In class on tuesday I spoke up before I really had my idea fully formed (typical) and defended The Waste Land as being hopeful. I did a poor job of explaining why, because I didn't know why at the time. Since I haven't been able to stop thinking about it, here is my further explanation of that sentiment.
The Waste Land is hopeful the way Catcher in the Rye is hopeful. It doesn't necessarily point to a knowable, attainable happiness, it's true. It doesn't leave us with a package of neatly resolved concepts for us to go and apply to life like a self help book would. Instead, it leaves me with the overwhelming feeling that "life" as it is, isn't really bearable. I think trying to move from that moment reaches beyond the bounds of the work. It says to me that T. S. Elliot is watching London and saying "don't you see? you're miserable and you don't even know it."
For me, at least, there is freedom in that declaration. There is a lot of hope in saying "this isn't enough for me." Because if I dare to speak those words, if i dare to say (Like Bono and Ecclesiastes) that I still haven't found what I'm looking for, then it means I can let it go.
It cries for rain, for shantih, for the Lord to pluck us out. At least when I read Elliot, I am moved to acknowledge my futile ambition and my need for a Savior. Life without Him isn't bearable.
I commented on Abstraction
This is totally unrelated to your main points, but I like The Catcher in the Rye. It's one of my favorite books.
ReplyDeleteI like what you have to say. Though I'm still not all that certain as to what I think this poem means (if there even is one), I am content to see the images of the poem and then in the last line what seems like a longing for shantih. I think it is the longing that shows us that there is truth and goodness, yet it seems like this era is losing a desire for it. Perhaps it is that this age's perception of truth and goodness is only a shadow of the real thing.
ReplyDelete