Tradition and the Individual Talent- T.S.Eliot

Namshkar

In this blog, I'll share my thoughts on T. S. Eliot's essay, "Tradition and the Individual Talent." I'll be answering questions posed by Dr.Dilip Barad as thinking activity task, giving my take on his ideas about tradition and individual creativity. It's a personal reflection on these concepts.

Tradition and the Individual Talent 

T. S. Eliot wrote 'Tradition and the Individual Talent,' an essay where he wears two hats as a poet and critic. It first showed up in The Egoist in 1919 and later in 'The Sacred Wood' (1920), Eliot's debut book of criticism. You can find it in 'Selected Prose' and 'Selected Essays.' This essay is a big deal in Eliot's critical work. It digs into how a poet and past literary traditions connect. Eliot's thoughts on this link are a big deal in 'Tradition and the Individual Talent.' It's not just a history lesson; it's a guide for poets, saying tradition is crucial. Eliot's essay is not just a critic's work; it's a key to understanding how he saw a poet's role in the ongoing talk of literary traditions.

Q] HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN ELIOT'S CONCEPT OF TRADITION? DO YOU AGREE WITH IT? WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND BY HISTORICAL SENSE? 

Eliot's idea of tradition, as presented in "Tradition and the Individual Talent," suggests that artists should see themselves as part of a larger conversation with the past. I agree with this concept. Eliot emphasizes that artistic creation is not isolated but connected to a historical context. He urges artists to be aware of the literary tradition that precedes them, incorporating it into their work.

"The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence."

In agreement with Eliot, I believe tradition isn't a constraint but a source of inspiration. It provides a foundation, a shared language that artists can build upon. The historical sense, as Eliot describes it, involves understanding the cultural and literary heritage, recognizing the contributions of previous generations.

"This historical sense, which is a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal, and of the timeless and of the temporal together, is what makes a writer traditional."

Eliot's call for a historical sense resonates. As it promotes a deeper appreciation for the continuum of artistic expression. It encourages artists to draw from the collective wisdom of the past while injecting their unique voice. By embracing tradition, artists contribute to an ongoing dialogue that transcends individual creativity, enriching the artistic landscape. In essence, Eliot's concept of tradition aligns with the idea that art is a dynamic interplay between the old and the new, shaping a richer, more meaningful creative process.

Q] What is the relationship between “tradition” and "individual talent,” according to the poet T. S. Eliot ?

T. S. Eliot's idea is pretty straightforward. He thinks artists, with their unique talents, should be part of a bigger story called "tradition." Tradition isn't a set of rules but a flow of ideas from one artist to the next. Eliot believes that for an artist to really stand out, they should be like a new voice joining an ongoing conversation with all the artists who came before.

In simpler terms, tradition is like a supportive background for individual talent. It's not about going against the old, but about adding something fresh to it. It's like a teamwork between what artists did in the past and what today's artists bring. Eliot is saying that the best art happens when individual talent and tradition work together, each giving something to the other. So, for him, being a great artist means finding your unique voice in the ongoing story of all the artists who came before you.

Explain : "Some can absorb knowledge; the more tardy must sweat for it. Shakespeare acquired more essential history from Plutarch than most men could from the whole British Museum".

This quote suggests that people have different ways of learning. Some catch on quickly, while others may need to work harder. The mention of Shakespeare highlights how certain individuals, like him, can gain a lot of essential knowledge from a single source, in this case, Plutarch, a historian. It implies that for some, learning is more about quality than quantity—Shakespeare, despite not having access to the vast resources of the British Museum, could acquire substantial historical understanding. In simpler terms, it's a reminder that everyone has their own pace and method of learning, and some individuals can grasp important information more efficiently than others, even with limited resources.

Explain: "Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry."  

This statement by Eliot suggests thatall about where we should put our attention when we're talking about poems. It suggests that when we're critiquing or enjoying poetry, we should focus on the actual words and how the poem is crafted, not on what we might think about the person who wrote it. "Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry" basically means we should judge a poem based on how well it's written and the emotions or ideas it conveys, without letting our thoughts about the poet get in the way. So, it's like saying, "Look at the words and the meaning of the poem itself, rather than letting your feelings about the poet affect what you think about the poem." This helps keep our view of the poetry fair and open-minded.

Q]How would you like to explain Eliot's theory of depersonalization? You can explain this with the help of a chemical reaction in the presence of a catalyst agent, platinum.

Eliot's idea of depersonalization in poetry is like a chemical change. Imagine the poet's feelings are ingredients, and tradition is the special ingredient, like a catalyst (let's call it platinum). The poet's emotions don't vanish; instead, tradition helps transform them, much like a catalyst changes substances in a reaction without disappearing.

So, Eliot suggests that when poets depersonalize, it's like blending their feelings with the power of tradition. The tradition, acting as a catalyst, refines these emotions into something timeless and shared. It's not about losing personal touch but reshaping it. The platinum catalyst, or tradition, influences the poet's emotions, making them part of a broader human experience in poetry. Depersonalization, for Eliot, is a creative mix—keeping personal feelings while letting tradition enhance and broaden the poetic impact, connecting it to a larger audience. This way, the poetry becomes more than just the poet's feelings; it becomes a shared expression.

Explain: "Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality."

This statement by Eliot suggests that poetry is not about letting emotions run wild or expressing one's personality directly. Instead, it's a means of stepping away from overwhelming emotions and detaching from personal identity. It's like finding a refuge from the intensity of feelings.

In simpler terms, Eliot is saying that when someone writes poetry, it's not just pouring out their raw emotions or showing off who they are. It's more like taking a break from strong feelings and moving away from personal identity. Poetry becomes a space where emotions can be shaped and explored, offering a kind of escape from the direct, unfiltered expression of one's personality. It's a way of dealing with emotions by transforming them into something artistic and, in a sense, stepping outside oneself.

Write two points on which one can write a critique of 'T.S. Eliot as a critic'.

 

1.How does T.S. Eliot's emphasis on tradition and depersonalization impact the accessibility of poetry, and does it limit the scope for individual creativity?

2.In what ways does Eliot's critical approach neglect the socio-political context, and does this absence hinder a comprehensive understanding of literature?

Thank you.