Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Discussion: T. S. Eliot's Poetry
>
TWL II A Game of Chess
Thank you, Zeke. I asked because her initial statement sounded as if she could do better than the ancient historians in telling facts from myths. But apparently that is not the case.
After 139 I get lost. Who is talking? Is it a single ladie talking t o Lil who is married to Albert? Sometimes it seems she is talking to another person( maybe us), hence the first two lines of that part.She seems a bit jealous to me.
"Oh is there, she said. Something o’ that, I said."What does the o' means? Is it an abbreviation of "of"? I tried to googled it but I could not find.
Hi Luiz. Yes. Exactly. Also the reason many Irish family names have O' in them. Like John O'Malley would be John of the Malleys.
Zeke wrote: "Hi Luiz. Yes. Exactly. Also the reason many Irish family names have O' in them. Like John O'Malley would be John of the Malleys."Thank you Zeke. Is it still used or is too formal nowadays?
Interesting question Luiz. My first reaction was to reply that it would be antiquated and too formal. But then I realized that in colloquial speech I often drop the "f" myself.
For example: Instead of "May I have another cup OF coffee." What I actually sound like is, "May I have another cuppa coffee." Indeed, in America the word "cuppa" sometimes stands in for a whole phrase as in "Time for a cuppa before we tackle the next project."
Others may see (hear) it differently though.
For example: Instead of "May I have another cup OF coffee." What I actually sound like is, "May I have another cuppa coffee." Indeed, in America the word "cuppa" sometimes stands in for a whole phrase as in "Time for a cuppa before we tackle the next project."
Others may see (hear) it differently though.
Luiz wrote: "After 139 I get lost. Who is talking? Is it a single ladie talking t o Lil who is married to Albert? Sometimes it seems she is talking to another person( maybe us), hence the first two lines of tha..."Luis, it's someone gossiping in a pub about Lil. She tells the story in such an animated way that it almost seems as though Lil is there.
Zeke wrote: "Interesting question Luiz. My first reaction was to reply that it would be antiquated and too formal. But then I realized that in colloquial speech I often drop the "f" myself. For example: Inste..."
Interesting. I think I pronounce the "f".
Laurel wrote: "Luiz wrote: "After 139 I get lost. Who is talking? Is it a single ladie talking t o Lil who is married to Albert? Sometimes it seems she is talking to another person( maybe us), hence the first two..."Makes more sense now. And what about:
"It´s them pills I took, to bring it off, she said."? What do the pills do? What is "bring it off"?
from Hamlet:"OPHELIA
I hope all will be well. We must be patient: but I
cannot choose but weep, to think they should lay him
i' the cold ground. My brother shall know of it:
and so I thank you for your good counsel. Come, my
coach! Good night, ladies; good night, sweet ladies;
good night, good night."
Oh, good find, Luiz!Next we'll be seeing Frankenstein's monster.
We have, I think, two scenes in "A Game of Chest." First, the lavish but rather tasteless upper-class drawing room where the wife sits in state and berates her husband for not communicating with her. Second, the humble pub where a lower-class woman gossips about her "friend," Lil, and the barkeep tries to hurry everyone out so he can close up for the night. Who is happy here?
The change of Philomel, by the barbarous kingSo rudely forced; yet there the nightingale
Filled all the desert with inviolable voice
And still she cried, and still the world pursues,
“Jug Jug” to dirty ears.
There seems to be a connection between the story of Philomel -- raped by the King, then silenced when the King cuts out her tongue -- and the silence of the non-speaker in the next section:
Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak.
“What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?
“I never know what you are thinking. Think.”.
Perhaps the only response to the tawdry conversation that is related after this is that of Philomel: "Jug Jug." I didn't realize what Eliot meant by "dirty ears," in the line, "And still she cried, and still the world pursues, “Jug Jug” to dirty ears." ... but it's the ears that hear this kind of conversation. Our ears, the reader's ears.
Luiz wrote: ""Some critics use this working title (He Do the police in different voices) to support the theory that, while there are many voices (speakers) in the poem, there is only one central consciousness.""I don't buy that. What about you guys? "..."
I don't know, and this relates to the jump from the first to the second part of A Game of Chess. The first part is twice as long as the second. Is the person/consciousness who narrates or describes the first part the same as observes the second? I could easily make up a story about the man being berated in the first part going out to his local for a little relief, but that would be my story, not Eliot's. So, two sections, unbalanced in size, one over-decorated upper class (or with pretentious), one lower class and crude. What holds them together besides the poet's consciousness?
Don wrote: "Luiz wrote: ""Some critics use this working title (He Do the police in different voices) to support the theory that, while there are many voices (speakers) in the poem, there is only one central co..."I don't buy it either, Luiz and Don. These fragments and broken images come from multiple speakers from many centuries.
@70 Thomas brings up the myth of Philomel who is raped, has her tongue cut out and is turned into a nightingale. Wikipedia notes that the female of that species is mute; only the male sings.
Here is another connection to Shakespeare. In Titus Andronicus a similar rape occurs. The violated young woman, whose hands have also been severed, uses a stick grasped in her mouth to accuse her rapists by writing in the sand.
Here is another connection to Shakespeare. In Titus Andronicus a similar rape occurs. The violated young woman, whose hands have also been severed, uses a stick grasped in her mouth to accuse her rapists by writing in the sand.
Don wrote: "The use of fragments from high culture and low is analogous to Collage Cubism in painting, most vividly in Picasso's combining a bicycle seat and handlebars to make a bull's head."I wonder if Waste Land is the literary equivalent to cubism in art--lots of fragments of different perspectives forcing the viewer to amalgamate the fragments into a whole. In art, cubism might be a rebellion against the belief that the artist could capture reality with photographic precision. WL seems like it might be part of a literary parallel, but I wonder what inspired the art and literary rebellion. Is there a philosophical break underlying both? Did WWI put this break in full crisis?
Luiz wrote: "The Chair she sat in, like a burnished throne,Glowed on the marble, where the glass
Held up by standards wrought with fruited vines
From which a golden Cupidon peeped out
(Another h..."
A couple of things came together here for me. Seems like this is a description of the chess board with the queen chess piece. The free-standing board is on a stand decorated with fruited vines and Cupidon. The implied player moves pieces in prescribed ways, enacting a battle which requires the king's death. similarly, Eliot, to use the radio dial allusion, is dialing up a sequence of fragments of myth, literature, memory, wishes, desires... So just as the chess players enact a pretend battle on the chess board, Eliot manipulates words one after another for the reader, whose part, may be just as important as the second chess partner in conceiving the strategy, and unifying process in play.
Suzann, your post got me thinking---all mixed-up thinking, ;-)... but thinking.
So... the Fisher King is wounded or maimed or sexually impaired, right? and that's why the land is blighted ... and can't be healthy again until the Fisher King is healthy. Right? Do correct me if I've gone astray.
I keep reading the Fisher King is integral to understanding the poem. Even though, he's, like, never actually mentioned--- and that makes it tremendously difficult for me.
But... In Part II here, "A Game of Chess"
Chess has rules.
"The Chair she sat in, like a burnished throne"
Probably Cleopatra.
So in chess the king cannot be killed. It's against the rules. He can only be checked and checkmated. Cleopatra may not have actually had her brother the pharaoh killed, but she went against tradition, wanting to act as king/pharaoh herself.
And when Caesar and Antony linked with her, that improper sexual/political action maimed them politically back in Rome. And bad times followed.
Tradition tossed aside. Bad times follow.
Anyway.... those are the thoughts I'm thinking this morning.
So... the Fisher King is wounded or maimed or sexually impaired, right? and that's why the land is blighted ... and can't be healthy again until the Fisher King is healthy. Right? Do correct me if I've gone astray.
I keep reading the Fisher King is integral to understanding the poem. Even though, he's, like, never actually mentioned--- and that makes it tremendously difficult for me.
But... In Part II here, "A Game of Chess"
Chess has rules.
"The Chair she sat in, like a burnished throne"
Probably Cleopatra.
So in chess the king cannot be killed. It's against the rules. He can only be checked and checkmated. Cleopatra may not have actually had her brother the pharaoh killed, but she went against tradition, wanting to act as king/pharaoh herself.
And when Caesar and Antony linked with her, that improper sexual/political action maimed them politically back in Rome. And bad times followed.
Tradition tossed aside. Bad times follow.
Anyway.... those are the thoughts I'm thinking this morning.
Adelle wrote: "those are the thoughts I'm thinking this morning..."Eliot has offered a puzzle or game and you are bringing to the table your knowledge of history and literature. The game is dynamic. It defies the conventions of plot driven time. Can this engagement bring new growth from the corpse of history and literature?
Luiz wrote: Makes more sense now. And what about:"It´s them pills I took, to bring it off, she said."? What do the pills do? What is "bring it off"?
I think this means that she had her child aborted using pills. The next line gives the impression that she already has five kids and nearly died during the birth of one of them.
In line 142-151 I get the impression that the voice that is speaking (maybe the queen from the start of A Game of Chess) is competing with Lil for the love of Albert. She admonishes Lil to make herself pretty for Albert, but Lil doesn't seem to want to be attractive for Albert anymore. Maybe she is afraid of having more children?
Suzann wrote: "The game is dynamic. It defies the conventions of plot driven time. Can this engagement bring new growth from the corpse of history and literature? "That's an interesting way of looking at it, and it makes me wonder, "Is this all just a game?" If the poem is just a diversion or a distraction, a cultural collage that invites us to identify and engage with the pieces, what do we gain from it?
I will be most interested to see if "new growth" springs from this "corpse" by the end of the poem!
Patrice wrote: "Not sure but I think this might be more Dada. Think of Duchamp's painting of the Mona Lisa with a moustache. "I read somewhere that a study of the facial structures of the portraits of Leonardo and Mona Lisa reveals that they are the same person. So it doesn't really take a stretch of imagination to put a moustache on her.
"Speak to me. Why do you never speak. Speak.“What are you thinking of? What thinking? What?
“I never know what you are thinking. Think.”
There is a chess equivalent of this relationship situation: stalemate, where nobody wins.
The besieged player cannot move his pieces, being shut up, whereas his opponent is eager to vanquish him, urging him to think/move.
Help! I'm falling down the rabbit hole. So many good ideas here, I feel like Alice.
Suzann wrote: "
Eliot has offered a puzzle or game and you are bringing to the table your knowledge of history and literature. The game is dynamic. It defies the conventions of plot driven time. Can this engagement bring new growth from the corpse of history and literature?
..."
I thought TWL was chock full of history and literature. So I'm trying different angles to see if they might give me a grasp on the poem. I may of course be far from the mark--- but trying.
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
Eliot has offered a puzzle or game and you are bringing to the table your knowledge of history and literature. The game is dynamic. It defies the conventions of plot driven time. Can this engagement bring new growth from the corpse of history and literature?
..."
I thought TWL was chock full of history and literature. So I'm trying different angles to see if they might give me a grasp on the poem. I may of course be far from the mark--- but trying.
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
Part II of TWL starts with an allusion to the abortive relationship between Antony and Cleopatra, ends with an allusion to another abortive relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia, and is filled with the likes throughout. I didn't know that there were so many ways to say "despair", and we are contributing as well... The Slough of Despond never says enough.
Adelle wrote: "I thought TWL was chock full of history and literature...."TWL offers hints and fragments, but as readers aren't we fleshing out the hints with a fuller story of Cleopatra or Trinstan and Isolde? Isn't the reader invited to contribute something to the puzzle? I'm guessing that the wholeness of the poem is in the reader's mind rather than in the words on the page. I'm guessing that any unity among the fragments is enhanced by the literary and historical context brought to the task by the reader in a moment of intuitive "emotional thinking"--I forget where I read that term recently.
So, I was way too swayed by the title reference to chess and find that the "glass" might be a looking glass and the scene might be a dressing table. Just shows how words shape literal expectations which imagination fabulates into unintended worlds!
Suzann wrote: "Adelle wrote: "I thought TWL was chock full of history and literature...."TWL offers hints and fragments, but as readers aren't we fleshing out the hints with a fuller story of Cleopatra or Trins..."
That sounds likely, Suzann.
Suzann wrote: " I'm guessing that any unity among the fragments is enhanced by the literary and historical context brought to the task by the reader in a moment of intuitive "emotional thinking"--I forget where I read that term recently. ..."
And it really becomes great literature when that context can be extended to our present times.
@ 88 Suzann wrote: "Adelle wrote: "I thought TWL was chock full of history and literature...."
TWL offers hints and fragments, but as readers aren't we fleshing out the hints with a fuller story of Cleopatra or Trins..."
Thanks so much for the fuller explanation, Suzann. I appreciate it.
-
TWL offers hints and fragments, but as readers aren't we fleshing out the hints with a fuller story of Cleopatra or Trins..."
Thanks so much for the fuller explanation, Suzann. I appreciate it.
-
The first section had made me think that Eliot was emphasizing sterility.
But the second section, with 5 children and abortion, does not show sterility. So that's not the answer. Or is that there is more than one type of sterility?
But the second section, with 5 children and abortion, does not show sterility. So that's not the answer. Or is that there is more than one type of sterility?
Adelle wrote: "The first section had made me think that Eliot was emphasizing sterility. But the second section, with 5 children and abortion, does not show sterility. So that's not the answer. Or is that t..."
"Elliot sets forth the two sides of what he sees as modern sexuality. While one side of this is barren, interchange, and inseparable from self-destruction, the other side of this is a rampant fecundity associated with a lack of culture and rapid aging."
http://mrhoyesibwebsite.com/Poetry%20... (Last paragraph)
Laurel wrote: "this is a rampant fecundity associated with a lack of culture and rapid aging." "Is Mr. Hoyes suggesting that "rampant fecundity" is a cause of "rapid aging"? Or is that rabbit aging?
wasn't Victorian sexuality just as barren?
Nemo wrote: "Laurel wrote: "this is a rampant fecundity associated with a lack of culture and rapid aging." "Is Mr. Hoyes suggesting that "rampant fecundity" is a cause of "rapid aging"? Or is that rabbit aging?"
Liz had so many babies that she is worn out and looks a fright. Without servants or our modern conveniences, I can see how that could happen.
Theresa wrote: "wasn't Victorian sexuality just as barren?"Ideally, it was restricted to marriage, and it was often quite productive. Think of the Queen.
In any case, it all seems to be about the failure of sex to satisfy, as well as the failure of sex to be in any way productive. Sex seems to serve an opposite purpose from the reproductive purpose it once served. It leads to decay.
Adelle wrote: "The first section had made me think that Eliot was emphasizing sterility. But the second section, with 5 children and abortion, does not show sterility. So that's not the answer. Or is that t..."
Maybe a type of voluntary sterility? The body and the nation can be a sort of waste land if the goal of marriage is to produce children and that's not happening as much as possible.
"What you get married for if you don't want children?"
Tk wrote: "Adelle wrote: "The first section had made me think that Eliot was emphasizing sterility. But the second section, with 5 children and abortion, does not show sterility. So that's not the answer..."
I was struck by the sterile way in which she describes the abortion. Having never been through childbirth/pregnancy I can't imagine the situation, but Eliot's lines are so cold!
Luiz wrote: ""Some critics use this working title (He Do the police in different voices) to support the theory that, while there are many voices (speakers) in the poem, there is only one central consciousness."..."I have also heard that there is one central consciousness (often referred to as Tiresias). However, I loved the title "he do the police in different voices." There are a lot of different speakers... Marie, Madam S., Lil's friend... but the idea that all of these unite to form one consciousness is kind of interesting. Just as all of the allusions Eliot include combine to form one new poem. Everything is connected. (Everything is the blanket for I Heart Huckabees fans)
This seems to be the only part of the poem that takes place indoors (caged like the Sybil). It seems to be primarily about defying nature: synthetic perfume, false teeth and abortion-causing pills. Also, the phrase "Hurry up please its time" reminds me that the characters are slaves to the construct of time rather than embracing natural time shifts through seasons. They wait for hot water at ten. "And if it rains, a closed door at four. And we shall play a game of chess, Pressing lidless eyes and waiting for a knock on the door." The game appears when the people wait for something TO happen to them. Perhaps fearing death by water, they stay inside when water falls from the sky.But remember, it was Madame Sosostris with her bad cold and wicked pack of cards that warned us to fear death by water in the first place. What if she is wrong? There are things she is forbidden to see. The people playing a game of chess have put their faith in a false prophet and, living out of fear, have cut themselves off from any chance for rebirth/renewal/or growth. I think we are in rats' alley where the dead men lost their bones.
Theresa wrote: "In any case, it all seems to be about the failure of sex to satisfy, as well as the failure of sex to be in any way productive. Sex seems to serve an opposite purpose from the reproductive purpos..."Great point. A literal wasteland would be unproductive or barren as well.
Tk wrote: "Adelle wrote: "The first section had made me think that Eliot was emphasizing sterility. But the second section, with 5 children and abortion, does not show sterility. So that's not the answer..."
"Breeding" is the last word in the first line of the poem: "breeding/Lilacs from the dead land...." (Maybe a nod to Whitman?)
"What you get married for if you don't want children?" We could ask this of the couple in the first section of the poem.
Ashley wrote: "This seems to be the only part of the poem that takes place indoors (caged like the Sybil). It seems to be primarily about defying nature: synthetic perfume, false teeth and abortion-causing pills...."Good points, Ashley!
Don wrote: "Tk wrote: "Adelle wrote: "The first section had made me think that Eliot was emphasizing sterility. But the second section, with 5 children and abortion, does not show sterility. So that's not..."
Ah, good, Don!
In the ending acknowledgements she quotes Boswell. I think that is a better answer to your question as I can offer.
"I have thus endeavored to sum up the evidence upon the case, as fairly as I can, and the result seems to be that the world must vibrate in a state of uncertainty as to what was the truth."