In T.S. Elliot’s essay “Tradition and the Individual Talent”, he discusses the concept of literary tradition. He immediately criticizes English speakers/writers for not acknowledging a literary tradition, pointing out that “you can hardly make the word [tradition] agreeable to English ears…”. Elliot defines tradition as a complex concept. It is not just a matter of “following the ways of the immediate generation before”. He admits, that would be repetitive and dull. Tradition instead involves having a “historical sense”. That is, one must understand that the past is still relevant to the present. In this way, a writer is expected to produce literature “with a feeling that the whole of literature of Europe from Homer…”. Elliot speaks of a “simultaneous order” which basically means that all literature, from the past and present, exist simultaneously so that there is a historical timelessness. The way I see is that instead of existing on a timeline, all of English literature would exist on one plane.

         Elliot’s view on how a critic or reader should judge literature is very interesting. He feels that the only way to judge a piece of work is to put it side by side with past works. However, you would not be holding the past works as a standard, in fact, your opinion on that might change as well. I’m not sure how I feel about this yet, to be completely honest. It is something I never considered.

          In the essay, Elliot makes an interesting analogy involving the mixing of a filament of platinum with oxygen and sulfur dioxide. When these three substances are mixed, a reaction occurs and sulfuric acid is produced. Notice, the platinum is not present in the final product. In fact, the platinum is simply a catalyst that allows the reaction to occur. I think that Elliot is trying to convey the concept of impersonality in literature. The poet would be the filament of platinum and the reaction would be the production of a literary work. I could extend the metaphor and say that the oxygen and sulfur dioxide are elements of past literary works and the sulfuric acid is the poet’s piece. The poet is there to simply create a work of art, and according to Elliot, the poet should not leave any part of himself in his writing. I disagree with this concept. I think that a piece of art feels most relatable to me on an emotional level when the artist includes their own personal emotions. I wonder what Elliot would say about different genres of literature like memoir.  

In the essay “The Rise Of English”  Eagleton, speaks of the origin and relationship between English literature and religion. This relationship is certainly new to me as this is my first time learning of the roots of English studies. As it is expressed in the essay, the decline and loss of faith in religion towards the later part of the nineteenth century paved the way for the rise of English studies and literature.
One particular thing that truly grasps my attention and allows me understand the concept of literature as a substitute for religion is the different aspects of human “experience and emotions” that literature focuses on. In his essay Eagleton explains, “Like religion, literature primarily works by emotion, and experience and so it was well fitted to carry through the ideological task which religion left off” This refers to the similarity that literature shares with religion in terms of reaching and connecting people through experiences as well as feelings and emotions they feel. Literature’s  ability to bond people together proves to be of deep significance during the nineteenth century as religion fails to keep bringing people of different social classes together under one big concept as it once did. This inability to join or “cement” the classes together as Eagleton puts it, is one of the major reasons why literature is considered an appropriate and adequate substitute for religion.

Another important reason Eagleton sees English as a valuable substitute for religion is the way in which literature expresses and deals with moral values. According to Eagleton in religion, moral values are demonstrated and enforced in a direct and explicit way. However, in literature he explains, moral values are no longer a sort of “code or ethical system” but something much more subtle and flexible. This is certainly a very appealing characteristic of literature because through personal experience I can say that many times, people shift away from religion because of the very strong moral values attached to following religion, whereas in literature, many of these moral values are brought down to a more real and palpable level where people can relate and identify themselves easier to how they want to live. This particular reason makes me think of a very popular topic in today’s society which is the debate between the church and society of whether people should use birth control and protection when having intercourse or just completely abstaining from sex until they’re ready to settle and have a family. This example illustrates perfectly, the ease with which literature and turn a complex religious debate into a much more practical aspect of society because through books, articles, and other types of literature, people are often encouraged to use condoms, and other methods of birth control to prevent a pregnancy that in “practical terms” can make life much more difficult to a couple. Therefore the ability of literature to be flexible and much more practical than religion also served as motive for it (literature) to substitute religion as a driving force in the world.

Throughout much of Eliot’s essay, he seems to be focused on the basic truths that are experienced by all humans – young and old – regardless of place or time.  He says, “Tradition is a matter of much wider significance.  It cannot be inherited… It involves, in the first place, the historical sense,…a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence… a simultaneous existence…” (956).  I believe that his point is that literature puts a mirror up to the reality that is shared by all of humanity:  love, loss, suffering, growth, etc.  These experiences as had by ancient caveman were no different than they are for today’s modern man.  Though the specific circumstances encountered by these people are worlds apart, the very human truth of their experiences lie in the same world.  It’s like a shared collective memory that is passed down through our DNA.

Eliot goes on to illuminate his theory of “simultaneous existence” when he suggests that the past is “altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past” (957).  I believe that he is talking about our constant changing perspective here.  The fact is that the Roman Empire no longer exists.  That is a fact of the past.  But is it really?  Isn’t this just a matter of perspective?  If I were to spend the next hour pointing out all of the remnants from the Roman Empire that still exist in our lives today, from social and political practices to engineering and construction techniques, would that not prove that the empire still exists in a form?  Thus, the past is in the present and our understanding of the present causes us to alter our view of the past.  {And this is why time travel gives me a headache.}

Eliot applies this idea of a shared memory amongst humans to the authenticity of art, specifically literature.  He acknowledges the fact that as a human being the poet will experience many aspects of life that may inspire or inform a poem, but in his view, neither those experiences, nor the final product (the poem) are the actual work of art.  What is to be revered is the act of making the art, the journey, the process.  Eliot uses the metaphor of a chemistry experiment to highlight his point, claiming that like the platinum piece that is used to make sulfurous acid, the poet is merely “the catalyst” that helps to bring the poem or art to life.  Thus, the “man who suffers” is the liver of life’s experiences, who will “digest” the knowledge attained.  However, it is “the mind” or the metaphysical poet which will “transmute the passions” into true art (958-959).

In fact, Eliot demands this complete separation in the “perfect  artist,” claiming that “the bad poet” makes his work too personal, when “the emotion of art is impersonal” (961), but like all things “perfect”, I believe his standard to be unrealistic and unattainable.  Sure, we can attempt to achieve this duality with some success.  But to be perfectly honest, I just do not see how anyone could achieve what Eliot is requiring of our poets without going mad at some point.  What I mean is:  How can we completely separate ourselves from… well, ourselves?  If Eliot were alive today, this is something I would very much like to ask.  On the other hand, perhaps, the biography on Eliot that appears in our text before “Tradition and the Individual Talent” answers my question well enough.  Prior to writing The Waste Land, “work and worry brought Eliot near a nervous breakdown and to recuperate he went… to a sanatorium in Lausanne, Switzerland” (952).

What really confounds me about Eliot’s essay though is his discussion of emotions.  He makes a distinction between emotions and feelings that I just can’t wrap my head around.  The best I can guess is that it is like the difference between hearing and listening, the former being a mere biological act and the latter requiring a more refined and active undertaking.  I’m really not sure if this analogy works though.  I don’t feel that Eliot’s take on the matter was clear enough.  I guess I’m just not the perfect reader.

English. The word itself holds a mix of emotions, history and individual beliefs. I myself never have thought much too deeply on this one alone, nevertheless even cared enough to think back to why I decided to choose this pathway in life to evidently be the core aspect of my career. So upon reading Terry Eagleton’s, “The Rise of English” it raised several meaningful, thought provoking aspects revolving around English Literature.
One aspect that mesmerized my state of thought is in fact at the very beginning to which Eagleton states that English (19th century) is an ideology and a questionable debate of social power. The main mien here is the much over debated word: religion. He states, “…because religion is for all kinds reasons an extremely effective form of ideological control”. and “Religion, moreover, is capable of operating at every social level:…”. Questioning myself to his words at first, the explanation I came down to was that the power of written documents, and evidently any material to be published and read by an audience is a demonstration of power and a significant one at that if theirs were to win over a definition a belief system; and whats more best persuading than a written piece of document? Which I think is meant by the questions of “social power”.
Now fast forward to the ideologies of the more modern English literature, after the Church’s failure and social remedies at a pause; it is given the description, “England is sick, and … English literature must save it”. Then he goes on to explain that literature needs to refresh itself and contain “emotion and experience” as well as to “convey timeless truths..” and “felt experiences”. It does not end there, humanistic values and softening values are also a core aspect on this matter as well. All these great ideals all lead to the question he writes to us, “In the early 1920’s it was desperately unclear why English was worth studying at all;…”, to which he answers that in the past as it was for “social power” now it serves as the essence for “social formation”. What is meant by this? He goes further to state that English is the social essence in which it is an arena of social existence and to engage in significant relationships; as if giving me the thought of English being an imaginary dome for wishful and thoughtful writers to come together and expose their ideals and values to others without being the structural climb for social power. Moreover he mentions previously that English was seen only as a source of gossip rather than an academic study; this evidently supports the previous claim as English being more of a holistic, humanistic source of value, which humans all around may relate and study off other idealistic values, thus making it a more ‘felt experience’.

In “The Rise of English” Terry Eagleton maps and analyzes the rise in popularity of English literature as a subject in its own right, stating that its meteoric growth in popularity  intentionally parallels  England’s “failure of religion” at the end of the 19^th century. To Eagleton “literature…is an ideology,” and is one which in his opinion has the ability to replace religion as an “extremely effective form of ideological control.” Literature, Eagleton believes, works similarly to religion in the way that it works “much less by explicit concepts or formulated doctrines than by image, symbol, habit, ritual and mythology.” Both literature and religion are capable of operating at every social level –containing both ideas meant for the ‘intellectual elite’ and also more simplistic brands for ‘the masses,’ also Eagleton states how both religion and literature exert “a pacifying influence, fostering meekness, self-sacrifice and the contemplative inner life.” For example, Eagleton goes on to show how literature gives the reader a humanizing perspective and “could provide a potent antidote to political bigotry and ideological extremism” as literature tends to deal in universal human values rather than class dividing issues. Where religious influence shows its shortcomings for contemporary society, Eagleton views literature will be more than able to fill the gaps “to provide the social cement…by which socially turbulent class-society can be welded together.”

While I believe Eagleton reaches some important points in defining crucial similarities between organized religion and the reading of English literature, I highly doubt there will ever be a point in human history where literature will be seen as a substitute for the benefits many people turn to religious practice in order to attain. For instance, religion is turned to usually for belief in some sort of ‘higher power’ Who ultimately has our best interests at heart and is ‘in control’. Despite whatever “universal human values” a piece of literature may allude to, it will never be able to evoke the ‘power of God’ very ingrained within the ideology of religious faith. Also the idea that if reading were to replace religion as a building block of society, it would be sure to “distract the masses from their immediate commitments, nurturing in them a spirit of tolerance and generosity” seems like a naïve notion to me. Perhaps I am missing something, but I am fairly certain that if one has a pressing concern on one’s mind such as living within an unjust governmental system, or failing to make enough of a living to provide food for one’s family, one would not be able to simply open a copy of “Great Expectations” and feel at ease with his existence. Eagleton however, seems to think otherwise stating “an impoverishment bred by social conditions can be supplemented by literature: instead of working to change such conditions…you can vicariously fulfill someone’s desire for a fuller life by handing them “Pride and Prejudice” at this notion I just scoff, for ‘living vicariously through’ literature cannot surely be the overall intent of literature, and although this type of society would most definitely lead to a passive and meek civilization, I would think humans are too impassioned a breed to ever let it begin to exist in the first place.

In Chapter 1 of Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction, Culler invites readers to slowly wade into the question and definition of theory. This introduction is great for undergrads. Although, had this introduction been the course description, one wonders what the class size would look like. That is not to claim that either numbers would rise because the inquiring minds of students’ would be piqued, or drop due to the disruption of the status quo in the feeble minds of naive college students. Either way, ready or not, English 306 will now take the reins from Culler and Foucault in questioning the effect of historical constructions on our social consciousness in the form of common sense. Beyond common sense, Culler defines theory as thoughtful reevaluation of the way we think and the effects of discourse from other disciplines.

In the excerpt of Culler’s Very Short Introduction to literary theory, he also introduces readers to two prominent authors who have done theory. He dissects Foucault’s History of Sexuality and Derrida’s analysis of Rousseau’s view’s of supplementation in order to paint readers a portrait of what theory can look like before giving a concise (if inconclusive by the nature of theory) definition of theory in four points.

So if Foucault’s book is an example of theory, and Culler says it is, the reader must ask why. It conveniently satisfies his standards for what theory is. His argument would be weak if it did not. Foucault’s work is an example of theory because it questions the origin of sex. It claims that the modern view of sex is a historical construction. His work compounds on this by declaring that the powerful groups of society defined sex and then used their power to hide what they had done. The powerful groups, namely “doctors, clergy, novelists, psychologists, moralists, social workers, politicians,” (Culler 4) bestowed a power upon sex and removed themselves from the creation of the idea of sex according to Foucault. This is speculative because it is not a common sense view. It is theory because it calls into question the formation of what is considered a common sense view. It is theory because it attempts to trace a common sense view to its creation. If a ‘common sense’ view had to be created, it is theory because it questions whether societal views on sex and sexual identity are even common sense.

The second example of theory is of an entirely different form and subject matter. I am struggling with why Culler says this is theory. Is Derrida’s analysis of Rousseau theory because it shows a stark difference between what Rousseau says in writing and what he actually (read: probably) means? Derrida finds that he “says” that writing is nonessential to thought and speech, but actually cannot express himself without this supplement. Derrida further claims that in relationships as well as speech, Rousseau needs supplements whether or not the thing being supplemented is present. Is scrutinizing Rousseau’s ideas for trends that transcend writing and loving theory?

Reading Jonathan Culler first talks about theory; first, in the sense of definition. The beginning of this reading wants to give the reads the basic idea of what theory is talking about how we traditionally define it as and uses the example of Laura and Michael slitting up. This example then leads to the difference of theory as a speculation and theory as a non-obvious explanation, which of course in the English language, some words usually have more than one meaning. Having read this section of the article, I followed along with what Culler is writing about when he talks about theory. My confusion of how theory is involved with literature is much later into the reading.

Shortly after speaking of definitions, it still stays along the subject of English as it speaks of literary studies when theory is brought up as genre, “The philosopher Richard Rorty speaks of a new, mixed genre that began in the nineteenth century: ‘Beginning in the days of Goethe and Macaulay… a new kind of writing has developed… neither the evaluation of the relative merits of literary productions, nor intellectual history, nor moral philosophy…” This is where I get slight confused, but not entirely lost, when philosophy is mentioned a little. Further reading, I understood how theory is used in literary studies being complied of many things like problems of academic philosophy and about the body. After this part of the reading, that is where I became confused when it talks about the effects of theory and authors talking about ‘sex.’

To me, Culler completely took a different approach to where he talks about the effects of theory and authors and their written works talking about sex. The effects of theory leads into the topic of ‘sex.’ I know that the issue of ‘sex’ relates to the topic of theory (because if not why would he put it in the reading),  “The notion of ‘sex’ made it possible to group together, in an artificial unity, anatomical elements, biological functions, conduct…” but how exactly does it. I can see how it relates to literary studies because sex is not about just the physical aspect, but it also the orientation of a person, biological functions, etc. Moreover in the reading, the point of sex then going into power and knowledge is where I was absolutely lost. Foucault and Derrida conclusion of theory involving sex is something that I need to read more than once and analyze the text around it more in depth.

I know that towards the end of this reading explains the meaning of the entire context, but like I previously said I will have to read Culler again to understand theory, but to also help me out with the rest of this semester in this course.

T.S Eliot’s “Tradition and the Individual Talent” takes a closer look at the meaning of tradition and how it is inflicted into writing.  Eliot comes across as critical of the way tradition is viewed amongst critics (readers) as well as writers.

For example, he discusses a common disposition in which we, as critics shine the brightest lights on the parts of a piece of work which is the “most different” from the work of others in his field.  We nod approvingly towards something that is unlike anything we’ve seen before (in terms of art), in regards to the author’s predecessors.  Eliot emphasizes that is it not simply the predecessors but the immediate predecessors and goes on to say “we endeavor to find something that can be isolated in order to be enjoyed.”  He is saying as a critic or a reader, we earnestly await something that is exclusive of its genre.  The problem itself lies in the fact that we are blinded by this hope for exclusivity that we are unaware of the fact that the past fuels what we call tradition.

Eliot states, “If we approach a poet without this prejudice we shall often find that not only the best, but the most individual parts of his work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously.”  In other words, what we find different and special about the piece, has actually been “done before.”  And by done before, I mean that it is not unique or original but bears strong influences from the past.

While it seems obvious that Eliot is an advocate for crediting the past with the basis of what we consider tradition, I believe that individual talent in itself can also maintain its own ground.  Influence is present, yes, but Eliot is quite harsh is squashing the prospect of individual talent surpassing the talent and tradition of past artists of any sort.   One interesting portion of the essay is when he quotes “someone” who said, “The dead writers are remote from us because we know so much more than they did.”  In response to this, Eliot says, “Precisely, and they are that which we know.”  He basically makes it seem as if one is incapable of coming with original work in this day and age, when not every single thing is fueled by methods used in the past.  Although “dead writers” make up a large part of what we know (their works and histories) it doesn’t remain all we know.  Writers can derive from it and be creative from within themselves.

Furthermore, Eliot delves deeper into the process of obtaining tradition.  It cannot simply be passed down but he says, “…you must obtain it by great labour.”  I can agree with this because the past must be considered but then again as I mentioned above, it is not the only thing to be considered.  However, I do agree once again with Eliot’s notion in which he states, “What is to be insisted upon is that the poet must develop or procure the consciousness of the past and that he should continue to develop this consciousness throughout his career.”  The consciousness of the past, or the awareness of the great works of the past is crucial for the success of all present and future writers. Eliot strengthens his argument and uses the example of Shakespeare using “source material” from the ideas and knowledge of Plutarch.  It makes us wonder what would great writers be without having this consciousness?  Would Shakespeare be what he is to the literary world without having this awareness? Progress cannot be made without this awareness. The title of the essay makes it clear that tradition and the individual talent are related, however I find myself neither completely agreeing or disagreeing with Eliot’s theory.

In “The Rise of English”, Terry Eagleton discusses a plethora of conflicting opinions, all masked as his own, regarding the standing and significance of English literature in society dating back to the 19th century. This is done when he cites literature as a suitable substitute for religion as the “cement” that holds the separate classes of people together and unites them on a single front, in addition to fulfilling the “need for a sense of national mission and identity”. All the while, he clarifies that literature has no permanence as a means of expressing deeply intellectual thoughts and major, possibly controversial, concerns and is predominantly a tool to “delight and instruct us”. These opposing beliefs are perhaps highlighted in this way to show the reader the complicated nature of literature, as well as its ever-changing role in our respective cultures.

I could not help but shift focus from the primary message in Eagleton’s essay to the peculiar way in which he constructed the sentences he used to convey that message. My curiosity was sparked by phrases such as “deep-seated a-rational fears and needs” that highlight his personal aversions to religion and its followers and the fact that it is an institution “closed to rational demonstration”. He shows his dislike for unquestioned thoughts and ideas put forward in the name of beliefs and for their use as a “pacifying influence” to calm whatever chaos may arise from members of the public who are on a path of true enlightenment. However, Eagleton expresses obvious delight at the period of time when it became apparent that religion was “no longer cutting it”, as they say, in suppressing the masses.

Eagleton also conveys hope when he says that, “[literature] could provide a potent antidote to political bigotry and ideological extremism”, a considerably hefty statement to make, showing he truly believes in the cleansing powers of studying English. This contradicts what he says later on in the text: “It is not the business of literature to communicate such beliefs directly”. At this point, I just wanted to understand what Eagleton’s opinion was. What was literature good for? Give me one coherent thought, please. The whole piece appeared to be a very eloquent verbalization of his stream of consciousness, if such a thing can and does exist.

As Eagleton spoke at length about the “feminine aspect” of the academic study of English and the hesitance of institutions and their leaders to consider it one of the “Greats”, as well as his mention that “the classicists [are] hardly keen to have this pathetic parody of themselves around”, a very specific image came to mind: that of the new kid in school, with his unfamiliar presence and an aura of mystery that envelops him and spreads unprovoked dislike and fear into the school children surrounding him, and thus pushing them to alienate him, keeping him from ever feeling fully accepted and appreciated. Although literature is, time and time again, showing itself to be a major contender in the field of intellectual conversational topics and focused scholarly examination, it is still regarded with much suspicion and a lack of seriousness.