Monday, January 28, 2008

Eliot, Post-Structuralism, and Criticism

This week’s readings were certainly intense for any newcomer to Modernism. Chock full of criticism and the encompassing concern of each author, to establish not only what his respective point was (and what it was not), each essay required several readings in order to grasp as much information as possible.

Eliot’s essays engaged me the most out of this week’s readings. Although dense in language, “Tradition and the Individual Talent” touched on some interesting issues. Eliot gets right to the point by immediately confronting the difference between tradition and individualism. As critics, we want to see something new, something completely non-traditional in order to applaud the work. However, Eliot dives right into what essentially reminds me of what will become the post-structuralism argument of Roland Barthes, as seen in his essay “Death of the Author” (1967) and the work of others, such as Derrida and Foucault. Each piece of work that is created has nearly no possibility of being totally free from external influence and this is where the notion of tradition comes into play for Eliot. Eliot writes, “No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists” (38). Eliot argues that it is this influence from “dead artists” that is necessary in order to produce great works.

Although it is a known fact that Shakespeare used the influence of “dead artists” in “Hamlet”, Eliot certainly had no problem blasting the character Hamlet to shreds. Eliot returns to the ideas of emotions and feelings and ultimately, he decides that Shakespeare was inexperienced in the emotions and feelings that Hamlet displays. Aside from this, Eliot believes there is a detrimental imbalance between the cause and effect of Hamlet’s emotions and feelings. This ultimately results in the reader’s inability to truly understand “Hamlet” since “we should have to understand things which Shakespeare did not understand himself” (49).

“The Function of Criticism” returns to build a main point first addressed in “Tradition and the Individual Talent”. Eliot refers to many other critics in order to prove his point (or disprove theirs, I am not sure). Eliot is concerned this time with an “inner voice” that Murry has coined, yet Eliot believes that with an inner voice, it has the ability to take over and lose the meaning that may otherwise rear its head. It is in this essay that Eliot solidifies an idea that was beginning to form in “Tradition and the Individual Talent” – the necessity of fact in criticism. However, with the proposal of this idea, also arises a dilemma – how will proof against fraud be possible? So, how are we to truly criticize then? Eliot seems to give himself a safety net at the end of this essay, defending his ideas, yet not discouraging dispute. Is criticism similar to every other –ism in this world and it runs on a “to each his own” basis?

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

"Only Connect..."

Howard’s End finally made some of the ideas of Modernism clear from last week. As the readings had discussed the political issues that Modernism addressed, Howard’s End brought these issues to the forefront with the intertwining lives of the Schlegels, the Wilcoxes and the Basts. Howard’s End is addressing the question, as Trilling points out, “Who shall inherit England?” and ultimately, the classes have mixed to the point that there is no way to assign England to one particular class. Eventually, there will be no distinct class separations, creating a social “melting pot” within the country.

Throughout the novel, there were some repeated themes, phrases, and images that would be helpful to index. Forster attempts to bring the different families together, taking some time to really succeed. First, there is Helen Schlegel and Paul Wilcox’s failed romance. Next, a friendship develops between Margaret Schlegel and Mrs. Wilcox. Finally, the bonds of friendship turned love between Margaret and Mr. Henry Wilcox seals the fate of combined England. Forster, however, does not leave out the lower class Basts from the mix. It turns out that Henry has had a sexual encounter with Jacky Bast and Helen Schlegel has one with Leonard Bast, resulting in a child. Forster has intricately weaved the lives of each of these families/classes in order to answer the ultimate question.

Another repetitive aspect of the novel are the telegrams. The Schlegels seem to think that the Wilcoxes are always communicating via telegram. The idea of the “seen” and the “unseen” also repeats itself through the story, as the Schlegels seem to be often preoccupied with the conflict between the material world and the spiritual world (as seen with the idea of Christmas).

Howard’s End is certainly a good example of modernism and modernity. The encroachment of modernity can be seen with the motor car, thrown into the story line occasionally. When the motor does come into play, it is usually taking whomever to something exciting. The relationships that are formed by the end of the novel are also a good example of modernism. The Schlegels and the Wilcoxes living together with the Schlegel-Bast child is reminiscent to the living situation of the Bloomsbury Group. Clearly, an unconventional way of living, without looking to the deeper subtext of England, they seem to representative of modernist values.

Forster’s address of gender in the novel is much more subtle than I would have expected. He does not praise feminism, rather he drops in situations where the Schlegel women subvert the cultural norms pressed upon them at the time. Margaret defies Charles by jumping out of the motor car, Helen chooses to engage in sexual activity with Leonard, and Mrs. Wilcox is the true owner of Howard’s End.

For me, the form of the novel seems to be built very much like a house. Initially, when you walk into the door, you are introduced to the characters, but only on a superficial level. The Schlegels are located on the top floor of the house, the Wilcoxes on the second floor and the Basts on the main floor. Eventually, you reach the basement on your tour and it is there that you really see each of the characters/families for who they are and how they are all fatefully interconnected.

Monday, January 14, 2008

What is Modernism?

Though nearly a century has passed since the birth of the period "Modernism", the discussion of Modernism's meaning has far from ceased. Just as Christopher Reed discusses the binaries of Modernism in his attempt at clarification, critics continue to argue what the Modernists did and did not mean with their respective works (2). From the critical readings assigned this week, each author puts a different aspect of Modernism on the literary table.

Bonnie Kime Scott addresses the role of gender in Modernism. We were asked to look over her first piece, "Intro to Gender of Modernism" as well as her later, reflective piece, "A Retro-prospective on Gender in Modernism". Considering the living arrangements that the Modernists (particularly the Bloomsbury group) had, I thought that this particular aspect would be very interesting. It is true that there is a lot of focus on women writers at this time, however with the rise of women's rights, it only makes sense that their would be significant focus on their work. Aside from this, the clusters that the Modernists arranged themselves in are extremely reminiscent of matriarchal society. As a former student of anthropology, I can not help but notice the support, guidance, and love that each of these individuals had for each other. And as Reed argues, the Modernists were defensive of individuality, but it was in these groups that growth occurred (9).

In Scott's second piece, she immediately dives into the rise of interest in the men of Modernism and the masculinity of the writing during that time. For me, this second writing hit the nail on the head. With the mixing of homosexuality and heterosexuality during the Modernist period, the idea of gender can be conflicting - where does masculinity begin and feminism end and is there some third, shaded area that conveys both genders? The possibility of transsexuality raises some red flags when I consider literature. Does this transsexuality make it difficult for the writer to establish his/herself. Maybe the shadiness of clear gender takes away from the writer's message or conveyance (which brings up further argument about whether or the not the writer even has one). I feel that Scott's second piece was much more unclear than her first and perhaps she is even unsure of her message.

Christopher Reed's "Intro to Bloomsbury Rooms" was the best article (I thought) of this week's readings. After reading the introduction in the Cambridge Companion to Modernism (which was a precise overview), I thought Reed's article on "Heroism and Housework" was perfectly modernist. The piece was loaded with binaries, which at first, was confusing. How can something be active and passive at the same time? But, after I continued on, Reed made a very heady, unclear period much more accessible than I had first thought. The idea of domesticity versus heroism was extremely interesting. The fact that many conceived the Bloomsbury group to be too domestic because their art that was furniture and it seemed that Bloomsbury was rebelling against this idea of domesticity, yet embracing it at the same time. Just as they were clearly a group, yet they desired to be recognized at an individual level. This constant give and take of Modernism is what is most intriguing to me. There seem to be no definitive answers, only hints that lead to more questions and force us to dig deeper to look at the political, social, gender, and class struggles of men, women, and whole civilizations at this time. I look forward to experiencing Modernism first hand with the aid of critical readings because just reading these articles have left me clamoring for some sort of tangible story in which to relate it all.