A great place to begin exploring literary modernism is T.S. Eliot's influential essay "The Metaphysical Poets," in which he describes new demands upon poets in the post-WW1 age.
I am perplexed by the goal of difficulty. I think difficulty is fine as a byproduct of the allusions and complexity of thought. If the idea is best expressed in ancient sanskrit and so must be written this way, then difficulty is introduced. However, I'm not sure the difficulty is bringing any positive quality to the literature itself. The sanskrit language, poetic tradition that quote is a part of, etc. all bring meaning ultimately to the new context that Eliot uses. But the difficulty itself brings no value. A brief though not comprehensive argument for this would be seeing those other qualities alone. An allusion to other literature is at least fun - we name our pets "Athena". Additionally, complexity often (though not necessarily) brings value; even a pop YA novel that overall is mediocre but grapples with one difficult idea throughout is better for that. However, a pernicious novel that is difficult for difficulty's sake and ultimately has no allusions or complexity of thought seems vapid and frustrating. How would Eliot respond to this?
@@Protoklatos Okay, consider his creation of a very late Victorian/Belle Epoch, or earliest Modern Style (to us, anyway) versification, at the beginning of East Coker Section Two. It resembles some of Arlington's, or even Eliot's colleague W.B. Yeats early works. Now hear the criticism that proceeds for a while that in itself inhabits the form of more Modern Poetry. The words are occasionally harder, the point he is trying to make in his almost self-creation's critique is more subtle.
I like Eliot but complexity per se has to come together coherently. At least that what I try. I enjoy your lectures, Tim.
Juxtaposition, fragments, experimentation.
I am perplexed by the goal of difficulty. I think difficulty is fine as a byproduct of the allusions and complexity of thought. If the idea is best expressed in ancient sanskrit and so must be written this way, then difficulty is introduced. However, I'm not sure the difficulty is bringing any positive quality to the literature itself. The sanskrit language, poetic tradition that quote is a part of, etc. all bring meaning ultimately to the new context that Eliot uses. But the difficulty itself brings no value.
A brief though not comprehensive argument for this would be seeing those other qualities alone. An allusion to other literature is at least fun - we name our pets "Athena". Additionally, complexity often (though not necessarily) brings value; even a pop YA novel that overall is mediocre but grapples with one difficult idea throughout is better for that. However, a pernicious novel that is difficult for difficulty's sake and ultimately has no allusions or complexity of thought seems vapid and frustrating. How would Eliot respond to this?
The clues to Eliot's response are in Four Quartets.
@@penelopegreeneCould you say more about what you think he is saying there on difficulty?
@@Protoklatos yes, give me a day. Working. Sorry.
@@Protoklatos I will have to take the piece apart to do it. I don't know how to exactly do that on this device.
@@Protoklatos Okay, consider his creation of a very late Victorian/Belle Epoch, or earliest Modern Style (to us, anyway) versification, at the beginning of East Coker Section Two. It resembles some of Arlington's, or even Eliot's colleague W.B. Yeats early works.
Now hear the criticism that proceeds for a while that in itself inhabits the form of more Modern Poetry. The words are occasionally harder, the point he is trying to make in his almost self-creation's critique is more subtle.