonies upon the abundance and fertility of the land. In simpler terms,
Frazer and Weston’s works are both chronicles of the human search for divine influence.
The reference to these works in The Waste Land is a subtle remark by Eliot that today we
lack a myth or spiritual reality upon which we may imbue our lives with meaning.

All the above elements lend themselves to Gross’s remark that the Poem is a social
commentary on the state of myth/meaning or lack thereof in everyday life during Eliot’s
time. The Waste Land is unique in the regard that the author provides an in-depth
annotation to the poem through his notes at the end. These notes must have been provided
because they are critical to not only the analysis of the poem, but its content. Due to their
significance in our understanding of The Waste Land they should be regarded not only as
notes but as part of the poem itself; another reason why Gross’s remark is particularly
insightful.

http://stcvawasteland.wordpress.com/
No Passion
Posted in Uncategorized on May 13, 2009 by coogane

Pickney’s assertion that sexuality and sexual relationships are prominent themes in “ A
Game of Chess” and “The Fire Sermon” seems very valid and obvious to me. Although
sexuality is present in “A Game of Chess”, it is less apparent than in “The Fire Sermon.”
In my opinion, “A Game of Chess” deals with relationships between males and females
in general. Also, characters like Albert and Lil could very possibly represent Eliot’s
marriage. Lil could also be a representation of the stereotypical woman, who always asks
questions and constantly talks. Albert, like the stereotypical man, answers her questions
abruptly and shortly.

After listening to Lil’s friend conversation, sexuality becomes a more centralized

theme. Like Pickney says, “The Waste Land is a dismally passionless world” (108). It is
pathetic that Lil’s husband, Albert, is coming home for war and the biggest issue is sex,
not necessarily with Lil. It seems like the world is void of passion if a man would rather
come home to have sex with someone random instead of his wife if she looks “so
antique” (156). Plus, Lil’s friend clearly tells her the importance of giving her husband a
good time. Marriage is demoralized because it’s unheard of to be married without
children according to Lil’s friend. In short, Lil most always compete to be desirable for
her husband, like Pickney mentions.

In the fire sermon, the relationship between the clerk and the typist is completely
void of emotion. Their relationship is solely based on sex. The typist is completely
unconcerned with the clerk; after they have sex, she simply thinks “‘ Well now that’s
done: and I’m glad it’s over’” (252). It’s almost as if she is a robot simply going through
the motions of the day, including sex, without any passion or care for what she’s doing.
So the passion of sex and sexuality has gone to waste due to boredom and lack of
responsibility or emotional ties.

All in all, I completely agree with Pickney’s criticism.

Leave A Comment »

Tiresias the Protagonist?

Posted in Uncategorized on May 13, 2009 by powellt

1970 C.B. Cox said that a “protagonist” of The Waste Land doesn’t exist. The fact that
Eliot made a note about Tiresias shows that he was trying to make the poem have what it
doesn’t have: a presiding consciousness. The Waste Land groups together different or
opposing views which may exist in one mind, assuming that any such individual could
actually exist (37).
C.B. Cox is correct in his assertion that there is no single protagonist in Eliot’s The Waste
Land. As we have seen in our study of the first two sections of the poem, there are many
voices with different tones. For example, there is a narrator, who introduces the idea of
“mixing/ memory and desire” (2-3). The narrator has a pessimistic tone. Marie is a more
optimistic sounding character. She is perhaps younger, and this youth lends itself to
happiness. Another, different character is the prophet-like character. This prophet has a
frightening voice meant to intimidate his underlings. He will show “you fear in a handful
of dust” (30). So, in the first 30 lines of the poem, there are three distinctly different
characters, and this pattern continues for the remainder of Eliot’s work. The poem is
constructed from fragments. No single protagonist is present in The Waste Land.

Cox theorizes that by writing a note about Tiresias, Eliot was trying to unite all the
different voices (e.g. the narrator, Marie, the prophet, and etc.) under a “presiding
consciousness.” Eliot’s note about Tiresias reads “Tiresias… is yet the most important
personage in the poem, uniting all the rest.” Therefore, it is true that Eliot was trying to
unite all the characters of his poem under once character, Tiresias. However, I do not
believe that Eliot was striving for a “presiding consciousness” for his poem.

Rather, Eliot is trying to unify the different voices of The Waste Land. This is a subtle,
but crucial, distinction. A central consciousness implies that the ideas of the poem are
similar. As we have already seen, the voices of the poem are far from similar. Cox
believes that the “different or opposing views [of the different voices]… may exist in one
mind.” However, I believe they cannot. By writing the note about Tiresias, Eliot was
simply searching for some unity in his discontinuous work. If he could connect the
different voices somehow (perhaps though Tiresias), Eliot would be able to mesh the
different characters of The Waste Land into a more unified work, instead of a few,
unrelated, short poems.

In conclusion, Cox was correct when he said there is no single protagonist in The Waste
Land; however, there is not a “presiding consciousness” in Tiresias.

Leave A Comment »

Sanctity
Posted in Uncategorized on April 6, 2009 by newfielda09

The Sacred Marriage is the wedding of the world of mankind to the world of the divine,
seen in the marriage of a mortal man or woman to a supernatural, immortal goddess or
god. This marriage is essential to every aspect of the living world, as it symbolizes the
union of everything in Nature. The human spouse represents the clay that becomes
shaped into something living and vital, and the divine consort represents the spark of
fertility that shapes the clay and causes it to move and think and feel. Similarly, the
human spouse is the deity’s link to the natural world–if the deity is not literally tied to the
world, the land will languish and die. However, when the divinity marries the human, the
world that we can see and the world of the spiritual mysteries become inextricably linked,
thus ensuring the vitality of both sides of reality. Without the power of the spiritual
world, the visible world becomes infertile and barren; without the vitality of the “real”
world, the spiritual world becomes inaccessible and weak. The Sacred Marriage is an
absurdly necessary ritual for any culture, then, because it makes certain the continuance
of all reality. If there is no Sacred Marriage, there will be no life very, very soon.

The idea that an allegorical marriage makes crops grow seems silly now that we have
internal combustion engines and one hundred twenty gigabyte video/music players. We
claim that magical rituals are a load of bunk, and science is the be-all and end-all.
Certainly there can’t be anything more ridiculous than the idea that a symbolic marriage
between a human champion and a person in costume or piece of plant life representing a
divinity meant to ensure fertility. However, in twenty thousand years, humanity has
changed remarkably little. We must have explanations and something to put faith in, to
understand, to blame, and to follow. Our new sacred belief lies in science. Science is
quantifiable and acts according to seemingly absolute rules. You can replicate results as
many times as you want, within reason. It appears to act just as we say it will. But, of
course, the rules are fairly arbitrary, seeing as they are man-made. We can’t prove for a
fact that objects in motion stay in motion unless met by an equal and opposite force. We
haven’t been to everywhere in the universe. It might not work somewhere.

We put much blind faith in science simply because it’s the best explanation we’ve got.
Certainly there’s skepticism attached, but for the most part, science is seen as the real
reason why the world spins. Surely the early peoples assumed that the Sacred Marriage
was the real reason the sun rose and the trees made fruit. They did the ritual every year,
and the plants grew and died every year, so the system worked. Science is a man-made
art, like magic, so it obeys the rules Man has laid out for it. We can’t know that science
is the best art out there. Obviously magic wasn’t that art, because science explained what
magic missed. We are stuck behind the wall of science–we can’t see around it to the next
art that’s coming along that will better explain how things work in black holes or where
the Big Bang came from. Soon enough, though, science will become that dusty, arbitrary
magic we now laugh about, and Man will find some new rules to consider sacred and
untouchable, like Newton’s Laws of gravity or Maxwell’s equations or the Sacred
Marriage or the King of the Wood.

2 Comments »

Sacred’s Shift
Posted in Week three on April 6, 2009 by thompsonkn

Frazer’s sacred marriage is the union of a female deity and male consort to promote
universal fertility. This marriage was sacred not only because of the divinity involved,
but because of its consequences. In older societies, this union was their livelihood. From
this tradition, Frazer remarked that many ancient peoples felt a link between their fertility
and that of the land. So, from the organized orgies of some tribes, the sexual restraint
others, to the more modern ground rolling, people have tried to influence nature’s fertility
with their own.

Marriage was sacred because all life depended on it. The union of male and female was a
means to an end. It was indeed a responsibility to the community. Though this passed
through various incarnations, this tradition of a communal responsibility seems to
permeate. Whether it was the violent sacrifice of the king or the sexual restraints imposed
by some tribes, everyone felt compelled to play their part despite a sacrifice. Marriage
was sacred because it linked communities.

Today we no longer live under such beliefs. Our science and religion have dispelled the
concept of an interwoven fertility. Marriage is now (in most societies) considered sacred
only as a formal bond between people who love one another. Marriage is no longer a
communal responsibilty, but a personal declaration of love. So, because it effects less
people, marriage has lost importance. But, in a world where one knows more than his
tribe and is no longer linked to the community’s virility, marriage seems corrupted today.
With infidelity rampant, near half of all marriages ending in divorce, and runaway
fathers, children, the marks of fertility, have become a liabilty instead of a blessing.
Marriage, sacred by any stretch of the word, is hard to find today. It seems most are
simply deficient in translating the love and personal responsibility for a community to
that for one person.

1 Comment »

The Evolution of Marriage

Posted in Uncategorized on April 6, 2009 by wellforde

According to James Frazer, the sacred marriage is most simplistically one that
produces fertility. He also adds that marriage is not limited to humans; the universe has
many different male and female elements that can constitute a sacred union. In ancient
tradition, marriage could take place between the King of the Wood and a tree, which
represented the ultimate female life source. Mythologically speaking, divine marriage is
the union of a female goddess and the King of the Woods. The King of the Woods is a
role that must be filled by a mortal man, whose purpose is to create life with the goddess.
The fertility of such a marriage is supposed to forecast the land’s fertility: “The aim of
their union would be to promote the fruitfulness of the earth, of animals, and of mankind”
(Frazer 170). Once he has fulfilled his duty in enhancing the land’s vegetation, he must
face his inevitable death as a final sacrifice. He is then replaced by a younger, more
fertile mortal who will inherit the same destiny.

Because marriage yields prosperity for the vegetation, it is necessary that both
the King of the Wood and his female counterpart be fertile. Diana of Nemi was the
goddess of fertility whose realm covered many aspects of a sacred marriage: “Diana was
not merely a patroness of wild beasts, a mistress of woods and hills…In her sacred grove
at Nemi, she was especially worshipped as a goddess of childbirth, who bestowed
offspring on men and women” (Frazer 170). Her mortal partner was Virbius, who
represented King of the Wood at Nemi. Their union was both celebrated and ritualized to
ensure future prosperity in every sense.

Although traces of this sacred marriage can be seen today, the principles of
marriage have evolved greatly. A sacred marriage benefits an entire kingdom whereas a
present marriage focuses on the happiness of two individuals. Marriage is not so much a
sacrifice for the land’s fruitfulness, but rather a commitment to another individual.
Rituals and sacrifices have been replaced with science and agriculture, and therefore the
offspring of a couple does not seem to correlate to the productivity of the earth. The idea
of marriage is still sacred; however, fertility is no longer the determinant factor of a
relationship.

1 Comment »

The Changing Nature of the Sacred Marriage

Posted in Week three on April 6, 2009 by lyled

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--> According to
James Frazer’s The Golden Bough, the “sacred marriage” of the world’s ancient (or
present but “savage”) cultures is essentially the symbolic marriage between a mortal and
a fertility god or goddess, performed in order to ensure the fertility of the land and its
inhabitants. This practice has, throughout the ages, included actual marriages between
people; symbolic marriage ceremonies between people; symbolic marriage ceremonies
between a person and something inhuman, often a tree; and even sacrifices of women to
the fertility god. One of the most contemporary examples, though it is nowadays more
tradition than an actual entreaty to a god or goddess, is the May Day festivities. The
sacred marriage on which Frazer focuses his book is the one in Nemi between the King of
the Wood and the tree that represents the Fertility Goddess.

In today’s western culture, with its devotion to science and its rejection of polytheistic
religions, actual sacred marriages that adhere to Frazer’s definition are no longer a part of
our lives. However, that is not to say that ceremonies that could be considered “sacred
marriages” do not occur; their aim is just not to promote literal fertility of the land.
Christianity has ways in which people, generally women as far as I know, but perhaps
men as well, can “marry” God and take a vow of chastity, either until actual marriage or
for their entire life. Such an action is meant to heighten the connection between the
person and God; in a sense, it is meant to benefit their personal spiritual fertility. The land
no longer benefits, as was the purpose of sacred marriages of old, but rather it is intended
to benefit the internal. Indeed, this fact is representative of the larger trend of religion
through the millennia: it has for the most part shifted from an institution centered on
explaining natural phenomena and trying to influence gods in their decisions regarding
said natural phenomena, towards an institution centered on the spiritual health of
individual members of the religion. Religion has slowly morphed from a community-
based, exoteric practice into a personal, esoteric one, and the changing definition of the
“sacred marriage” reflects that.

3 Comments »

The Sacred Marriage, Then and Now

Posted in Uncategorized on April 6, 2009 by reinhardtt

James Frazer was a highly educated anthropologist who published a work titled “The
Golden Bough”. The subject matter of this book covers all sorts of belief systems and
rituals from both the modern and ancient worlds. The overlying theme is of the “Sacred
marriage”. This, according to Frazer, was the union of a male deity and a female goddess
of the Earth or a goddess of fertility. The male figure was a strong and powerful “King
of the Wood” who represented his people in order for them to be successful. The
goddess and the king united so that they may give the people on Earth the ultimate
opportunity for their crops to grow, for their people to become powerful, or whatever
their reason was.

Another look at the “Sacred Marriage” from a different perspective comes from Jessie L.
Weston’s book called “From Ritual To Romance”. This work examines the sacred union
thru the various different Arthurian Legends. The tales of King Arthur all have a central
theme as well, the Holy Grail. The ultimate goal of all the knights is to reach the Grail,
thus gaining eternal life. Without a successful king, the land or nation would become a
“Wasteland” according to Weston. The land is stricken with a curse that the hero or king
must save them from. The hero in these Grail legends is the “King of the Wood” for
Weston’s sacred marriage.

In modern times, it is difficult to believe that the sacred marriage still exists, or at least
that it exists the same way that it used to according experts mentioned in the above
paragraphs. Modernization and technology have begun to take over the world. There is
very little in the world that is still considered completely natural. Also, there are very
few people in the world today that still believe in the “Sacred Marriage” the way that
Weston and Frazer did. They may believe in Christianity, which falls under that
category, according to the experts, but they do not believe in the “Sacred Marriage on
such a large scale. That is they do not believe in the “Sacred Marriage” in the way that
“The Golden Bough” and “From Ritual To Romance” discuss it.

4 Comments »

The Sacred Marriage Unraveled

Posted in Uncategorized on April 6, 2009 by revercombj
 The sacred marriage as defined by Frazer is the marriage of a man to an immortal

goddess. The original sacred marriage involved the marriage of a mortal man to Diana

the goddess of fertility. The well being of this sacred marriage determined the fertility of

the earth. Since the man whom Diana married was mortal, he must be replaced once he

begins to show weakness. The position of the spouse of Diana became known as the king

of the wood. Once a king of the wood began to show the effects of old age or disease, a

challenger would violently kill him, and then ascend to the position of king. The

ascension of a healthy new king ensured the fertility of the earth and the peoples of earth.

While in some primitive and less evolved cultures, beliefs such as this still exist,

there is little faith in such a ridiculous legend in more civilized cultures. In the

enlightened world in which we live in today, myths such as this have been replaced by

science and modern religion. Often seen as opposing forces, science and religion have

combined to form the replacement for belief in unreasonable myths. For the everyday

human, it makes no sense to pray and sacrifice to the god of fertility, when advances in

science have made birth much more successful and have increased crop fertility

dramatically over the years. Christianity and other forms of modern religion still fill the

need for man to believe in something superior and altogether better than himself. With

the advance of science and the rise of Chrisitanity and other modern religions, there is

little room left for belief in the sacred marriage.

3 Comments »

Sacred Marriage Then, Sacred Marriage Now

Posted in Week three on April 6, 2009 by irankunzes
According to Frazer, the sacred marriage is the union of a male “king of the
woods” with a female deity that results in the overall abundance and fertility in
vegetation. The sacred marriage often involves the sacrifice of a man and the
involvement of a goddess. A marriage, among humans, should result in children—in
other words, it should be fruitful. The fruitfulness of that marriage is supposed to be
assimilated by the surrounding vegetation hence the reason for the union.
In modern times, the sacred marriage remains a pivotal point of our society. A
successful woman or man, especially in eastern culture, is considered to be leading a
fulfilling life if they have married and produced children; it isn’t uncommon either to be
looked down upon if the woman has children without a marriage. In western culture, the
women are taught that they’re going to be saved by a “knight in shining armor” and then
live happily ever after. So, in essence a union of some sort is still required for a ‘fruitful,’
happy, and correct life.
Parallels to Frazer’s sacred marriage can still be seen today, albeit in a different
form, most strikingly in fertility treatments. The mere fact that humans have gone to such
an extent as developing in-vitro treatments, estrogen injections and the likes just so that
couples can have children goes to show the importance of fertility in a union. Fertility
and fruitfulness in vegetation and life is the main objective of Frazer’s sacred unions; it is
also the main objective of many unions today. A couple that cannot have children will, in
many cases today, adopt or have children by artificially aided means. So, the desired
result of fertility, which makes the union sacred to some degree, is still in play today.
Whether or not the average person is participating in a union to impact vegetation
or to lead a fulfilling life, or to have legitimate children, the core reasons for the marriage
remain the same: fruitfulness and abundance. The only thing that is different from
Frazer’s and the modern man’s sacred marriage is the terminology and objects that are
used to describe it.

3 Comments »

Sacred Marriage vs. Modern Marriage

Posted in Uncategorized with tags sacred marriage on April 6, 2009 by coogane

The sacred marriage, as defined by Frazer, is the union of a mortal male and a goddess.
Due to the belief in imitative magic, the sexual union of the sacred marriage stimulates
fertility in the land. The purpose of their marriage would be to encourage the frutifulness
of nature. In The Golden Bough, Frazer discusses the correlation between the sacred
marriage and the fertility of the land through examples, like Diana. Diana, a goddess of
trees, which represents fertility, married a priest, who was “King of the Wood.” Frazer
also discusses the direct relationship between the health of the kingdom and the health of
the king. When the king is sick, the soil is infertile. Due to the need for a prosperous
kingdom, the king is killed and replaced when his health starts to decline. The fertility
and abundance of animals, mankind, and nature depends on this union of the sacred
marriage and the king.
Weston describes her similar views of sacred marriage and the man-god or “king of the
wood” in Ritual to Romance: “his (king) responsibility for providing the requisite rain
upon which the fertility of the land, and the life of the folk, depended, was combined with
that of the king” (57). So, like Frazer, Weston believes that the King is directly related to
the fertility of the nation. Weston perceives the king as almost a god , a man-god due to
his ability to influence his kingdom’s well-being by simply monitoring his own well-
being. Weston connects this to the grail king, who she describes as the “figure of a divine
or semi-divine ruler, at once god and king, upon whose life, and unimpaired vitality, the
existence of his land and people directly depends” (62). So, Frazer and Weston both
discuss the direct relationship between the king, the sacred union, and fertility. In
contrast, the grail kings simply have to be healed in order for the land to be fertile,
whereas they must literally unite with the goddess to promote fertility in Frazer’s
descriptions of the “king of the wood.”
The sacred marriage doesn’t really exist today, or at least not in our culture. The purpose
of a marriage is defined differently for each couple, so having children may or may not
be the purpose. Even if having children is the purpose of a marriage, there is much more
to the relationship than uniting to promote fertility. On the other hand, there are
completely meaningless physical unions between people today who have no desire to
reproduce. So, the sacred marriage and the sacred union aren’t really present in our
culture today, or at least not widespread.

http://stcvawasteland.wordpress.com/page/2/

The Decline of The Sacred Marriage

Posted in Uncategorized on April 6, 2009 by halseyp

In ancient times, when civilizations relied on the fertility of the land for their survival, the
quality of the harvest from year to year was completely random. Because these harvests
controlled not only the quality but also the potential for life, these civilizations looked for
some way to influence the outcome of their planting for the better. They did not
understand the way to read weather patterns, and their science was not developed enough
to create the fertilizers or chemicals that today’s farmers use to provide maximum yield.
They did, however, understand reproduction of man. In the rituals and beliefs that were
created to ensure explain the fertility of the land, many of the proceedings had a
homoeopathic relationship to human fertility.
One such idea was that of the sacred marriage. In these marriages, there was one divine
partner and one human partner. The divine partner was a god or goddess who was
thought to control fertility on earth. The people owed not only abundant harvests, but also
their own reproduction to this deity. In order to explain from where this power arose, the
ancients developed myths of a man whose relationship with the goddess would allow her
the fertility that in turn was used to provide fertility to all of the plants and animals on
earth. Thus was created the myth of Virbius and his relations with Diana whom the
Romans thanked for not only providing sustenance, but also the future of Roman Society.
Hand in hand with these myths were ceremonies of marriage among human cultures. At
times, there were ceremonies in which the husband and wife would reenact the sacred
marriage between divinity and man. These rituals were supposed to guarantee an
abundant harvest and a fertile population. Marriage, therefore, was seen as a necessity for
continued life.

Today, with the development of science, we no longer have to thank marriage for the
production of crops. Sacred marriage, however, still is mentioned frequently especially
among pious Christians. This marriage calls for faithfulness, and purity. It is obviously a
means for providing reproduction, but there is a more significant connection to the sacred
marriage of the ancient peoples. Instead of providing the potential for life on earth, it is
used with the aim of the ultimate reward of a beneficial afterlife.

The sanctity of marriage in general, however, is diminishing. Because the nutrition of

today’s man no longer calls for a sacred marriage, it is no longer viewed as necessary to
feed an entire civilization. So people today are less likely to view marriage as a sacred
institution. The proof may be found in adultery, or premarital sex, or divorce, or even
contraception, but marriage is no longer considered as holy as it once was. Marriage and
male-female relationships in general are no longer needed to be sacred to ensure the
wellbeing of mankind.

1 Comment »

The Urban Sacred Marriage

Posted in Uncategorized on April 6, 2009 by blanchardc
According to Frazer, the sacred marriage is the union between a
female deity and a mortal male that incorporates and promotes the
fertility of the earth. The marriage is designed to create and facilitate
the rebirth and re-growth of all natural life each year and to continue
the fertility that already exists in the world. The deity, like the
example of Diana used by Frazer, is a goddess of natural world,
especially associated with the fertility in nature. The male figure is
often represented as the “King of the Wood” figure who is the human
connection to the fertility of the land. They are both often
characterized by living representations on earth. Frazer explains that
the marriage is represented physically as a form of worship and that
the process of implementing the religious representation of the
marriage “would be more surely attainted if the sacred nuptials were
celebrated each year” (170). The celebration of the marriage is as
important as the idea of the marriage in terms of its significance.

The sacred marriage is recognized and celebrated by many

different peoples, existing both mythically or religiously. In the form of
legend, a mythical representation of the sacred marriage, such as the
Diana and Verbius legend, provides a story to explain the sacred
marriage. Religiously, peoples across the world celebrate the sacred
marriage in a more concrete manner, often performing rituals to
physically represent the connection to nature. Some peoples even
engaged in customs where members of a tribe would marry a plant or
other symbol of nature in order to promote fertility. Jessie Weston
explains how the Grail legend incorporates major elements of the
sacred marriage into Christian theology, indicating how the quest for
the grail is, in reality, a quest for fertility. She uses specific examples
from the numerous Grail legends to illustrate how the Grail is
connected not only to the promotion of fertility in nature, but also in
the rejuvenation of the King figure. The relationship of the king to
nature indicates an important similarity between the sacred marriage
and the grail legend.

Today, the sacred marriage has lost a substantial part of its

significance. Theology itself has changed with the increase in science,
technology and urbanization. The connection to nature and the
community that was present in Christian myth, like the Grail legend,
has been replaced with a deeper emphasis on a personal relationship
with God. Part of this shift is due to society’s lack of direct dependence
on agriculture. For the first time in history it is estimated that more
that half of the world’s population lives in an urban environment
instead of an agricultural one. We as a society have been separated
from a dependence on and connection to nature. We can buy our food
in a grocery store, we do not have to hunt or farm for sustenance, and
our time is spent making our way through our urban lifestyle, usually
providing the means to procure food, but not producing the actual
food. Because of the lack of necessity for a dependence on nature,
most of us have lost part of that connection, and with that loss, the
sacred marriage has significantly weakened in its relevance. The
urbanization of the world allows the sacred marriage to become
replaced because of the lack of relevance in our daily lives.

1 Comment »
The Sacred Marriage Produces
Posted in Week three on April 6, 2009 by powellt
In his work, The Golden Bough, James Frazer describes what he calls the sacred
marriage. This sacred union occurs between the gods of antiquity. Using Diana, the
goddess of fertility of Nemi, as an example, he outlines this marriage saying, “it behoved
Diana to have a male partner… [and] the aim of their union would be to promote the
fruitfulness of the earth, of animals, and of mankind” (170). Frazer’s basic definition of
marriage is a union to promote fertility. Marriage is a means to an end. The means is the
joining of male and female; the end is something that is produced (i.e. crops). Frazer
says, “the object of the marriage can hardly have been any other than that of ensuring the
fertility” of the land (172).
An unmarried god is an infertile god. The people of antiquity depended on a
married god for the fertility of their land. This is very similar to what Weston describes
in From Ritual to Romance. According to Weston, in the grail legends, the “figure of a
divine or semi-divine ruler, at once god and king, upon whose life, and unimpaired
vitality, the existence of his land and people directly depends” (From Ritual to Romance
pp. 62). It appears that, in the grail legends, as well as the legends of antiquity, the
fertility of the land is directly related to the vitality of the being that watches over the
land. There is some similarity; however, in the grail legends, the king must simply be
healed, while in the myths of antiquity, the god can only become fertile with a mate. So,
a sacred marriage, as defined by Frazer, breads a fertile field, or, more simply, a sacred
marriage produces.
It is this second definition of a sacred marriage which is important to today’s
world. Male and female relationships are no longer a means to an end; there is nothing
being produced. Eliot had this fact in mind when he wrote The Waste Land. In the third
section, “The Fire Sermon,” Tiresias describes the relationships between the typist and
the young man carbuncular. Their relationship is stagnant. There is no reproduction of
life, or production of anything for that matter. This is certainly not a sacred union. In
this section of his poem Eliot describes what is all-too-common in today’s world: a
relationship that is going nowhere. Male and female unite (have intercourse) for no
reason but for pleasure. There is no longer life produced. All fertility is absent from the
union. If a sacred marriage is considered to be a marriage that produces, then this divine
union is no longer an important part of our world.

Leave A Comment »

The Modern Sacred Marriage

Posted in Week three on April 5, 2009 by stilesj
The Scared Marriage according to Frazier is the union of a mortal man and a
Goddess of Fertility. The man becomes known as the King of the Wood because of his
marriage to the goddess who is often represented by a tree. Because of the marriage to the
Goddess, the man becomes a man-god. This King is the strongest man, but when he
begins to get old, a younger man must violently sacrifice him in order to take his place.
This sacrifice is necessary to insure that the king of the wood stays powerful. The
marriage between the man-god and the Goddess insures that the earth remains fertile. If
the King begins to age, then the earth will become infertile and desolate, so a younger
man must sacrifice him and take his place. By sacrificing the old King, the new King
insures that the earth will remain fertile. The sacred marriage between the King of the
wood and the Goddess of Fertility is vital in order to keep the earth fertile and fruitful.

The Sacred Marriage is not as important today as it used to be. Men no longer
believe in marrying trees in order to insure that the earth is fertile. Mankind has turned to
a simpler form of religion to maintain their lives. Instead of violent sacrifices and Sacred
Marriages, men go to church and pray to God for guidance and help. Modern men do not
believe that they have to marry a Goddess to help the earth, but rather they need to live
their lives by God’s standards set forth in the Bible. If they follow and obey God, then the
earth will be taken care of by God. Though they stopped following the typical Sacred
Marriage, the earth has remained fertile. Modern religion has replaced the Sacred
Marriage as men search for ways to maintain the earth’s fertility.

Along with modern religion, science has played a key role in replacing the Sacred
Marriage. Instead of worrying about whether or not their crops will grow, men can
simply buy some high tech fertilizer that is guaranteed to make their crops grow. No
longer do they have to marry trees and sacrifice one another to make their crops grow.
All they have to do is run down to their local Home Depot and buy fertilizer, seed, or
whatever else they need. It is a lot easier to use science to make their crops grow instead
of the Sacred Marriage.

Leave A Comment »

The Power of Nothing

Posted in Uncategorized on March 30, 2009 by newfielda09

“I will show you fear in a handful of dust.”

This one line from “The Burial of the Dead” in some sense can be used to sum up much
of the themes of T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land. It presents us an abstraction and an image
that both tie together a great deal of what comes later in the poem. The line first gives us
the idea of the dryness that pervades most of the poem. The work is greatly concerned
with a lack of water, and, because water has huge ties to fertility, a lack of life. Dust is
death. In the Bible, God says, “Remember: dust thou art, to dust thou shalt return.”
Clearly, dust in that line as well as dust in real life is a dry and lifeless thing. Eliot uses
dust in that line to make concrete the fear of infertility which the poem is concerned with.
To the speaker of that line, there is nothing more fearful than the utter lack that is a small
handful of dust.

The dust also can be seen as an amalgam of many different things that all appear the
same when grouped together. Though dust appears usually to be merely a grey-brown
clump, it is actually many different things, such as dirt, dead skin, lint, et cetera.
 Similarly, the many voices of Tne Waste Land, though often wildly different, gather in
one whole in the poem and create a work of great meaning. What is fearful about this
handful of dust is that though they are all different, they all clump together in a
meaningless, dirty heap that has nothing useful about it.

The fear that comes from the dust also stems from its simplicity. A handful of dust is
nothing special. Though there may be many amazing things about the chemical
composition of the dust or the previous state of the dust, as of right now, it is just a
handful of dust, nothing more. If the handful of dust is nothing special to a human being,
than of what significance are we to the higher beings in the universe? Humans work so
hard to make themselves something special, but they may appear to be just a handful of
dust to a greater creature.

Eliot’s point about fear and dust is this–dust is a dry, lifeless, insignificant thing. Perhaps
the world around us is also like the dust–infertile, stagnant, meaningless. And Man’s real
fear, that of dying, is embodied in the dust, because all life will return to the earth and
become nothing more than that handful.

Leave A Comment »

What shall we do?: Stuck in a rut

Posted in Week two on March 30, 2009 by lyled

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--> “‘What shall we
do to-morrow? / ‘What shall we ever do?’” (133-134) These two sentences are what, to
me, make The Waste Land timeless. This plea, this inquiry into a larger meaning is what
every human being must grapple with at some point or another. What are the actions that
will make our lives worthwhile, if there are any at all? These lines appear in Part II. Eliot
only begins to give some sort of an answer at the very end of Part V. Between the inquiry
and Eliot’s answer comes the search for that answer, which, as far as sheer quantity is
concerned, is very much the poem’s majority. And this represents a fundamental fact of
life as a sentient being: that the search for answers is just as vital as the answers
themselves. As with any good fact of life, it has been summed up in a cliché: “It’s about
the journey, not the destination,” or some variation thereof. The Waste Land is most
assuredly anything but cliché, and Eliot brings the reader with him along his personal
journey to find meaning in life, not just post-WWI, but in any time. Many of the details
of the poem are tailored to Eliot’s specific situation, but the idea of the search is
universal.

What follows during Eliot’s search is largely a lamentation of the cyclical nature
that life can descend into. Again, the struggle against such a lifestyle is nearly universal.
The lines that immediately succeed the ones in question read, “The hot water at ten. / And
if it rains, a closed car at four. / And we shall play a game of chess, / Pressing lidless eyes
and waiting for a knock upon the door.” (135-138) It is only four lines, but its tone is
nevertheless indicative of a larger sense of knowing too much of what is going to happen,
and too much of it being mundane. Part III has the “meat” of the struggle to find
meaning. The speaker briefly mentions “Musing upon the king my brother’s wreck / And
on the king my father’s death before him.” (191-192) Again, the focus is on a negative
cycle that cannot be, or at any rate is not being, broken. And of course the infamous
episode between the typist and the young man carbuncular: not only are those two
characters stuck in an emotional rut, but Tiresias observing them makes mention of the
fact that it has all been done before, and one can quite easily presume that it will continue
to be repeated far into the future: “(And I Tiresias have foresuffered all / Enacted on this
same divan or bed;” (243-244) The journey’s examination of being caught in a cycle
begins to wind down with allusion to the rise and fall of successive cities (374-375) in
Part V.

The poem’s conclusion at last provides an answer to Eliot’s desperate question

that was posed all those lines ago. “Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata.” (432) However, this is
not the answer. Only an answer. Eliot’s arrival at Hinduism may work for him, but while
it comprises the last several lines of the poem, it is not the poem. The vast majority of the
poem is still the search, which for Eliot leads up to this answer, but various readers’
individual searches for meaning in their lives could, and probably do, lead to something
else. In the end, the poem’s contribution to readers’ lives, and readers’ ability to relate to
the poem, is found in the chronicling of the search for meaning, and perhaps the inspiring
of readers to take a long, hard look at their own lives and worlds in a way that they may
not have considered looking at it before.

3 Comments »

The Speaker’s Conflict

Posted in Week two on March 30, 2009 by irankunzes
There is an intense conflict in the Wasteland between meaning in life and lack
thereof. All other elements and symbols—water, fire, fertility—are subcategories to the
conflict.
The musings over the mortality of the great cities/nations of “Jerusalem Anthens
Alexandria” suggest that the speaker perceives a lack of significance to human
achievements. The only thing that can be sure is that another “city over the mountains”
will replace them (371). Even the description of the landscape is as a barren “heap of
rubbish” (22). Life, power, and greatness are really a survival-of-the-fittest contest; no
meaning to life extends beyond that.
But at the same time, the speaker expresses overtones of doubt on this perception.
Hence, the fertilizing water. Where there is water the reader is saturated with the sounds
of life—“the hermit-thrush sings” and “Sweet Thames run softly” to the sound of the
speaker’s “song.” There are slight changes of mood whenever water is mentioned and a
sense of longing with its absence. Water is the supernatural force that fertilizes life with
meaning and joy.
Coinciding with James Frazer’s views in The Golden Bough, we can liken the
aforementioned cities and cultural centers to different kings of the wood and the water as
the higher divine partner that marries itself to the barren mountains resulting in fertility
and meaning in life. Both this assertion and the previous entail a struggle of opposites, a
conflict of sorts; meaning against lack of meaning and fertility against infertility. Such is
the subject of the speaker’s inner conflict.

1 Comment »

Sterility in Man and Nature

Posted in Uncategorized on March 30, 2009 by halseyp

Throughout The Wasteland there are many relationships between a man and a woman.
The most significant, in terms of length of their respective passages if nothing else,
characters involved in these relationships are Albert and Lil and the “the young man
carbuncular” (231) and his lover. The encounters that they experience, however, are far
from the religious or biological or even romantic ideals. Their relationships produce
nothing; they yield no faith, love, or, especially, life. Like the land and its lack of water
that surrounds them, the relationships produce no fertility on any level.

In the most basic sense, Albert and Lil’s marriage is sterile because they no longer wish
to reproduce. Lil has taken her pills and can no longer contribute life to the world. Her
literal lack of fertility has a devastating impact on her. She is “so antique” (156) despite
her actually young age at which she should be capable of producing healthy children. But
Lil and Albert are not attempting to fulfill their biologically. It seems that there must be
some other purpose to their relationship. That purpose, however, is not clear and possibly
nonexistent. Similar to its sterility in terms of producing life, the relationship creates
neither love nor pleasure. Albert wants “a good time” (148), but Lil refuses to give in.
Even worse, both of them are miserable. Marriages between a lustful husband and an
indifferent wife, like nature without water, are destined to stagnation.

The other major relationship is following in the footsteps of Lil and Albert’s. The young
man carbuncular and his lover have not yet achieved a complete absence of pleasure
(they are very close) but theirs is still a pointless relationship. The male finds some brief
pleasure and possible an increase in his self esteem, but certainly no love. The female
feels nothing, “hardly aware” (250) that the relationship even exists. The description of
their affair is so different from the traditional love scene. Rather than a romantically
embracing his companion, the young man “assaults” (239); instead of passionately
responding, the girl simply provides “no defence” (240). The imagery is almost like that a
battle, but even more negative because it completely lacks emotion. And, of course, there
is no new life that the event produces.

But how can the characters be blamed when the nature that surrounds them is acting so
similar? There is no water to produce new life or production of any kind. Nothing is
growing out of “the stony rubbish” (20). Both man and nature have turned away from the
traditional practices of fertility.
3 Comments »

Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata.

Posted in Week one on March 30, 2009 by thompsonkn

“Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata”

Give. Sympathize. Control. For whatever reason, I seemed incapable of freeing my mind
of these commands the night of the dance. Why were these words important enough to be
spoken by the Thunder, by God himself? Give what? Sympathise with whom or what?
Control what? These questions proved immediate succesors to the quote’s mental
apparence. So, being curious, I went to Google for aid. What I soon discovered was that
Eliot’s notes do not exactly do the Sanskrit justice. Through several sources, I found that
Damyata is more accurately translated as self-control.

http://www.43things.com/things/view/1663958/datta-dayadhvam-damyata-what-the-
thunder-said (1st Post)

http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jan/31rajeev.htm (6th paragraph — including

stanzas)So, there came the answer to one question: control yourself. With this correction,
the intent of the commands seemed clear. This is how we save the world. The poem is
that of an infertile world, a world whose unions are no longer sacred and thus, no longer
fertile. The poem itself asks “what have we given?(401)” Eliot’s generation was the first
to have war on so devestating a scale. In the face of so many lives lost, it was difficult to
see anything his generation really brought to the world. What light could brighten such
darkness?

The points of sympathy and self-control seem obvious from here. What greater stymies
war? Self-control also resonates with the treatment of sex in the poem. Young man
carbuncular and the typist’s interaction is nothing sacred. It is an act of a man’s lust on an
indifferent participant. Lil is a woman in the poem gone toothless from pills she took as a
contraceptive, a mechanism to intentionally inhibit the sacred creation of life. Sex to is
show Albert a “good time(148),” and Lil is made aware if she won’t “there’s others that
will(149).” Sex becomes a primal pleasure rather than a sacred union. As we lose control
of our sexual desires, we lapse into a world of hedonism.

Give. Sympathise. Control yourself. Even today these seem basic tenants of most
faiths.We are taught such values of human decency, yet disparities of living conditons are
still painfully drastic, powerful nations prove apathetic to balatant genocide, and
promiscuity is rampant. So, as Eliot ended his poem, I’ll end my post. Shanti. Shanti
Shanti. A prayer to attune ears to the voice of the Thunder.

1 Comment »
An Unlikely Pair
Posted in Uncategorized on March 30, 2009 by coogane

Infertility seems to be a reoccurring theme in “The Waste Land.” Even by simply

reading the title, the reader expects not to read about fertile land. Slight references to
infertility are scattered throughout the poem, like the lack of water in “What the Thunder
Said”, but Eliot truly focuses on this theme in “The Fire Sermon.”

Eliot starts out by describing or setting the scene by the river. The scene seemed
dark, bare, abandoned, and lonely due to the descriptions in the first stanza. When Eliot
ends the stanza by saying “Departed, have left no addresses” (Eliot 180) in reference to
the nymphs, the reader is left with an apocalyptic vision. An empty, unpopulated world
with a dry river immediately comes to my mind after reading the first stanza.

Later in “The Fire Sermon,” the encounter between carbuncular and the typist is
seen through Tiresias eyes, who has suffered through this “relationship.” The typist
seems completely uninterested in Carbuncular: after they ate, “she is bored and tired”
(Eliot 236). The text almost makes it seem as if Carbuncular rapes her due to the use of
the verb “assault.” Due to the typist indifference to Carbuncular and sex, the interactions
between them are far from romantic because she doesn’t seem to desire him at all.
Although Carbuncular and the typist could have a baby, the baby wouldn’t be raised or
cared for properly due to the relationship between Carbuncular and the typist. Their
relationship is not what comes to mind when one thinks of a fertile couple. Usually, when
one envisions a fertile couple they picture one that ones children, cares for each other,
and is capable of raising a child. Also, a mother should not say “ ‘Well now that’s done :
and I’m glad it’s over’” (Eliot 252) after possibly conceiving child. In short, true fertility
is more than a physicality because there’s more to offspring than conception.

References and examples are frequent in “the Waste Land,” which is very fitting
for the title.

http://stcvawasteland.wordpress.com/page/3/

What The Lack Of Water Said

Posted in Uncategorized on March 30, 2009 by reinhardtt

The final section of T.S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land” called “What The Thunder Said” is
the most interesting part of the poem for me. It serves as a conclusion for the entire poem
and also offers more on the theme of water previously mentioned in the poem. However,
the theme of water is better expressed as the lack of water throughout the poem and the
fifth section in particular.
This theme is also related in some ways to the idea of infertility, which is expressed all
through the work as well. Water is directly related to nature, which is directly related to
fertility. Therefore, the lack of fertility or infertility can be attributed to the lack of
water. Eliot truly begins his discussion of water towards the beginning of “What The
Thunder Said” by stating “Here is no water but only rock” (Eliot 331). The descriptions
that Eliot offers of the landscape establish a sense of stagnant, dry air. In the air are only
the sounds of bugs and grass in the wind.

The next stanza only gives hope as to what the world would be like with water. There
does not have to even be a large amount of water as he suggests. If anything “a spring”
(Eliot 350) would be better than no water at all. He continues to hope and pray that water
will come or someone will hear even the sound of water. “But there is no water” (Eliot
358) states the poet as he finally concludes the stanza. Without water it is difficult,
almost impossible, for any life form to carry on living, and that is where he takes the next
stanza. He discusses the falls of the great cultural centers of civilization. Eliot even
mentions London, which has just fallen as a result of the First World War. This war in
his mind has caused the fall of London like the great cities before it. Although many
have fallen, there has always been another to emerge in its place. Eliot can only hope, as
we all can, that water and fertility will prevail with nature and that another great city will
begin to prosper over time.

2 Comments »

The Lack of Water and Its Significance in

the Wasteland
Posted in Uncategorized on March 30, 2009 by blanchardc
In the first part of Eliot’s final section of The Wasteland, “What
the Thunder Said”, the lack of water becomes a noticeable focal point.
Beginning first with a stanza describing suffering, death and decay, the
poem shifts to a description of a barren, rocky, and waterless
landscape. The description illustrates what can best be described as a
wasteland, and the lack of water is the key element in its desolation.
The stanza describes not only the desolate landscape, but also lack of
life and existence in the wasteland claiming that no one “can neither
stand nor lie nor sit” (340). The following stanza melancholically
describes what the wasteland might look like if there were water, but
quickly reminds the reader that this is not the reality.

The lack of water and the lack of life in the described wasteland
are obviously intertwined. The landscape is described as being rocky
and sandy, two images that highlight the dryness of the situation. In
the stanza describing what there would be with water, Eliot uses vivid
imagery of life. He describes trees, insects, and birds, as well as the
sound of water to illustrate the life water brings. When he describes
the land without water, the images he uses are of such dryness that
death and decay are omnipresent. The people “sneer and snarl” (344)
from their “mudcracked houses,” (345) showing their anger and
despair. Even the mountain itself is characterized as thirsty, with
“carious teeth that cannot spit” (339). The storm is not only dry
without rain, but also sterile, providing a direct connection between the
lack of water and the lifelessness.

The wasteland that Eliot describes in his poem and perhaps the
wasteland that he fears is gripping the post World War One world is
lifeless. While he uses the lack of water as the most important missing
element in his poem, his own fears of a loss of humanity or innocence
in the modern world correspond directly to the loss of water in the
poem. The world he fears is, at least metaphorically, the lifeless
wasteland teeming with death, loss, and decay. His own connection of
London to other “falling towers” (373) or past cultural centers that
have become corrupt, lifeless, or have been lost or destroyed
demonstrates his fear of the inevitability of his own society’s collapse
and the lifeless, perhaps value-less, environment that ensues. Eliot
uses water as a symbol of the vitality in society which he believes is
disappearing from the world.

2 Comments »

“Fear Death By Water”

Posted in Uncategorized on March 30, 2009 by wellforde

Water is a significant symbol in T.S. Eliot’s The Wasteland. Although his language
and tone seem to be erratic, Eliot consistently incorporates either the lack of water or its
presence. First mentioned in “The Burial of the Dead,” water is scarce and is instead
replaced by dust. In saying “I will show you fear in a handful of dust” (30), the speaker
attempts to scare humanity by comparing its existence to dust. Dust is the absence of
water and void of meaning. Eliot mourns mankind’s loss of faith that has become merely
a shadow of what it was in the past. Water could therefore represent a higher power
because it is the ultimate source of life. Where there is no water there is a wasteland and
similarly, where there is no meaning or truth there is no life.

Eliot does not specifically reference a higher power; however, water seems to have
the same divine influence that is often associated with God. For example, Eliot warns
“Fear death by water” (55), suggesting that water is as destructive as it is sustaining. We
should therefore fear water much like those who follow God are told to fear Him. Water
is mentioned most specifically in parts IV and V, “Death By Water” and “What the
Thunder Said.” We are told that Phlebas the Phoenician is the young man who drowns in
the sea: “As he rose and fell/ He passed the stages of age and youth/ Entering the
whirlpool” (16-18). Using Phlebas as an example, Eliot suggests that the rise of mankind
coincides with his inevitable fall. And moreover, water is the omnipotent force that
destroys him.

In the last section of the poem, “What The Thunder Said,” Eliot anticipates a storm
that could possibly restore faith and understanding to the arid wasteland. The speaker’s
tone in this section changes to become almost desperate, seeking an oasis from the rocks
and sand. It becomes evident that it is not only water that is being sought, but rather some
sort of religious fulfillment. Perhaps the only way to renew the barren wasteland is
through an absolute baptism. This anticipated rainstorm will provide life to that which
has decayed. In order to save mankind, Eliot suggests that God must be acknowledged as
the ultimate source of life and death.

3 Comments »

The Young Man Carbuncular and the Typist Home

at Teatime
Posted in Week two on March 30, 2009 by revercombj
The most memorable scene from “The Wasteland” for me occurs in “The Fire

Sermon”. It is Tiresias’ perceiving of the interaction between the young man carbuncular

and the typist home at teatime. The relationship or lack there of between the young man

carbuncular and the typist, is representative of the theme of infertility seen throughout the

poem.

The interaction between the young man carbuncular and the typist is one way

traffic. The typist has no interest whatsoever in the young man carbuncular. She seems to

not even notice his presence despite their sexual interactions, “Hardly aware of her

departed lover” (Eliot 250). He on the other hand, feels only lust for her. Despite the

typist’s clear lack of interest to his sexual aggression, the young man carbuncular presses

on, he “makes a welcome of indifference” (Eliot 242). While physically able to create

life, this type of relationship is not a fertile and healthy one. A truly fertile relationship

would have the ability to raise and watch over a new human, not just produce an

offspring.
 This theme of infertility is represented in a number of ways throughout the poem.

The most obvious is the innumerable references to the lack of water during section five,

“What the Thunder Said”. Water is an archetypal symbol for rebirth and by extension

fertility. Therefore the lack of water in “What the Thunder Said” is in actuality infertility.

Another moment of infertility occurs in “The Fire Sermon” when the Thames is

described as containing no litter. While usually a clean river is a positive quality, here it

is not. The lack of waste represents a lack of life in London. The city is dead and

therefore infertile.

The theme of infertility is prevalent throughout “The Wasteland”. It is represented

in a number of ways, one being the meaningless interaction between the young man

carbuncular and the typist home at teatime.

1 Comment »

Madam Sosostris and the Lack of Religion

Posted in Uncategorized on March 30, 2009 by powellt
Within the first section of T. S. Eliot’s The Wasteland is a stanza about a “famous
clairvoyante” (43). Her name is Madame Sosostris, and she is a tarot card reader. The
poem progresses as she reveals different cards. There is Belladonna, the man with three
staves, the one-eyed merchant, and etcetera. What is significant in this scene of The
Wasteland is not what each individual card means, but rather that tarot cards are included
in the poem at all. Not only that, but it is important to recognize that, while tarot cards
make an appearance in The Wasteland, organized religion has no significant role in the
work.
Tarot card reading is a way some claim to be able to see the future. An educated,
modern individual would have no problem labeling it as an unfounded superstition. Tarot
card reading is equivalent to magic, in that it has no bounding in reality. The future
predicted by the cards is controlled by chance alone. As was stated earlier, the fact that
there is magic in The Wasteland is not significant in and of itself. Rather, the whole
poem must be considered. Because the poem is constructed in fragments, one would
expect to see at least a few different perspectives on the supernatural; however, Madam
Sosostris is the only speaker who works in the metaphysical universe. Eliot’s poem
describes a world without religion.
 According to James Frazer’s book The Golden Bough, there is a certain path that
primitive man followed to get to religion. First there was magic, then there was sorcery,
and finally there was religion. While there are allusions to the Bible and religion in The
Wasteland, there is no direct reference to God, an all-powerful being. Without the
recognition all-powerful being, any “religion” is only sorcery. This is an important
distinction that Eliot has made in his poem. There is a lack of God in Eliot’s universe. In
the point of view used by Frazer, the universe has de-evolved. No longer is religion the
dominating force of the world.
This idea of a world without religion is significant because the concept is
replicated in the world of today. Now, religion is an afterthought. Fewer and fewer
people go to church. Many children are raised without the kind of exposure to religion
that was commonplace 100 years ago. The world is changing drastically. Part of The
Wasteland is Eliot’s lamentation for the loss of religion and his confusion in a world
without it. The water that the narrator is constantly searching for, and constantly without,
could be the higher power that Eliot’s world lacks. The whole poem leads up to an
approaching rain storm. The rain is a symbol for rebirth of the world. Eliot believes the
world will be complete again when the rain (religion) returns.

1 Comment »

A GAME OF CHESS
Posted in Week two on March 29, 2009 by stilesj
My favorite part of Eliot’s The Waste Land, occurs during A Game of Chess. A
woman is questioning her husband/boyfriend about why he never talks to her anymore.
She continues to ask the man multiple questions while he barely responds if he responds
to her at all. This part captures a consistent theme among modern day couples. It shows
the lack of communication between couples that is mostly due to the man in the
relationship. Eliot shows that men often do not want to speak to their significant other,
but would rather be left alone.

During the interaction, the woman asks the man “never speaks” (112). After that,
she continues to ask different questions about what he thinks, hears, and remembers. The
man appears to respond with simple answers, but the reader is unable to tell if these
answers are spoken or rather just thought of in the man’s mind. It is common for a man to
remain silent while a woman is questioning him while also responding to the questions in
his mind. By not answering, the man is able to make comic or rude comments without
having the woman get upset with him. This is encounter is a common event in the lives of
many modern day couples. The man is fine to sit in silence while the woman wants to
talk about everything the man thinks, hears, and remembers. Typically, men don’t want
to discuss these things with women because most men do not like to openly discuss their
feelings.

Eliot may have included this passage in The Waste Land because it is a common
theme that is causing the world to become a waste land. The lack of communication
between couples could be contributing to the degradation of the modern world. Without
good communication, most couples will not make which will yield to the world becoming
more and more like a waste land. In order to keep this from happening, men will need to
tell their significant others what they’re thinking, hearing, and remembering. Eliot
includes the part between the man and the woman to show that the lack of
communication between couples is contributing to the waste land that the modern world
is becoming.
http://stcvawasteland.wordpress.com/page/4/

« Welcome to T-3
Madam Sosostris and the Lack of Religion »

A GAME OF CHESS
My favorite part of Eliot’s The Waste Land, occurs during A Game of Chess. A
woman is questioning her husband/boyfriend about why he never talks to her anymore.
She continues to ask the man multiple questions while he barely responds if he responds
to her at all. This part captures a consistent theme among modern day couples. It shows
the lack of communication between couples that is mostly due to the man in the
relationship. Eliot shows that men often do not want to speak to their significant other,
but would rather be left alone.

During the interaction, the woman asks the man “never speaks” (112). After that,
she continues to ask different questions about what he thinks, hears, and remembers. The
man appears to respond with simple answers, but the reader is unable to tell if these
answers are spoken or rather just thought of in the man’s mind. It is common for a man to
remain silent while a woman is questioning him while also responding to the questions in
his mind. By not answering, the man is able to make comic or rude comments without
having the woman get upset with him. This is encounter is a common event in the lives of
many modern day couples. The man is fine to sit in silence while the woman wants to
talk about everything the man thinks, hears, and remembers. Typically, men don’t want
to discuss these things with women because most men do not like to openly discuss their
feelings.

Eliot may have included this passage in The Waste Land because it is a common
theme that is causing the world to become a waste land. The lack of communication
between couples could be contributing to the degradation of the modern world. Without
good communication, most couples will not make which will yield to the world becoming
more and more like a waste land. In order to keep this from happening, men will need to
tell their significant others what they’re thinking, hearing, and remembering. Eliot
includes the part between the man and the woman to show that the lack of
communication between couples is contributing to the waste land that the modern world
is becoming.
The Waste Land Introduction
(taken from http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~sg5p/Class_notes_3.html)

It's not necessary to get them all, but you should know that the poem is full of allusions to older
works. The method is a kind of pastiche, a series of quotes, of fragments. That, in itself, is
interesting. What's the rhyme scheme? Who knows? It's irregular, fragmentary. The arrangement
of words and sounds is more associative than a regular verse form would allow. (If, in other
classes, you've come across "stream of consciousness" writing in a novel, you can make a useful
comparison to that.) This style, at the time, was revolutionary--nothing Yeats ever did.

For our ways into "The Waste Land," a good point of departure is to talk more about the radical
break that cut widely across cultural and intellectual fields around the turn of the twentieth
century (when, by the way, the British Empire covered one-fourth of the earth's surface). From
many directions, people had reason to feel "apocalyptic."

* Freud's theories of psychoanalysis emerged in the late 1800s (The Interpretation of Dreams,
1900; The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, 1904). His research suggested that all of our outer
actions and decisions are based in inner, primitive drives that center on the desire for pleasure.
The pleasure principle, with its own independent associative logic, is at odds with the social world
of the "reality," but at the same time the pleasure principle is the source of the dreams that make
life bearable. In any event, the suggestion that outer realities of human interactions did not
mirror inner realities was a deeply disturbing one.

* In science, the world of classical physics was being similarly uprooted. From the time of Newton
till the late nineteenth century, scientists had assumed that every part of the universe, from tiny
atoms to the stars, was capable of being observed, if only they had the right instruments; and,
further, that, once observed properly, they would reveal a systematic and logical structure. But
after the structure of the atom as a dense positively charged nucleus, surrounded by many
negatively charged electrons, was discovered (1913), new lines of investigation began. Gradually
scientists had to acknowledge that the old ways of describing physical activity at these minute
levels did not work. For one thing, it seemed that the electrons jumped around the nucleus in
ways that were not predictable. Observing an atom, a scientist could say what had happened
inside it and could make some reasonably accurate predictions about what might happen in the
future, but could not follow what was happening as it happened. Everything became just a matter
of "probabilities." Niels Bohr was one scientist who was involved in this work early on; he
eventually constructed the theory of "quantum mechanics." Meanwhile, in 1925 Werner
Heisenberg came up with something called the "uncertainty principle," which held that two
measurements were important--weight (the electronic particle) and speed (its radioactive wave)--
but that when you measured one you could not measure the other. Therefore, you could never see
the whole picture at once. Although Eliot was writing earlier than 1925, these theories were
already being developed and talked about. The radical news that they brought was that ordinary
language could not longer claim to represent, in plain terms, what was happening at the level of
the atom. The long-held scientific hope of describing in logical linear terms how the universe was
organized had to be given up. From now on, all was metaphor, language thinly strung across an
abyss.

* The First World War (1914-18) was in itself a near-apocalyptic period. The first war in which all
the world's major powers were thrown into conflict, it was also the first war to involve air power
(though not sophisticated) and other very advanced technology, such as poison gas. The British
lost some 800,000, which amounted to a whole generation of men. ("I had not thought death had
undone so many.") No one had ever imagined destruction on this scale.
* With all of this in the background, it is little wonder that the voice of Eliot's poem is fragmented
and desperate. The unifying principles of the poem (that is, if they really unify the poem, which is
debatable) are ritual, art, and religion. "The Waste Land" is built around the ancient fertility
rituals that are the basis for all major religions, including Christianity. It is a land waiting for rain,
for spiritual renewal. After the failure of the project of the scientific/philosophical Enlightenment
(the rupture in physics, the world war with its affront to rational political deliberation), Eliot
seems to want to move forward by turning backward toward a combination ancient and Christian
religion.

* Or perhaps he is proposing (think back to "Tradition and the Individual Talent") a science of
art? I've been reading a book called Homo Aestheticus (translated: man, the aesthetic animal)
that begins with a quote that seems relevant: "A science of art is therefore a far more urgent
necessity in our own days than in times in which art as art sufficed by itself alone to give complete
satisfaction."--G.W.F. Hegel, The Philosophy of Fine Art Religion, or art, or both, may provide a
way out of the waste land. But Eliot's poem offers no guarantees. Here is a bare outline of "The
Waste Land," based largely on the notes that you have in B. C. Southam's Guide to the Selected
Poems of T. S. Eliot. This reading should not substitute for your own, but it might help.

"The Waste Land" is symbolic of the whole of western culture. The images are fragmentary, the
logic associative--it is a highly suggestive poem. No voice intervenes to tell us where we are; there
are only the recurring thematic developments assembled in the form of a collage to achieve a total
effect. The works alluded to are in many cases great works of western literary culture--thus in one
sense Eliot is demonstrating the way in which the whole culture has suddenly failed to cohere or
make sense to itself. But often the allusions are to obscure works (works that would have been
obscure even to contemporary audiences). Eliot may have done this as a way of reflecting the
sense that the world is so complex that no one can suppose that any one body of readers will share
the same cultural knowledge. Possibly the voice(s) of the poem is using deliberately obscure
references a way of emphasizing each reader's isolation from the other.

I. The Burial of the Dead Why is April the cruellest month? In part this notion probably has to do
with pagan fertility rites, the idea that nothing could be assured about the future until all the
proper rituals were performed to bring on the spring. Thus, there would be some sense of
trepidation until the spring had really arrived. Another reading is that the man who speaks this
part of the poem is perhaps conscious of just how powerless or impotent he is, in this season of
spring. Through snatches, we see just how impotent, barren, infertile the world is. The literal
description of the waste land reveals that modern man has nothing left to worship. "I will show
you fear in a handful of dust." Part I is kind of an overture (if we want to think in musical terms,
as Eliot seems to want us to do) in which the themes are laid down. (Including the idea of the
brown fog over London. These days when I think about the poem I think about disembodied
voices arising out of this brown fog.) The fortune-teller, Madame Sosostris, lays out these themes.
But she misses one: she does not see the "hanged man," the sacrificed god, Christ. She does see
modern Europeans "walking around in a ring," though. The story of the fisher king, and the story
of the quest for the holy grail (see Southam's notes), are both relevant from this point on.

II. A Game of Chess This passage begins and ends with Shakespeare. The woman in the chair like
a "burnished throne" is Cleopatra . . . and at the end, the woman closing up the pub echoes a
scene from Hamlet in which Ophelia has descended to madness and suicide, "Good night,
ladies . . . ." In between, the focus is on the way in which romantic love has descended to an
intricate game. The "sylvan scene" of the Cleopatra-like segment abruptly shifts to the story of
Philomel, who was raped ("so rudely forced") by a "barbarous king." This allusion is to one of
Ovid's Metamorphoses, a classical story about a king named Tereus who raped his sister-in-law
and then cut out her tongue to keep her from talking. She was eventually turned into a
nightinagle, thus escaping his punishment. But in Eliot's poem, even the pleasant "nightingale"
ending is debased: "`Jug Jug' to dirty ears." Next the scene jumps to a contemporary couple, the
woman with a case of "bad nerves." Again, sterility seems to be the name of this "game." They are
waiting, but for what? Then to the pub scene. Another degenerated conception of love. And
perhaps a degenerate form of religion too? the phrase "hurry up please it's time," intended merely
to get customers out of the store, is repeated like a liturgy.

III. The Fire Sermon In Buddhist practice, the fire sermon is preached against "lust, anger, envy,
and the other passions that consume men" (Southam). More broadly, fire is an ambiguous symbol
because it can symbolize either a cleansing and purging or destruction. The nymphs of old are
departed; nobody believes in them any more. The Thames is not the same as it was when Spenser
wrote "Sweet Thames, run softly till I end my song." In the pastiche of images leading up to a
return to the Unreal City (which is London and all other great cities of Europe) there's another
reference to the rape of Philomel, very abbreviated. Then Tiresias appears, at the "violet hour."
(Note: "Prufrock" also takes place at the cocktail hour--a lot of Eliot's poems do. There's
something about that transitional state, from day to night, from work day to personal life, that he
wants to explore.) Tiresias, the blind prophet who has been both male and female (see Southam),
tells a story of yet more devalued sexual relations, the typist's liaison. Note Eliot's poetic
technique in this passage. To echo the mechanical way in which this scene unfolds, he uses very
regular iambic pentameter--an unusual move for such an irregular poem. Then there's another
shift back to fragmentary writing, to scenes that stand in contrast to Elizabethan times (Elizabeth
and Leicester are Queen Elizabeth I and her favorite suitor, Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester).
Within the fragments of the ending there's another echo of the typist. And then the one word,
"burning," standing all alone on the page.

IV. Death by Water This section tells of an ancient pagan merchant whose corpse has deteriorated
in the sea. The current causing him to rise and fall implies possible regeneration, or hope, for
humankind. There is also probably (see Southam) some allusion to Christian baptism, which is a
symbolic "death" followed by rebirth.

V. What the Thunder Said Thunder promises rain, regeneration. Two specific symbols suggest
Christian renewal: the allusion to Christ's appearance to two disciples on the road to Emmaus,
and the scene of the cock crowing, which can be connected to the story Christ foretold about
Peter's betrayal. More broadly (remember "The Dreaming of the Bones"), the cock is a symbol of
the coming of morning, thus of hope. "These fragments I have shored against my ruins." Perhaps
at the end we can find some order emerging out of the chaos. But that end is not the end, after all:
it breaks down one more time ("Hieronymo's mad againe") before concluding. But then in
another twist of the paradox, it does conclude with a combination prayer and blessing.

The Waste Land Overview II

(Note: I'm not sure of the source of this, but you may find it helpful.)

Eliot's The Waste Land, has become the poem of the twentieth century.

Although published in 1922, it still has not lost any of its power to

inspire, to intrigue, to puzzle and even to infuriate readers. There is no

doubting the difficulty of the poem, yet it repays continual rereading and

research. For what the poem offers is little short of an epochal insight

into the modern world, the waste land of the poem's title, a world in which

older certainties have disappeared, a world of urban blight, of death and

destruction, of meaningless relationships, and of a profound absence of

spiritual, cultural and social assurances. In the poem's passage through

this waste land we are shown various snapshots of a "dead" world, yet we are

also offered tantalising glimpses of both the "life before", and of the

possibility of restoring the world of the waste land once more to wholeness

and fertility.

The poem's difficulties and obscurities are intentional. To read it for the

first time is to be presented with a series of allusions, fragments of texts

and documents, and we struggle in vain for a "key" which will enable us to

see the poem as a whole, to make sense of the total picture. This was part

of Eliot's vision of the modern waste land. In the contemporary world we are

left only with cultural fragments, rubble and artefacts - imagine the scene

of the aftermath of a bombed library or museum. We are unable to reassemble

the pieces together to recreate a whole culture, and to see the rich and

vital relationship between culture and experience. Eliot wants us to

experience that sense of fragmentation for ourselves, and this is why the

poem uses a kind of collage technique - assembling chunks of texts together

in what seems a random and arbitrary way - to recreate this sense of

cultural rubble. Reading through the poem you find references to many of the

key writers in the Western cultural heritage - Shakespeare, Dante, Spenser,

Wagner, the Bible - coupled with occasional references to contemporary

popular culture - the 'Shakespherian Rag', or the 'Mrs. Porter' song in

Section III. There seems little to unify these pieces of textual rubble -

all appears arbitrary, random, disconnected.

However, despite the sense of fragmentation, there are ways in which the

poem is in no sense garbled or chaotic, there are glimpses of a sense of

underlying order and unity. There is, most importantly, Eliot's use of the

'Grail legend' and the story of the 'Fisher King'. In the 'Notes' to the

poem, ('Notes' which at times tend to obfuscate rather than clarify), Eliot

makes much of this, suggesting that the poem draws upon the powerful myth of

the wounded king who must be restored to health before his lands can be

returned to wholeness and fertility once more. In drawing upon this myth

Eliot is suggesting that, deep within the cultural unconscious of our modern

waste land, there are underlying patterns and, furthermore, a sense of

continuity with what has gone before. This is perhaps why the poem, in its

references to previous empires and cultures - Rome, Alexandria, Vienna -

suggests continuities between the contemporary "decline of the west" and the

histories and destinies of previous civilisations. Furthermore, in its use

of myth, the poem suggests that there are still grounds for belief and hope:

in the modern waste land there are no religious or spiritual certainties,

but there is still the possibility of sustaining kinds of religious or

spiritual faith. And ultimately Eliot's concern is spiritual and religious:

in the modern world of the waste land there seems to be little hope of

recovering that sense of deeply rooted faith and belief, yet there are

grounds for hope.

The poem, then, oscillates between despair and hope, and its final tone is

uncertain: we cannot be sure if the journey across the wasteland has been in

vain, or if we have been shown something profound and inspiring by the end.

The poem's final references to 'shantih', the "Peace which passeth

understanding" does suggest a basis for hope, but to get to this we have had

to pass through much which is bleak, despairing, fragmented and apparently

without meaning.

It is easy to understand, therefore, why the poem became so important in the

1920s and 30s: it reproduced, for this generation, a sense of a

shell-shocked culture struggling to rebuild itself after the 1914-18 War, a

"Brave New World" which had seen the emergence of communism in Russia and

China, and the creation of a new urban landscape, a world of anonymity and

alienation. Inter-War literature is packed with references to Eliot's poem,

whether in the literal rubble-strew waste land of The Great Gatsby, or the

mysterious 'ou-boum', the echoes of nothingness, which haunt the Marabar

Caves in Forster's A Passage to India. And, whilst it was profoundly

influential for writers of the 20s and 30s, its influence continues right up

to the present. In terms of its modernist technique it set an agenda which

subsequent poets have had to accept, whether willingly or not. For

contemporary readers also there is much to find in the poem, and it has

retained its hold on the cultural imagination.

The Waste Land was eventually published in October, 1922. As presented it

has five distinct sections or movements. It is important to note, however,

that the poem as originally conceived was two to three times longer, and its

was through the collaboration with the American poet Ezra Pound, between

January and October of 1922, that Eliot revised and reconstituted the final

poem. An examination of the facsimile edition of the poem is extremely

enlightening, because it reveals how much of a "scissors and paste" exercise

went into the final work, and also just how much of an influence Pound had

on the final publication: a number of satirical and comic passages were

excised, and the organisation much more tightly controlled than had been the

case in the original drafts. It is fitting, therefore, that the poem is

dedicated to Pound.

When first published the poem did not have the infuriating end notes which

now accompany published editions of the work: these were added at the

request of the American publisher, and Eliot was ambivalent about how useful

they would be to readers, suspecting that they might distract readers from

the poem itself. Eliot decided, on balance, that they should remain with the

published poem, and it is to these that most readers first turn when looking

for elusive "clues" to the poem's meaning. What the notes do show, however,

is the extent to which it draws upon a wealth of literary and cultural

references.

https://www.siprep.org/faculty/ptotah/WastelandOverview.cfm