You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.98 AVERAGE
3.98 AVERAGE
medium-paced
I love how my copy just has no translations or anything like that. Just like, here’s some foreign language. I guess you can translate it yourself. Like, I don’t understand how people read this back them.
Otherwise, this poem is quite amazing. It has a power that only grows upon repeat reading.
Otherwise, this poem is quite amazing. It has a power that only grows upon repeat reading.
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
fast-paced
The Waste Land is a poem that makes no sense. Eliot jumps from topic to topic, stringing together mundane anecdotes and references to epic literature; natural and urban symbolism; the colloquial and the classical. The transitions between these themes are often jarring: the ‘seams’ of the poem are visible, as if it has been written by an amateur. However, the quality of the fragments on their own, taken as self-contained units, is undeniable, betraying that they have, in fact, been written by a master.
The introduction shows that ever since its release, there has been a debate about whether there is an underlying structure beneath the incongruous fragments of The Waste Land: does Eliot speak with one voice? Or, in other words, can all the voices of The Waste Land be reduced to a single one? I don’t believe it can be. I view The Waste Land as an anthology within a poem—there are many poems inside of it. It is a like a mosaic. Neither containing an underlying grand story or theme, nor any systematicity. Yet, every part contributes to creating the whole.
None of the tensions or contradictions in The Waste Land are resolved: the distinction between ‘high’ and ‘low’ culture is not so much collapsed, as it is heightened. The fragments do not melt into each other, or cannot even be understood with reference to each other. Cryptic lines remain cryptic even after having read the poem (13 pages) more than a dozen times. So why should one bother with The Waste Land?
I think the only way of reading The Waste Land that is worth it, is without trying to make sense of it. I dislike the approach of ‘finding’ meaning in the poem by trying to reconstruct an original story through taking certain passages as key, and understanding the rest of the text through it. I also dislike the approach of ‘positing’ meaning by interpreting the poem as being completely symbolic and imposing a certain framework on it to translate this symbolism into a concrete understanding.
Of course, both of these approaches are to some extent unavoidable because one has to ground their interpretation in the text while simultaneously being able to only approach this text from a certain perspective. Leaving aside which one of these should take primacy over the other, I think the main insight is that both assume that the poem in its current form is incomplete, a puzzle whose parts need to be rearranged by the reader to form a complete picture. Here, understanding is understood as a dialectical process between interpreter and text. Meaning is not simply there already but has to be produced through the process of interpretation.
I think that this assumption closes the poem off, because it precludes engagement with the poem in and on its own terms. The Waste Land itself is reduced to being a replica of some ideal form of the poem, which can only be reconstructed with the help of the reader. Instead, I think we should open the poem up: The Waste Land is a poem that makes no sense, and that is its intention. What I mean is that taken as a whole, it does not make sense because there is no coherence between its parts. However, individual fragments do make sense on their own.
When I read The Waste Land, I am not reading The Waste Land but many different Waste Lands. I think that what makes it worth reading is that it plays with our ability to understand it, ever-evading our attempt to grasp it. Reading it is an exercise in futility, trying to understand something that is located at the edge of understandability. But, I think the whole point is that we cannot understand everything in the poem, and that we should not be afraid of not understanding it.
. . .
favorite passage:
‘What shall I do now? What shall I do?’
‘I shall rush out as I am, and walk the street
‘With my hair down, so. What shall we do tomorrow?
‘What shall we ever do?’
The introduction shows that ever since its release, there has been a debate about whether there is an underlying structure beneath the incongruous fragments of The Waste Land: does Eliot speak with one voice? Or, in other words, can all the voices of The Waste Land be reduced to a single one? I don’t believe it can be. I view The Waste Land as an anthology within a poem—there are many poems inside of it. It is a like a mosaic. Neither containing an underlying grand story or theme, nor any systematicity. Yet, every part contributes to creating the whole.
None of the tensions or contradictions in The Waste Land are resolved: the distinction between ‘high’ and ‘low’ culture is not so much collapsed, as it is heightened. The fragments do not melt into each other, or cannot even be understood with reference to each other. Cryptic lines remain cryptic even after having read the poem (13 pages) more than a dozen times. So why should one bother with The Waste Land?
I think the only way of reading The Waste Land that is worth it, is without trying to make sense of it. I dislike the approach of ‘finding’ meaning in the poem by trying to reconstruct an original story through taking certain passages as key, and understanding the rest of the text through it. I also dislike the approach of ‘positing’ meaning by interpreting the poem as being completely symbolic and imposing a certain framework on it to translate this symbolism into a concrete understanding.
Of course, both of these approaches are to some extent unavoidable because one has to ground their interpretation in the text while simultaneously being able to only approach this text from a certain perspective. Leaving aside which one of these should take primacy over the other, I think the main insight is that both assume that the poem in its current form is incomplete, a puzzle whose parts need to be rearranged by the reader to form a complete picture. Here, understanding is understood as a dialectical process between interpreter and text. Meaning is not simply there already but has to be produced through the process of interpretation.
I think that this assumption closes the poem off, because it precludes engagement with the poem in and on its own terms. The Waste Land itself is reduced to being a replica of some ideal form of the poem, which can only be reconstructed with the help of the reader. Instead, I think we should open the poem up: The Waste Land is a poem that makes no sense, and that is its intention. What I mean is that taken as a whole, it does not make sense because there is no coherence between its parts. However, individual fragments do make sense on their own.
When I read The Waste Land, I am not reading The Waste Land but many different Waste Lands. I think that what makes it worth reading is that it plays with our ability to understand it, ever-evading our attempt to grasp it. Reading it is an exercise in futility, trying to understand something that is located at the edge of understandability. But, I think the whole point is that we cannot understand everything in the poem, and that we should not be afraid of not understanding it.
. . .
favorite passage:
‘What shall I do now? What shall I do?’
‘I shall rush out as I am, and walk the street
‘With my hair down, so. What shall we do tomorrow?
‘What shall we ever do?’
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
5 Stars • "The Waste Land" is a 434-line modernist poem by T. S. Eliot, published in 1922. It's a complex, fragmented, and allusive work that reflects the disillusionment and despair of the post-World War I generation. The poem is divided into five sections: "The Burial of the Dead," "A Game of Chess," "The Fire Sermon," "Death by Water," and "What the Thunder Said." It explores themes of death, rebirth, and spiritual renewal, drawing on a wide range of cultural and literary references.
#TheWasteLand #TSEliot #Bookstsgram
NOTE: Eliot's use of collage-like techniques and multiple voices creates a sense of fragmentation and dislocation, mirroring the post-war world's sense of cultural and spiritual crisis.
#TheWasteLand #TSEliot #Bookstsgram
NOTE: Eliot's use of collage-like techniques and multiple voices creates a sense of fragmentation and dislocation, mirroring the post-war world's sense of cultural and spiritual crisis.
dark
reflective
challenging
challenging
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Studied this at college and so was guided on the symbolism and decoding the meanings so I don’t know if I would have truly appreciated it without that. HOWEVER, once you get used to the cryptic language it is truly amazing, you could read it countless times and notice a different thing each time everything feels so intentional.