Can Tradition Exist Without History?
T.S. Elliot mentions many brilliant points in his story Tradition and the Individual Talent. The idea that we appreciate a work when it is nothing like anything we have seen before seemed counterproductive. In the year 2009, there is not much that has never been done before. And when someone does produce something "different" many tend to write it off as odd, or eccentric.
"Novelty is better than repetition" also seems counterproductive. If a person likes a type of writing, or a certain author, they tend to be drawn to that style when picking a work of Literature. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Imagine if we ignored what we liked and instead read different types of things just to simply say that we had read them. Not only would be missing out on what we know we like, we may get frustrated with ourselves if we do not like what the experts tell us we are "supposed" to.
If one can't compare Literature to works that were done in the past, there are no standards in which to judge by. Michael Phelps could not have created a historic Olympic run if someone else in history had not set the standard to be broken.
I also agree with Elliot that it is easier to write about history when there isn't so much of it. When reading a history book today we often times have to figure out for ourselves how much "fact" we believe. When there was no history, it was far easier to create some.
Elliot points out that often times we take authors and judge them based upon what they are written. An author is a person outside of his or her novel just as a football players is a person off the football field.
"Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion." Writers write what they know. A book about sailing is of no use to someone who is trying to learn how to sail if it written by a police office who has never been on a boat. A poem about losing the love of your life is not any good if the author can not make you feel an emotional tie to the words and make your heart ache about the thought of losing the love of your life.
"Novelty is better than repetition" also seems counterproductive. If a person likes a type of writing, or a certain author, they tend to be drawn to that style when picking a work of Literature. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Imagine if we ignored what we liked and instead read different types of things just to simply say that we had read them. Not only would be missing out on what we know we like, we may get frustrated with ourselves if we do not like what the experts tell us we are "supposed" to.
If one can't compare Literature to works that were done in the past, there are no standards in which to judge by. Michael Phelps could not have created a historic Olympic run if someone else in history had not set the standard to be broken.
I also agree with Elliot that it is easier to write about history when there isn't so much of it. When reading a history book today we often times have to figure out for ourselves how much "fact" we believe. When there was no history, it was far easier to create some.
Elliot points out that often times we take authors and judge them based upon what they are written. An author is a person outside of his or her novel just as a football players is a person off the football field.
"Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion." Writers write what they know. A book about sailing is of no use to someone who is trying to learn how to sail if it written by a police office who has never been on a boat. A poem about losing the love of your life is not any good if the author can not make you feel an emotional tie to the words and make your heart ache about the thought of losing the love of your life.
Recent Comments
Leave a comment