The Waste Land: a Personal Grouse
The Waste Land: A Personal Grouse Leon Surette University of Western Ontario Eliot¶s Waste Land must be the most discussed and analyzed poem of its length in the language, yet, for all that, it is perhaps still the most contested of all poems firmly ensconced in the canon. Initially receivedat least by its boostersas an articulation of the alienation, disillusion and scepticism of the young twentieth century, it has since been attacked from many anglesas reactionary, mystical, homosexual, anti-Semitic, elitist, phallocentric andperhaps most damaginglyas a con. The last criticism comes from the rather acid pen of Lawrence Rainey, who denounces the whole of Modernist art DV OLWWOH PRUH WKDQ ³D VWUDWHJ\ ZKHUHE\ WKH ZRUN of art invites and solicits its cRPPRGLILFDWLRQ´ (3).1 The Waste Land, Rainey says, was ³DQ HIIRUW WR DIILUP the output of a specific marketing-publicity apparatus through the enactment of a triumphal and triumphant occasion´ 7KHUHLVQRGRXEWWKDWWKHSXEOLFDWLRQRIThe Waste Land was orchestrated by Eliot, Pound, and Eliot¶s Harvard friend, Schofield Thayer, co-editor of The Dial, but if we are to condemn all artworks whose creators indulged in self promotion, the canon would shrink radically. Of course, the poem has its defendersindeed, they are legion; however, few any longer defend the poem¶V ³P\WKLFDO PHWKRG´DIHature emphasized by early boosters and by Eliot himself. 5RQDOG %XVK IRU H[DPSOH GLVPLVVHV WKH ³)UD]HU DQG :HVWRQ LPDJHU\´DV³VXSHULPSRVHGSLHFHPHDORQWRVHFWLRQVWKDWKDGEHHQ ZULWWHQHDUOLHU´an assessment with which it is difficult to disagree. +RZHYHUKHJRHVRQWRVXUPLVH³WKDW(OLRWKDGVRPHNLQGRIVKRUW- lived religious illumination during the process of re-envisioning the IUDJPHQWVRIKLVSRHP´ WKHUHE\SURVSHFWLYHO\GHIHQGLQJLWIURP Rainey¶s accusations of manipulative career buildingwhich it certainly was.
[Show full text]