Summary:
Modernism has been defined as a rejection of traditional 19th-century norms, whereby artists, architects, poets and thinkers either altered or abandoned earlier conventions in an attempt to re-envision a society in flux. In literature this included a progression from objectivist optimism to cynical relativism expressed through fragmented free verse containing complex, and often contradictory, allusions, multiple points of view and other poetic devices that broke from the forms in Victorian and Romantic writing, as can be seen in T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land"
Modernism in T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland"
Modernism has been defined as a rejection of traditional 19th-century norms, whereby artists, architects, poets and thinkers either altered or abandoned earlier conventions in an attempt to re-envision a society in flux. In literature this included a progression from objectivist optimism to cynical relativism expressed through fragmented free verse containing complex, and often contradictory, allusions, multiple points of view and other poetic devices that broke from the forms in Victorian and Romantic writing, as can be seen in T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" (Levanson).
The varied perspectives or lack of a central, continuous speaker uproots "The Waste Land" from previous forms of poetry; however, it is not simply for the sake of being avant-garde, but to espouse the modernist philosophy, which posits the absence of an Absolute and requires the interpretation of juxtaposed, irreconcilable points of view in order to find meaning. The first stanza illustrates this point. Within the first seven lines, the reader is presented with a "normal" poem that conforms to an ordered rhyme and meter. Suddenly, the German words "Starnbergersee" and "Hofgarten" are introduced, readjusting the reader's own view of the poem, before throwing it completely off-course in line 12: "Bin gar keine...." Just as quickly, though, the lines revert to a previous pattern with the use of "And I...", "And down...", "And when...." "Discontinuity, in other words, is no more firmly established than continuity," writes Michael Levenson (A Genealogy of Modernism). In his analysis of the initial eighteen lines, it becomes apparent that no clear conclusion may be drawn as to who is speaking, or how many speakers are present. There are several methods of unifying the disjointed speaker(s), all of which conflict with each other although they may be equally true. Thus faced with this paradox, the reader is privy to one of the modernist themes in the work: individuals are permanently estranged, each bearing a unique identity, yet they are able to connect with each other to create a kind of coherence, however temporary. Of course, Matthew Arnold wrote something very similar in To Marguerite: Continued, but up until Eliot's The Waste Land, this "truth" was never illustrated in the lyrical construction itself.
Eliot also employs fragments in the work, further articulating his modernist ideas. These fragments are sometimes used to blur the lines between speakers, but also serve to blend opposing strands of knowledge. Trying to singularly categorize the usage of fragments is as difficult as finding a unified meaning in the poem and that is the entire point. Yet, in keeping with modernist thought, can there exist an "entire point"? The answer is inevitably fragmented. In lines 307-311, "To Carthage then I came/ Burning burning burning burning/ O Lord Thou pluckest me out/ O Lord Thou pluckest/ burning", the words of St. Augustine from his Confessions and the Buddha's Fire Sermon are crammed together to form a new, incongruous whole. This synthesis hints at some sort of "truth" that may be discovered by joining these ancient bits of wisdom, two differing perspectives. However, if one assumes that something meaningful can be created from "These fragments I have shored against my ruins" in line 430, then an ultimate, final truth will never be reached since there will always be more fragments to append and assimilate. Note that this idea is derived from the content of the text in addition to the actual fragmented form it utilizes. What separates this, then, from Classical Hegelian philosophy (thesis, antithesis, synthesis)? Again, the "answer" is in fragments. Hegelian philosophy is objective and acts as an end-all, be-all answer to the workings of the universe. However, in keeping with its own ideas, there must be an antithesis to this mode of thought, which came forth in the Romantic and, later, modernist works. In this way, one is presented with the subjective core of modernism that truth will always be relative to the perspective from which it originates, be it Eastern religion, Catholicism, or any combination, the result is still a subjective fragment.
Looking on a more "superficial" level, though again it must be relative, Eliot's poem also describes the modern world, or in his own words, "the immense panorama of futility and anarchy which is contemporary history." Throughout The Waste Land, the reader is affronted with seemingly banal verses. Line 426, "London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down", line 199, "O the moon shone bright on Mrs. Porter" and other quotes ripped straight from popular songs of the time are side by side with allusions to Tristan and Isolde and Kyd's Spanish Tragedy. That is the essence of modern life. All the trivialities of the era, a period of time still mired in war and pettiness, though it considered itself Enlightened, a hypocritical age, were infused into The Waste Land, a portrait of modern society. Furthermore, advances in anthropology fueled Eliot. Beforehand, myths were thought to be just the quaint byproduct of the cultures they sprang from. However, in the early 20th-century these myths took on a universal nature. They defied rationality, yet defined our humanity. Some have wondered, if Eliot deals with the profane, how can he point out the hypocrisy of the age when he suffers from it? Where does his authority lie? The modernist response is that the authority lies in the subrational or irrational, outside of modern society, which has strayed from its primitive roots, from its original myths and arts and cultures.
Perhaps no true conclusion may be made. The human experience is fragmented and defies logic, and in order to fully convey this, modernist poets such as Eliot had to bend and break conventions, and their own expressions may culminate in something which is not fully expressible within modern society, though modern society was used as an indirect means of getting at this "Inexpressible." A better way of putting it could be that Eliot's The Waste Land was a direct way of getting at something indirect from the modern world, for it required a reinvention of poetics and the very use and meaning of language. Since the modern period is said to extend to this day (it's debated whether it's post-modern or not, since both elements survive), any final say on the matter is difficult. What can be said is that Eliot's poetry, as misinterpreted, misread, and misunderstood as it may be, is a quintessential cornerstone in modernist thought, a fragment in the puzzle, which may yield an emergent whole, though it may not be fully grasped.
Works Cited
Eliot, T.S.. The Wasteland, Prufrock, and other poems. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1998. 31-42.
