T.S Eliots The Wasteland, its Richness and Cataloguing Sequences - Assignment Example

Text One, T.S Eliot’s The Wasteland is a poem which is known for its richness and cataloguing sequences. Eliot draws on a number of references throughout English Literature to enrich his poem. However, though many cultured readers find it amusing to check their knowledge of the greats against Eliot, there is much more to the poem then simply referencing. The language of the poem is in itself a mark of what makes the work ‘literary’. The literary traditions of the past felt that the ideology of a text is what placed it fore mostly as a work of literature (Eagleton, 1983, pg25). The Wasteland does fulfill this 18th century criteria though it was written much later, allowing it to give room to postmodern thought and language reform. And perhaps that is where the creativity of the poet comes in, the ability to draw from the entirety of the canon and yet portray it with a fresh perspective as one’s own. In turn, this is what the parody has also attempted to do. The introductory lines of Text One showcase a range of juxtapositions as a literary device. The words ‘dead’ and ‘dull’ give a contrast when read alongside the positive words such as ‘April’, ‘Spring’, and ‘lilacs’. The syntax is also prominent as we are left with various present participles which are placed at the ends of the first five lines. This gives us a feeling that there is movement which is taking place and we are part of the progression. The language is to the point while maintaining its paradoxical beginnings. The alliteration is smooth (‘Winter kept us warm’) and the action of the poem keeps us in a place which is somewhere between and within the present and the past. Another literary device used is the poet’s use of sudden sound effects. An example is the monosyllabic verse execution of line 4, and the /s/ and /l/ which dominate from line 8 onwards. The second text seems to keep none of this in mind and goes along the text as a simple conceptual guide, failing to pick up on the points of formalistic techniques. If anything, it inserts colloquial language at every given opportunity. When comparing both of these texts and attempting to dub one as more ‘literary’ then the other, I find Carter’s systematic analysis a key tool in carrying out such a linguistic analysis. Of course different levels can be used as done by Bradford but that can be done at a later stage. This may be since Carter gives a checklist to work out at the surface levels whereas Bradford’s style calls for a more layered reading of the texts. Using both methods one can achieve both a vertical as well as horizontal understanding of the level of literariness of both the texts. First off, The Wasteland can be read in itself and understood as a work of poetry but perhaps to reach the full meaning one may need an understanding of the works which are incorporated by Eliot. A way of overcoming this is by the index and notes provided by Eliot himself to the poem. The parody, by virtue of being written for the sake of comic reminiscence, requires one to know at the most basic level what it is a parody of whether one understands the parodied or not. In this way, I would place Text One as somewhat medium dependent and Text Two as highly medium dependent. Genre mixing also takes place in both of these texts. The Wasteland uses a number of other languages throughout. In this excerpt Latin and Russian is used. No translation is provided and a consultation outside the text needs to take place. Text Two on the other hand attempts to avoid this. No Latin is used and the Russian employed at the end is given a translation, showing that one need not pay attention to the sounds or the literary effects taking place in the text but simply on the new spun meaning which is accorded by it. The semantic densities of the texts need to be understood as well. There are a number of levels at work in Eliot which are carried over into the parody as well. These levels are of course linguistic levels and depend mostly on sound. Where Eliot focuses on this, the parody fails to. The parody focuses on creating epochs in the original text so as to fit in different comic phrases. Text One uses word sounds carefully, limiting the word density along the way. The second text incorporates rambling phrases into the verses forming a kind of register juxtaposition. On one hand there is the literary voice which is careful and steady and on the other we have a more abrupt rambling voice which fails to take into account the word economy of the original poem (probably done on purpose as a comic violation of the original text). F or e.g., “Ed, I thought I had paid you to clear it all away, but you know only community service in the park, where the sun beats…” This leads us to the next point of discussion; polysemy. Text one is highly polysomic and carries a number of meanings which can be read independently and at the same time in relation with the various genres and literary references at work. Text two does away with this. Consider the lines: “I am not really Russian I am Irish and being a character in a soap opera I conform to a number of clichés including red hair, Catholicism, and an interest in horse-racing.” The meanings are clear and one can detect no ambiguity or play upon meanings in the sentence. In Text One this line is actually written in Russian and is said without any translation. This leaves it to be interpreted through several ways, something which Text Two cannot boast of and thus gives it a lesser literary ranking. Text one displays displaced interaction between both the reader and the writer whereas Text Two cuts this down significantly. In Text One, one is simply asked to read. There is no purpose which can be detected, if the text wishes to sadden or to inform, it can only do so in a subtle manner. The second text obviously seeks to humor and to entertain its audience. Since it is a parody, the comedy is apparent and over the top. The interaction with the first text is almost wholly up to the reader, to make what can of the text and experience it personally. The second text has a set purpose in mind, and though as with all texts the reader can manipulate the meanings as perceived by them, the text is active and works to control the interaction. The text patterning is such that the poem appears in short lines which all are the same average length. The verses only shorten where the Latin and Russian intrusions come in. Towards the end of the text the lines shorten dramatically and change languages. This does not happen in Text Two, rather the lines get longer and even the translation which is provided is translated alongside making the line longer. It is this structure of the poem which plays an important part in the linguistic structure. And it is this structure, of course, which is parodied in Text Two. The verses, their word length and their ordering are what leave room for the alliteration and speech sounds that can be utilized. Widdowson asserts that certain patterns of language ‘set up conditions’ which allow referencing to take place easily and others that don’t. (2000, pg.34) And we know that The Wasteland uses a number of references from various sources and this is what accommodates the parody. The Wasteland’s structure places the reference points in key areas of the poem. For example, compare the two lines “I read much of the night” and “I watch Eddie’s videos much of the night”. This is the first half of the line which ends in ‘go south in the winter’. The structure is Subject-Verb-Adverbial. The parody uses the verb position to reference in what one does in modern times, ‘watch Eddie’s videos’. This usage is highly significant. The parody could have simply put in that ‘I watch videos much of the night’. The texts unique versification assists the poet by mapping out reference points spread out throughout the poem. As we can see from the parody, where and how one uses it is completely dependent upon the referencing being done and by whom (which culture and which era). For my analysis, I have selected Carter’s method of analysis and used it to show Text One as containing more ‘literariness’ then Text Two. Therefore I place Text Two at a higher cline. My reason being is that Text One is less medium dependent, incorporates genre mixing more, contains high levels of semantic density, is highly polysomic, displays displaced interaction, and has intricate text patterning which allows the canonical referencing to take place. Text Two on the other hand, is highly medium dependent, does away with genre mixing, is not semantically dense, is un-polysomic, facilitates direct textual interaction, and has limited text patterning. References Carter, R. 1997, Investigating English Discourse: Language, Literacy, and Literature, London: Routledge. Bradford, R. 1997, Stylistics. London: Routledge. Eagleton, T. 1983, Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Widdowson, H. 2000, Critical Practices: on representation and the interpretation of text. Harlow: Pearson Read More