What do you think?
Rate this book
Selected Essays
For this volume Eliot gathered together his choice of the miscellaneous reviews and literary essays he had written since 1917, when he became assistant-editor of The Egoist. In his preface to the third edition (1951) he described the book as an historical record of his interests and opinions.
544 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1932
104 people are currently reading
1687 people want to read
About the author
T.S. Eliot
1,105 books5,580 followersThomas Stearns Eliot was a poet, dramatist and literary critic. He received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1948 "for his outstanding, pioneer contribution to present-day poetry." He wrote the poems The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, The Waste Land, The Hollow Men, Ash Wednesday, and Four Quartets; the plays Murder in the Cathedral and The Cocktail Party; and the essay Tradition and the Individual Talent. Eliot was born an American, moved to the United Kingdom in 1914 (at the age of 25), and became a British subject in 1927 at the age of 39.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.S._Eliot
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.S._Eliot
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
September 23, 2007
I love Eliot's poetry, especially Four Quartets, but I find that his criticism is just as present day to day for me. These essays offer an education. Without his finely appreciative advocacy it might have been years before I picked up Webster, Tourneur and Jonson. These essays are also great specimens of the English review-essay; as with James, Eliot's conquest of literary London was partly due to his mastery of the lofty, authoritative "we" of canonic critcism.
July 7, 2015
The man's critical faculties were machete sharp and scalpel precise. Every essay in here reads like the work of somebody with a desk full of papers who throws them all on the floor in one motion and starts from scratch. The craftsmanship and attack strategy is consistently illuminating. Reading his critical work is like watching fog dissipate.
A big chunk of this falls into hyper-specialized poetry and theater criticism that I have little use for, and religious writing that is specialized and speaks to a social climate about which I know very little, but the whole thing deserves to be scanned for structural insight. His observations about the role of critics and the problems of being a journalist would hold up anyplace.
A big chunk of this falls into hyper-specialized poetry and theater criticism that I have little use for, and religious writing that is specialized and speaks to a social climate about which I know very little, but the whole thing deserves to be scanned for structural insight. His observations about the role of critics and the problems of being a journalist would hold up anyplace.
suspended-or-reference
October 23, 2015As a poet and critic who was also a dramatist, Eliot occupied an unusual position among 20th-century English-language writers. His thoughts on earlier dramatists—who, we should recall, commonly wrote in verse—are useful for anyone encountering their work on stage or in print, and that's why I got hold of this collection, though it's important for other reasons as well. I'm dipping into it from time to time, as the occasion arises; for instance, I relied on it in assessing a production of Marlowe's Tamburlaine in 2014.
November 12, 2011
I would be lying if I said I was familiar with all the references made in this book. The fact is that Eliot is better read and knows more languages than I ever hope to achieve in this lifetime. Still, this book was really edifying.
Read
December 4, 2022If you truly want to appreciate and enjoy these essays, I recommend checking first if you have read the poets that Eliot analyses in them.If you have, I am sure you will not only have a great time, but also be able to revisit them with another perspective.
July 4, 2011
Eliot was born in the U.S., but following grad work at the Sorbonne and Oxford, Europe must have seemed more comfortable, because he stayed there for years. During these years, he began to make his mark as a poet, dramatist and literary critic. This book contains some of his most provocative literary critiques.
The book begins with Eliot’s view of literary talent and the role of criticism. In these two essays, he seems to presage postmodernism in his view that the writer can’t be extracted from his/her culture and literary traditions; nor can the writer thrive without the influence of subsequent criticism. Criticism to Eliot, then, is a traditional/cultural effort to direct the writer from creativity’s blind spots, to shepherd the him/her into writing’s traditions so as to allow the writing to touch ground there before extrapolating into literature’s future.
Many of the essays following these early two concern his view of Elizabethan drama and the poetry of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Here, Eliot’s tendency to prefer the traditions of the past, instead of the emerging ones, draw him as a complex figure – willingly trapped in the literary past but writing some of the most modern poetry of the twentieth century.
With his stay in England, his religious views took a conservative turn, from Unitarianism to the Church of England. Tradition surfaces here, too, in the book’s final essays, in which he takes Irving Babbitt’s humanistic views to task. Babbitt, who seemed to discard religion altogether as a valid human enterprise, dwelt on humanism as a secular substitute. Eliot’s argument, while eloquently put, seems not to understand the evolution of secularism as a social phenomenon, preferring to see humanism (i.e., ethics, morality, et al) as secondary to the mysteries religious faith is determined to perpetuate.
But what of Eliot’s writing? His is eloquent throughout, but his opinions, reflections, and arguments, while witty and full of life, seem longwinded – blather, for the most part. Still he can’t escape the poet and dramatist within himself, and there’s enough here to coach the aspiring poet to a higher level of accomplishment. For that reason alone, the book is worth the read.
The book begins with Eliot’s view of literary talent and the role of criticism. In these two essays, he seems to presage postmodernism in his view that the writer can’t be extracted from his/her culture and literary traditions; nor can the writer thrive without the influence of subsequent criticism. Criticism to Eliot, then, is a traditional/cultural effort to direct the writer from creativity’s blind spots, to shepherd the him/her into writing’s traditions so as to allow the writing to touch ground there before extrapolating into literature’s future.
Many of the essays following these early two concern his view of Elizabethan drama and the poetry of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Here, Eliot’s tendency to prefer the traditions of the past, instead of the emerging ones, draw him as a complex figure – willingly trapped in the literary past but writing some of the most modern poetry of the twentieth century.
With his stay in England, his religious views took a conservative turn, from Unitarianism to the Church of England. Tradition surfaces here, too, in the book’s final essays, in which he takes Irving Babbitt’s humanistic views to task. Babbitt, who seemed to discard religion altogether as a valid human enterprise, dwelt on humanism as a secular substitute. Eliot’s argument, while eloquently put, seems not to understand the evolution of secularism as a social phenomenon, preferring to see humanism (i.e., ethics, morality, et al) as secondary to the mysteries religious faith is determined to perpetuate.
But what of Eliot’s writing? His is eloquent throughout, but his opinions, reflections, and arguments, while witty and full of life, seem longwinded – blather, for the most part. Still he can’t escape the poet and dramatist within himself, and there’s enough here to coach the aspiring poet to a higher level of accomplishment. For that reason alone, the book is worth the read.
May 19, 2010
Eliot's brilliance is clearly on display, but this book is so esoteric that only the highest levels of literary scholars could possibly draw from it.
February 2, 2011
Read the Hamlet and Shakespeare essays. Eliot can distill so much into a single sentence. Good lead-in to reading Montaigne, who he and others believe had a strong influence on Shakespeare.
January 10, 2025
T. S. Eliot a fost un poet, eseist si dramaturg britanic de origine americana. Este considerat ca fiind "tatal poeziei moderne" si a fost distins cu premiul Nobel. Celebritatea si-a dobandit-o pentru creatiile sale in:
Poezie: The love song of J. Alfred Prufrock (1917), The Waste Land (1922), The Hollow men (1925), Coriolan (1931)
Dramaturgie: Murder in the Cathedral (1935), The Cocktail party (1949)
Musical: Cats (1940)
Eliot a fost o personalitate distinsa, sensibila, eleganta, a studiat Filosofie la Harvard avand o gandire anti-romantica, proclamandu-se: "clasicizant in literatura, monarhist in politica si anglo-catolic in religie".
In continuare vom analiza cateva din eseurile sale, cuprinse in volumul de fata:
"Traditie si talent personal" a aparut in 1919 si este considerat "poate cel mai influent eseu de critica". In el Eliot ne vorbeste despre teoria impersonalitatii actului poetic. De asemenea, mai aflam si ca:
- "fiecare natiune, fiecare neam are nu numai un spirit creator, dar si un spirit critic propriu".
- "noutatea e mai buna decat repetarea".
- traditia nu poate fi mostenita, se dobandeste prin stradanie si are nevoie de un simt al istoriei.
- trebuie sa scrii ca si cum ai avea in sange nu numai literatura generatiei tale ci intreaga literatura din istorie.
- un poet, un artist nu inseamna nimic singur, acesta trebuie privit in legatura cu ceilalti dinaintea lui. Acesta nu poate fi pretuit singur ci numai in corelatie cu ceilalti. Acesta este un principiu de critica nu numai istoric ci si estetic.
- "progresul unui artist este un perpetuu sacrificiu de sine, o continua renuntare la propria sa personalitate."
- cineva a spus:" Scriitorii trecutului sunt departe de noi pentru ca noi stim cu mult mai mult decat stiau ei". Tocmai... ii stim pe ei!
Urmatorul eseu este "Functia criticii" si a aparut in 1923. Si din el putem retine multe informatii pretioase:
- prin critica Eliot intelege "comentarea si interpretarea unor opere de arta cu ajutorul cuvintelor scrise".
- scopul criticii este de a "contribui la intelegera operelor de arta si la indreptarea gustului".
- comparatia si analiza sunt principalele unelte folosite de critic.
- foarte important, este de evitat a incuraja gustul pentru citirea doar a criticilor despre operele de arta in detrimentul creatiilor in sine. Trebuie sa evitam sa oferim opinii "de-a gata".
Eseul care urmeaza este "Hamlet" si a aparut in 1919. Este o lucrare despre creatia lui Shakespeare in care ni se spune ca este gresit sa ne concentram numai asupra personajului principal ci trebuie sa ne indreptam atentia asupra intregii opere. Eliot face paralela intre Hamlet al lui Shakespeare si cel apartinand lui Thomas Kyd, cu acelasi nume, care l-a precedat.
In cadrul eseului Eliot exprima o opinie deloc favorabila acestei creatii celebre, neconsiderand ca ea este capodopera lui Shakespeare ci mai degraba "un esec artistic". "Hamlet" i se pare prea lunga, derutanta si are scene de prisos, iar Shakespeare e total depasit cand vine vorba despre personajul principal, nu reuseste sa-i prinda esenta si complexitatea.
"Poetii metafizici" a aparut in 1921 si ne vorbeste despre creatiile unor autori ca: Donne, Townshend, lordul Herbert of Cherbury, Henry King, Cranshaw, Cowley etc. Am retinut cateva versuri frumoase din "Oda" lordului Herbert:
"So when from hence we shall be gone,
And be no more, nor you, nor I,
As one another`s mystery,
Each shall be both, yet both but one."
Ultimul eseu pe care il vom analiza se numeste "Baudelaire" si a aparut in 1930. Asa cum arata si titlul, ne vorbeste despre poetul simbolist francez, care a fost numit un "Dante fragmentar" sau "simbolul morbiditatii spirituale". Baudelaire si-a inteles epoca in care a trait si fara morbiditate "niciuna dintre scrierile sale nu ar fi nici posibila nici semnificativa". Poezia sa este un "memento al datoriei sacre de a fi sincer".
Volumul de fata contine o mare varietate de eseuri si vi-l recomand cu caldura, toate sunt bine scrise, pertinente si elegante. Au tinuta si sunt erudite. Desi romantismul este curentul ce imi pune inima pe jar consider ca este necesar pentru cultura si pentru dezvoltarea personala a se citi poeziile si eseurile lui Eliot. Ar fi o imensa pierdere sa fie trecute cu vederea de catre cititorii pasionati.
Poezie: The love song of J. Alfred Prufrock (1917), The Waste Land (1922), The Hollow men (1925), Coriolan (1931)
Dramaturgie: Murder in the Cathedral (1935), The Cocktail party (1949)
Musical: Cats (1940)
Eliot a fost o personalitate distinsa, sensibila, eleganta, a studiat Filosofie la Harvard avand o gandire anti-romantica, proclamandu-se: "clasicizant in literatura, monarhist in politica si anglo-catolic in religie".
In continuare vom analiza cateva din eseurile sale, cuprinse in volumul de fata:
"Traditie si talent personal" a aparut in 1919 si este considerat "poate cel mai influent eseu de critica". In el Eliot ne vorbeste despre teoria impersonalitatii actului poetic. De asemenea, mai aflam si ca:
- "fiecare natiune, fiecare neam are nu numai un spirit creator, dar si un spirit critic propriu".
- "noutatea e mai buna decat repetarea".
- traditia nu poate fi mostenita, se dobandeste prin stradanie si are nevoie de un simt al istoriei.
- trebuie sa scrii ca si cum ai avea in sange nu numai literatura generatiei tale ci intreaga literatura din istorie.
- un poet, un artist nu inseamna nimic singur, acesta trebuie privit in legatura cu ceilalti dinaintea lui. Acesta nu poate fi pretuit singur ci numai in corelatie cu ceilalti. Acesta este un principiu de critica nu numai istoric ci si estetic.
- "progresul unui artist este un perpetuu sacrificiu de sine, o continua renuntare la propria sa personalitate."
- cineva a spus:" Scriitorii trecutului sunt departe de noi pentru ca noi stim cu mult mai mult decat stiau ei". Tocmai... ii stim pe ei!
Urmatorul eseu este "Functia criticii" si a aparut in 1923. Si din el putem retine multe informatii pretioase:
- prin critica Eliot intelege "comentarea si interpretarea unor opere de arta cu ajutorul cuvintelor scrise".
- scopul criticii este de a "contribui la intelegera operelor de arta si la indreptarea gustului".
- comparatia si analiza sunt principalele unelte folosite de critic.
- foarte important, este de evitat a incuraja gustul pentru citirea doar a criticilor despre operele de arta in detrimentul creatiilor in sine. Trebuie sa evitam sa oferim opinii "de-a gata".
Eseul care urmeaza este "Hamlet" si a aparut in 1919. Este o lucrare despre creatia lui Shakespeare in care ni se spune ca este gresit sa ne concentram numai asupra personajului principal ci trebuie sa ne indreptam atentia asupra intregii opere. Eliot face paralela intre Hamlet al lui Shakespeare si cel apartinand lui Thomas Kyd, cu acelasi nume, care l-a precedat.
In cadrul eseului Eliot exprima o opinie deloc favorabila acestei creatii celebre, neconsiderand ca ea este capodopera lui Shakespeare ci mai degraba "un esec artistic". "Hamlet" i se pare prea lunga, derutanta si are scene de prisos, iar Shakespeare e total depasit cand vine vorba despre personajul principal, nu reuseste sa-i prinda esenta si complexitatea.
"Poetii metafizici" a aparut in 1921 si ne vorbeste despre creatiile unor autori ca: Donne, Townshend, lordul Herbert of Cherbury, Henry King, Cranshaw, Cowley etc. Am retinut cateva versuri frumoase din "Oda" lordului Herbert:
"So when from hence we shall be gone,
And be no more, nor you, nor I,
As one another`s mystery,
Each shall be both, yet both but one."
Ultimul eseu pe care il vom analiza se numeste "Baudelaire" si a aparut in 1930. Asa cum arata si titlul, ne vorbeste despre poetul simbolist francez, care a fost numit un "Dante fragmentar" sau "simbolul morbiditatii spirituale". Baudelaire si-a inteles epoca in care a trait si fara morbiditate "niciuna dintre scrierile sale nu ar fi nici posibila nici semnificativa". Poezia sa este un "memento al datoriei sacre de a fi sincer".
Volumul de fata contine o mare varietate de eseuri si vi-l recomand cu caldura, toate sunt bine scrise, pertinente si elegante. Au tinuta si sunt erudite. Desi romantismul este curentul ce imi pune inima pe jar consider ca este necesar pentru cultura si pentru dezvoltarea personala a se citi poeziile si eseurile lui Eliot. Ar fi o imensa pierdere sa fie trecute cu vederea de catre cititorii pasionati.
Read
May 1, 2021I find T.S. Eliot to be an interesting case in Traditionalism; why make the last words of "The Wasteland" from the Upanishads? Britain has a different history in relation to India than America so maybe I am not understanding the context. Modernism is also the movement that T.S. Eliot is often categorized with, for good reason. How can one write a poem in the form of The Wasteland - so dissonant and serial - and still claim to be "traditional." There is a quote from the first essay that sticks with me "We dwell with satisfaction upon the poet’s difference from his predecessors, especially his immediate predecessors; we endeavor to find something that can be isolated in order to be enjoyed. Whereas if we approach a poet without this prejudice, we shall often find that not only the best, but the most individual parts of his work may be those in which the dead poets, his ancestors, assert their immortality most vigorously. And I do not mean the impressionable period of adolescence, but the period of full maturity.
Yet if the only form of tradition, of handing down, consisted in following the ways of the immediate generation before us in a blind or timid adherence to is successes, “tradition” should positively be discouraged. We have seen many such simple currents soon lost in the sand; and novelty is better than repetition. Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it, you must obtain it by great labor.”
While I do take issue with the claim that "novelty is better than repetition," I think the much more fundamental and important claim is that one can only obtain tradition by great labour.
I think it is also important to note that tradition and culture look different from the inside than from the outside. On the inside a culture is performed; it includes religion and dance and sport and literature and architecture and reverence. On the outside it is quaint but can only be a cold dead museum. Kierkegaard says in his work "The Sickness Unto Death" that "The greatest hazard of all, losing one’s self, can occur very quietly in the world, as if it were nothing at all. No other loss can occur so quietly; any other loss - an arm, a leg, five dollars, a wife, etc. - is sure to be noticed." After the Cold War the world was turned into something like the future world from the SpongeBob episode SB-129, in order that corporate finance and technology and agriculture had a safe and comfortable world to expand and apathetic and functionally nihilistic consumers to sell to. I am deeply fearful that through this process our world unknowingly "lost itself" and slipped into being a giant baby-proofed museum. I'll leave it there for now, and think about the later essays more thoroughly.
Yet if the only form of tradition, of handing down, consisted in following the ways of the immediate generation before us in a blind or timid adherence to is successes, “tradition” should positively be discouraged. We have seen many such simple currents soon lost in the sand; and novelty is better than repetition. Tradition is a matter of much wider significance. It cannot be inherited, and if you want it, you must obtain it by great labor.”
While I do take issue with the claim that "novelty is better than repetition," I think the much more fundamental and important claim is that one can only obtain tradition by great labour.
I think it is also important to note that tradition and culture look different from the inside than from the outside. On the inside a culture is performed; it includes religion and dance and sport and literature and architecture and reverence. On the outside it is quaint but can only be a cold dead museum. Kierkegaard says in his work "The Sickness Unto Death" that "The greatest hazard of all, losing one’s self, can occur very quietly in the world, as if it were nothing at all. No other loss can occur so quietly; any other loss - an arm, a leg, five dollars, a wife, etc. - is sure to be noticed." After the Cold War the world was turned into something like the future world from the SpongeBob episode SB-129, in order that corporate finance and technology and agriculture had a safe and comfortable world to expand and apathetic and functionally nihilistic consumers to sell to. I am deeply fearful that through this process our world unknowingly "lost itself" and slipped into being a giant baby-proofed museum. I'll leave it there for now, and think about the later essays more thoroughly.
February 17, 2024
This is a mixed bag. When I started the chapter on Dickens and Wilkie Collins I immediately felt - what I have never felt with any of his essays on poetry - that Eliot didn't know what he was talking about; and indeed he hands his judgement over to his contemporary GK Chesterton, whom he says is a great critic of Dickens despite having elsewhere described his style as 'paradoxical to the last point of endurance'. And there are other essays here, such as the ones on Anglican church government, which may have been important to the writer, but with which most readers could probably have dispensed. Yet others are of a Byzantine level of obscurity, such as 'Seneca in Elizabethan Translation. The strange thing is, though, that if you persevere with any of the above, they usually turn out to say something of universal value. And then there is his bread and butter, the criticism of the great English poets, and also his 40-page essay on Dante; but many of his best works in this field, such as the two essays on Milton and his series on great poets as critics, are missing.
There are lots of good things here but on the whole - and although I generally prefer complete pieces to anthologised snippets - the Penguin Selected Prose is a better general introduction to his writings. Still I've been trying to get the complete Dante essay for years, not realising it was included here, and there is quite a bit in each volume that is not in the other, so it's worth having both and I'm happy.
Eliot's critical judgement is sounder than anyone's I've ever encountered, and he doesn't allow it to be coloured by fashion or by any narrow political agenda. As a great critic can do, he explains and validates the vague feelings you have about this or that writer but couldn't quite pin down, and he also encourages you to try and enables you to appreciate people you otherwise wouldn't have known about. You grow to trust him so that, when you do disagree, you just think, 'you missed a trick there, old friend' - knowing he will be right again next time. But great art is not just about this or that particular subject, it says something about life as a whole; and I think Eliot shows that this is also true of great criticism. His hopeful, holistic attitude to life, his belief that everything is connected and directed to a higher end, is implicit in everything he writes and makes it glow with Meaning. In fact it is clearer here than in his own poetry and personally, on the whole, this is what I would rather read.
The only thing I really don't like here is the cover photo. With his far-away expression and his black Homburg hat, he looks like he is trying to impersonate Winston Churchill...or maybe Churchill was trying to impersonate him!
There are lots of good things here but on the whole - and although I generally prefer complete pieces to anthologised snippets - the Penguin Selected Prose is a better general introduction to his writings. Still I've been trying to get the complete Dante essay for years, not realising it was included here, and there is quite a bit in each volume that is not in the other, so it's worth having both and I'm happy.
Eliot's critical judgement is sounder than anyone's I've ever encountered, and he doesn't allow it to be coloured by fashion or by any narrow political agenda. As a great critic can do, he explains and validates the vague feelings you have about this or that writer but couldn't quite pin down, and he also encourages you to try and enables you to appreciate people you otherwise wouldn't have known about. You grow to trust him so that, when you do disagree, you just think, 'you missed a trick there, old friend' - knowing he will be right again next time. But great art is not just about this or that particular subject, it says something about life as a whole; and I think Eliot shows that this is also true of great criticism. His hopeful, holistic attitude to life, his belief that everything is connected and directed to a higher end, is implicit in everything he writes and makes it glow with Meaning. In fact it is clearer here than in his own poetry and personally, on the whole, this is what I would rather read.
The only thing I really don't like here is the cover photo. With his far-away expression and his black Homburg hat, he looks like he is trying to impersonate Winston Churchill...or maybe Churchill was trying to impersonate him!
Read
October 24, 20222006-11-24 Dante (1929); John Dryden (1921); William Blake (1920); (?) Swinburne as Poet ((1920);
2006-11-23 Baudelaire (1930); Arnold and Pater (1930); Wilkie Collins and Dickens (1927);
2006-11-17 Ben Jonson (1919); Philip Massinger (1920); The Metaphysical Poets (1921); Andrew Marvell (1921);
2004-12-08 Hamlet and His Problems (1919);
2004-12-06 Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca (1927);
2004-08-27 Christopher Marlowe (1919);
2003-05-30 Four Elizabethan Dramatists (1924);
2002-11-03 The "Pensees" of Pascal (1931);
2000-10-07 Seneca in Elizabethan Translation (1927);
2000-09-29 "Rhetoric" and Poetic Drama (1921); Euripides and Professor Murray (1920) The Function of Criticism (1923);
2000-09-28 Second Thoughts about Humanism (1928); Modern Education and the Classics(1932);
2000-09-23 The Humanism of Irving Babbitt (1927);
2000-09-28 Tradition and Individual Talent (1919).
2000-11-19, 2006-11-19 Thoughts after Lambeth (1931)
2006-11-23 Baudelaire (1930); Arnold and Pater (1930); Wilkie Collins and Dickens (1927);
2006-11-17 Ben Jonson (1919); Philip Massinger (1920); The Metaphysical Poets (1921); Andrew Marvell (1921);
2004-12-08 Hamlet and His Problems (1919);
2004-12-06 Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca (1927);
2004-08-27 Christopher Marlowe (1919);
2003-05-30 Four Elizabethan Dramatists (1924);
2002-11-03 The "Pensees" of Pascal (1931);
2000-10-07 Seneca in Elizabethan Translation (1927);
2000-09-29 "Rhetoric" and Poetic Drama (1921); Euripides and Professor Murray (1920) The Function of Criticism (1923);
2000-09-28 Second Thoughts about Humanism (1928); Modern Education and the Classics(1932);
2000-09-23 The Humanism of Irving Babbitt (1927);
2000-09-28 Tradition and Individual Talent (1919).
2000-11-19, 2006-11-19 Thoughts after Lambeth (1931)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 26, 2011
This is an outstanding selection of essays by T. S. Eliot, and a superb introduction and anthology of his literary/intellectual/cultural passions and pursuits. Understandably, he is still mostly known only for his poems - well, at least in schools, where he's taught in literature courses; usually and only the poems The Waste Land, and The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufock (the latter being my favourite of his poems, transcending in quality and feeling his most famous, The Waste Land, not simply because it is far more accessible, but it is more from the heart, rather than the head, and there are more rewards to be gained by the marvellous riches of the metaphors and similes used).
The collection is the third and final revised edition whose contents only Eliot himself selected and it is most highly recommended to you, whether you dip in and out of the Sections and individual essays according to your particular interests, or read them all from cover to cover without changing course. I can guarantee that - if you are passionate about pre-20th century poetry, literature in general (especially English for the last two clauses here), criticism thereof, or the humanities in general, you will find much to engage and stimulate your mind and love for literature. While all of his essays demand your undivided attention as a close reader, because every sentence of his matters, rest assured that such dedication is more than rewarded by the learning, pleasure and insight you will gain from reading them. And, as with all truly great critics, his individual studies of writers compel you with passion and enthusiasm to read their works to which he refers.
For those interested in the specific content itself, the following goes into greater detail: This anthology is divided into seven sections: The first has two polemics, one on 'Tradition and the Individual Talent', the other - 'The Function of Criticism' (published in 1923) - was and remained for many decades a milestone in literary criticism, being regarded as of the first really modernist perspectives/approaches to it (though I feel the 19th century poet and critic Matthew Arnold's criticism deserves much more recognition for being a strong advocate of modernist literature). This polemic radically differentiated itself from the Edwardian and Victorian literary criticism (save the caveat of Arnold's work!). Section II comprises essays on Euripides, Dramatic Poetry, Rhetoric and Poetic Drama, and a wonderful one on `Seneca in Elizabethan Translation'. Section III is one of the two largest (the other being VII), consisting of several essays. The third section is devoted to Elizabethan poets and dramatists and, within it, you will find beautifully written articles on Marlowe, Ben Jonson, Thomas Middleton, and `Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca'.
Section IV is represented by a standalone essay, and deservedly so: on Dante. The greater part is, rightly, devoted to the Divine Comedy, and it is a truly marvellous, deeply researched and stimulating series of reflections, arguments and contextualisation (both culturally- and historically-situated); he also signposts the significance of Dante's earlier poem, written in his youth, The Vita Nuova, clearly showing you how 'some of [its] method and design, and explicitly the intentions, of the Divine Comedy are shown [...] help[ing] particularly towards understanding of the Comedy'. Inevitably, too, you want to rush to read or re-read Dante's great poems. As with Eliot's earlier essay on the functions of criticism, at the time of the publication of `Dante' in 1929, it was also regarded as a landmark in Dante studies.
Section V is devoted to poets, and all the pieces are marvellous with compelling, insightful and appreciations of the Metaphysical Poets, besides individual ones on Swinburne, Tennyson (devoted to his poem, In Memoriam', while considering his others, Eliot argues that it is this one in which Tennyson finds `full expression' and is `unique' in his oeuvre); and brilliant ones on Marvell, Dryden - most especially - if you were ever put off by reading Dryden in the past, as I was, or are otherwise unfamiliar with his work, I assure you this essay will drive you with gusto to his poetry - and Blake.
Section VI strikes me as an odd bag and is the only one that doesn't seem to cohere as a group; essays on Lancelot Andrews and John Bramhall are, to my mind, not of much merit, and, worse, there's a tiresome 25 pages of reflection on the 1930 Report of the Lambeth Conference, famous at the time, about the issues within, state of and future considerations of the Church of England: unless you're a devoted theologian, or an absolute C. of E. enthusiast, its history and all, I just can't see how it would interest any one at all. But then Eliot redeems himself wonderfully well, by two stimulating essays: one on `Religion and Literature', and a somewhat intellectually intimidating one - frankly, I think it the most such of all his essays herein - on Pascal's Pensees (and apologies to purists for the absence of the accent).
Most satisfying of them all, you arrive at Section VII, where you will be drawn into superb criticism on Baudelaire, The Humanism of Irving Babbitt, Second Thoughts about Humanism, and on the critics Arnold and Pater, besides two other essays, and an absolutely fantastic one on the multi-layered, complex relationship - both literary- and friendship-wise - on Wilkie Collins and Dickens.
The collection is the third and final revised edition whose contents only Eliot himself selected and it is most highly recommended to you, whether you dip in and out of the Sections and individual essays according to your particular interests, or read them all from cover to cover without changing course. I can guarantee that - if you are passionate about pre-20th century poetry, literature in general (especially English for the last two clauses here), criticism thereof, or the humanities in general, you will find much to engage and stimulate your mind and love for literature. While all of his essays demand your undivided attention as a close reader, because every sentence of his matters, rest assured that such dedication is more than rewarded by the learning, pleasure and insight you will gain from reading them. And, as with all truly great critics, his individual studies of writers compel you with passion and enthusiasm to read their works to which he refers.
For those interested in the specific content itself, the following goes into greater detail: This anthology is divided into seven sections: The first has two polemics, one on 'Tradition and the Individual Talent', the other - 'The Function of Criticism' (published in 1923) - was and remained for many decades a milestone in literary criticism, being regarded as of the first really modernist perspectives/approaches to it (though I feel the 19th century poet and critic Matthew Arnold's criticism deserves much more recognition for being a strong advocate of modernist literature). This polemic radically differentiated itself from the Edwardian and Victorian literary criticism (save the caveat of Arnold's work!). Section II comprises essays on Euripides, Dramatic Poetry, Rhetoric and Poetic Drama, and a wonderful one on `Seneca in Elizabethan Translation'. Section III is one of the two largest (the other being VII), consisting of several essays. The third section is devoted to Elizabethan poets and dramatists and, within it, you will find beautifully written articles on Marlowe, Ben Jonson, Thomas Middleton, and `Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca'.
Section IV is represented by a standalone essay, and deservedly so: on Dante. The greater part is, rightly, devoted to the Divine Comedy, and it is a truly marvellous, deeply researched and stimulating series of reflections, arguments and contextualisation (both culturally- and historically-situated); he also signposts the significance of Dante's earlier poem, written in his youth, The Vita Nuova, clearly showing you how 'some of [its] method and design, and explicitly the intentions, of the Divine Comedy are shown [...] help[ing] particularly towards understanding of the Comedy'. Inevitably, too, you want to rush to read or re-read Dante's great poems. As with Eliot's earlier essay on the functions of criticism, at the time of the publication of `Dante' in 1929, it was also regarded as a landmark in Dante studies.
Section V is devoted to poets, and all the pieces are marvellous with compelling, insightful and appreciations of the Metaphysical Poets, besides individual ones on Swinburne, Tennyson (devoted to his poem, In Memoriam', while considering his others, Eliot argues that it is this one in which Tennyson finds `full expression' and is `unique' in his oeuvre); and brilliant ones on Marvell, Dryden - most especially - if you were ever put off by reading Dryden in the past, as I was, or are otherwise unfamiliar with his work, I assure you this essay will drive you with gusto to his poetry - and Blake.
Section VI strikes me as an odd bag and is the only one that doesn't seem to cohere as a group; essays on Lancelot Andrews and John Bramhall are, to my mind, not of much merit, and, worse, there's a tiresome 25 pages of reflection on the 1930 Report of the Lambeth Conference, famous at the time, about the issues within, state of and future considerations of the Church of England: unless you're a devoted theologian, or an absolute C. of E. enthusiast, its history and all, I just can't see how it would interest any one at all. But then Eliot redeems himself wonderfully well, by two stimulating essays: one on `Religion and Literature', and a somewhat intellectually intimidating one - frankly, I think it the most such of all his essays herein - on Pascal's Pensees (and apologies to purists for the absence of the accent).
Most satisfying of them all, you arrive at Section VII, where you will be drawn into superb criticism on Baudelaire, The Humanism of Irving Babbitt, Second Thoughts about Humanism, and on the critics Arnold and Pater, besides two other essays, and an absolutely fantastic one on the multi-layered, complex relationship - both literary- and friendship-wise - on Wilkie Collins and Dickens.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 4, 2018
for a good stretch this was an easy five star book, then in the back end eliot sinks into writing about writers about whom there is no concern anymore (how could such an immortal writer dedicate so much time to someone like swinburne?) in a way that says nothing to those unfamiliar with those writers, and religious and social criticism which is both wildly outdated and at best distasteful (at worst decisively reprehensible)
April 6, 2021
I haven't read this in years but I just noticed I didn't have it listed on here for some reason. I remember thinking these essays were absolutely brilliant. I think he's probably the best poet of the 20th Century. He is a conservative, Anglican, Anglophile. He tears into Milton and the Romantics. We profoundly disagree about many things. But he is a pleasure to read, and clearly a genius.
January 4, 2025
Read some, not all. Thoroughly enjoyed many of them, especially those that talked about Shakespeare and Catholicism. I think his argument about how the goodness of sainthood necessitates an explanation of the world which legitimizes sainthood is true, but if you ask me why, I’ll just say “vibes.”
April 14, 2022
I enjoyed it much more than I initially thought I would, possibly because I was so familiar with the authors and texts Eliot criticizes in these pages.
January 22, 2024
3.5 ⭐
It's great, I'm just petty because I do not agree with some of his arguments.
It's great, I'm just petty because I do not agree with some of his arguments.
March 8, 2013
'You are a delusion, said roundly John Eglinton to Stephen. You have bought us all this way to show us a French triangle. Do you believe your own theory?
No, Stephen said promptly.' ('Ulysses', p.274.)
This book of essays is of historical value:, it offers an insight into what passed as non-academic literary criticism in the first part of the 20th century. It has biographical value for anyone interested in the development of Thomas Eliot’ s career; where it is worth remembering that he was publically visible as a critic long before his public renown as a GREAT POET.
But literary criticism rarely ages well. It caries with it the assumptions of its own times, the traces of passionate debates now forgotten, and is mired in the state of knowledge then available.
Eliot’s criticism is no different. In fact it’s depressing to return to these after several years and see how empty they are. As the eloquent opinions of a well-read man, they have some interest. As a dinner guest or a companion in the taxi on the way home from the play, Eliot would have been witty and thought provoking, full of scintillating aphorisms. But written down, the witty turns of phrase, like the essays themselves, vaporize under scrutiny.
For example, it’s difficult to imagine anyone studying 'Hamlet' today bothering with Eliot’s famous essay, unless to take it as a model of how not to construct a convincing argument . It’s not just the 'Hamlet' essay, but the whole book that is haunted by a fictional performance in a Dublin Library.
The difference is that the fictional Stephen is performing to entertain and impress his audience, but is still entertaining readers now.
As lasting commentary on writers or writing, Eliot’s essays have the limited value of historically contingent opinions masquerading as objective facts.
No, Stephen said promptly.' ('Ulysses', p.274.)
This book of essays is of historical value:, it offers an insight into what passed as non-academic literary criticism in the first part of the 20th century. It has biographical value for anyone interested in the development of Thomas Eliot’ s career; where it is worth remembering that he was publically visible as a critic long before his public renown as a GREAT POET.
But literary criticism rarely ages well. It caries with it the assumptions of its own times, the traces of passionate debates now forgotten, and is mired in the state of knowledge then available.
Eliot’s criticism is no different. In fact it’s depressing to return to these after several years and see how empty they are. As the eloquent opinions of a well-read man, they have some interest. As a dinner guest or a companion in the taxi on the way home from the play, Eliot would have been witty and thought provoking, full of scintillating aphorisms. But written down, the witty turns of phrase, like the essays themselves, vaporize under scrutiny.
For example, it’s difficult to imagine anyone studying 'Hamlet' today bothering with Eliot’s famous essay, unless to take it as a model of how not to construct a convincing argument . It’s not just the 'Hamlet' essay, but the whole book that is haunted by a fictional performance in a Dublin Library.
The difference is that the fictional Stephen is performing to entertain and impress his audience, but is still entertaining readers now.
As lasting commentary on writers or writing, Eliot’s essays have the limited value of historically contingent opinions masquerading as objective facts.
April 14, 2022
UPDATED REVIEW: Thursday, April 14, 2022 (five stars)
TS Eliot was a brilliant Anglican fuddy-duddy. He he was extremely conservative in his views on paper but a radical poet. Fortunately, his wishy-washy Anglicanism kept his conservatism at bay. He'll insist upon needing a Christian society, the world needing religion, but when pushed on it, he says well we can't help but be moderns and probably this conservative bent is a lost cause but the fight is worth fighting at least to preserve the views on the scene. But Eliot was also brilliant. He pioneered the most innovative theory of art. Art on his view is always part of a longer tradition or series of overlapping traditions, always responding to the past and remaking the past. Eliot as poet-critic saw it as his job to highlight some of the key points in the Western-English tradition. Did this role as curator lend to a conservative bent or did his conservatism lead him to this? Who knows or cares? A brilliant volume of essays.
ORIGINAL REVIEW: October 4, 2018 (2 stars)
I feel bad about giving T.S. Eliot's Selected Essays only two stars, since there are some terrific essays in here: for instance, "Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca," "Hamlet and His Problems," "Dante," and the essays near the end on humanism. But try sitting through an essay on Cyril Tourneur or Philip Massinger and see if you're patience isn't tried. What Eliot is trying to do with this book is lay out his idea of a poetic canon. To sum up Eliot, poetry has given birth to two great geniuses: Shakespeare and Dante. And then there's everyone else. Everyone else, though, is not too fun to read about.
TS Eliot was a brilliant Anglican fuddy-duddy. He he was extremely conservative in his views on paper but a radical poet. Fortunately, his wishy-washy Anglicanism kept his conservatism at bay. He'll insist upon needing a Christian society, the world needing religion, but when pushed on it, he says well we can't help but be moderns and probably this conservative bent is a lost cause but the fight is worth fighting at least to preserve the views on the scene. But Eliot was also brilliant. He pioneered the most innovative theory of art. Art on his view is always part of a longer tradition or series of overlapping traditions, always responding to the past and remaking the past. Eliot as poet-critic saw it as his job to highlight some of the key points in the Western-English tradition. Did this role as curator lend to a conservative bent or did his conservatism lead him to this? Who knows or cares? A brilliant volume of essays.
ORIGINAL REVIEW: October 4, 2018 (2 stars)
I feel bad about giving T.S. Eliot's Selected Essays only two stars, since there are some terrific essays in here: for instance, "Shakespeare and the Stoicism of Seneca," "Hamlet and His Problems," "Dante," and the essays near the end on humanism. But try sitting through an essay on Cyril Tourneur or Philip Massinger and see if you're patience isn't tried. What Eliot is trying to do with this book is lay out his idea of a poetic canon. To sum up Eliot, poetry has given birth to two great geniuses: Shakespeare and Dante. And then there's everyone else. Everyone else, though, is not too fun to read about.
bits-and-pieces
February 14, 2021I'm reading (parts of) this book for at least the third time. In my twenties I didn't understand any of it. Somewhere in my working life I found it boring although I thought I ought to learn something clever from it. Now, in retirement I enjoy it. He is an astonishingly clear writer, occasionally funny, surpringly (to me) humble, often a delight to read and he spent most of his life thinking deeply about some things I find very interesting. For any who don't know, it's a collection of essays, primarily on the works and art of various writers, mostly poets and dramatists.
At his best, his writing reminds me of Lincoln at his best. Which isn't that far fetched because he wrote that he considered himself an American writer, despite his citizenship and religious affiliation.
I'll leave you with a smattering of quotes to give an idea.
"It is merely a peculiar honesty, which, in a world too frightened to be honest, is peculiarly terrifying. It is an honesty against which the world conspires because it is unpleasant."
"He is beginning, in a way, at the beginning; and being a discoverer, is not altogether certain what he is exploring and to what it leads ..."
"... there is no such thing as a Lost Cause because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause. We fight for lost causes because we know that our defeat and dismay may be the preface to our successors' victory, though that victory itself will be temporary; we fight rather to keep something alive than in the expectation that anything will triumph."
At his best, his writing reminds me of Lincoln at his best. Which isn't that far fetched because he wrote that he considered himself an American writer, despite his citizenship and religious affiliation.
I'll leave you with a smattering of quotes to give an idea.
"It is merely a peculiar honesty, which, in a world too frightened to be honest, is peculiarly terrifying. It is an honesty against which the world conspires because it is unpleasant."
"He is beginning, in a way, at the beginning; and being a discoverer, is not altogether certain what he is exploring and to what it leads ..."
"... there is no such thing as a Lost Cause because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause. We fight for lost causes because we know that our defeat and dismay may be the preface to our successors' victory, though that victory itself will be temporary; we fight rather to keep something alive than in the expectation that anything will triumph."
Read
May 1, 2023For me, my vast experience of reading TS Eliot comes from his drama, from Four Quartets, from selected poetry, from The Wasteland, and then reading Tradition and the Individual Talent in several classes. I was interested in this collection because sometimes writers end up being more exciting readers of literature than critics do, and the type of criticism that happens is more spirited. I can't say that that's true of Eliot really. Coming from a New Critical approach in general, and from not being particularly interested in any kind of historicism or biographical criticism, much of the criticism focused very heavily on the text itself. I am also not grealy well-read in English poetry so while I know a handful of the work presented here, as soon as we're in the weeds a little, I am lost.
In The Great War and Modern Memory, Paul Fussell describes how the use of the Book of English verse in British public schools had a great influence on the poetic output of the British war poets. As both an American and someone who went to college exclusively in the 21st century, my experience with literature in general is a little scattershot in classes and then self-driven otherwise. So when I read someone like Eliot, I have to remember how different the structure of education was, and how much more literature came out after these essays.
In The Great War and Modern Memory, Paul Fussell describes how the use of the Book of English verse in British public schools had a great influence on the poetic output of the British war poets. As both an American and someone who went to college exclusively in the 21st century, my experience with literature in general is a little scattershot in classes and then self-driven otherwise. So when I read someone like Eliot, I have to remember how different the structure of education was, and how much more literature came out after these essays.
Read
February 23, 2009What happens is a continual surrender of himself as he is at the moment to something which is more valuable. The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.
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. But, of course, only those who have personality and emotion know what it means to want to escape from these things.
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. But, of course, only those who have personality and emotion know what it means to want to escape from these things.
July 1, 2008
Its nice to finds opinionation with which one agrees so nicely written down.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews