Essay:My reaction after reading T.S. Eliot’s ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’

My reaction after reading T.S. Eliot’s ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’

“Tradition and the Individual Talent ’’ (1919) is an essay written by poet and literary critic Thomas Stearns Eliot. The essay was first published in the Egoist (1919) and later in Eliot’s first book of criticism, “The Sacred wood ’’ (1920).This essay is also available in Eliot’s “Selected Prose” and “Selected Essays”. In this way T.S. Eliot, mostly known as one of the major poets of twentieth century, contributed to the field of literary criticism. This essay by Eliot is divided into three parts: Part one: The concept of “Tradition”. Part two: The theory of impersonal poetry. Part three: The conclusion or summing up. I do agree whatever he writes about ‘Tradition’ in the essay. Part one of this essay is conceived with his wise words which I respect cordially. He says, “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 its success, ‘tradition’ should positively be discouraged.” His cognition is new and modern. He also says: “It cannot be inherited, and if you want it you must obtain it by great labour.” But I oppose what he says in part two about the theory of impersonal poetry. He says: “The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual extinction of personality.” In this way he completely ignores the subjectivity or personality of an artist or a poet. He not only ignores personality but also theorizes the extinction of personality. This theory is thought to be scientific but actually it is not supported by psychology, a branch of science. Here he presents an analogy where he makes sulfurous acid (H2SO3) with oxygen (O2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the presence of platinum filament. He says a poet’s mind should be like the platinum filament, a catalyst which remains unchanged even after reaction. His analogy was right but his example was wrong because the production of sulfurous acid (H2SO3) requires Hydrogen which was not mentioned. Besides I do not support this analogy as well as the theory. If the mind of a poet becomes like catalyst he will just observe and write like the scientists. In that case, if two poets write on a same topic then both of the poems will be same. Besides, writing a piece of poetry requires perception as Max Born says: “The source of poetic power is experience, whether it be clearly conscious perception of a sense-stimulus, or the powerfully represented idea of a relationship or connexion.” It is important to mention that Max Born is a man of science. He is a professor of theoretical physics in the University of Gottingen. He cannot be wrong. So, a man cannot write a poem without perception and it is clear. Needless to say, we can do nothing without perception. Morgan, King, Wise, Scaplar say, “Perception refers to the way the world looks, sounds, feels, tastes or smells. In other words, perception can be defined as whatever is experienced by a person.” Now, it is important to say that perception cannot be impersonal because there are organismic factors or subjective conditions of perception. They are : set, need, emotion, values, attitudes, interests, learning, fatigue etc. So, mind like a catalyst is scientifically impossible. So, poetry without emotion is scientifically impossible. If we try to make one it will be lifeless. I support the poetic theory of Wordsworth that poetry is a flow of powerful emotion recollected in tranquility. This is in short about my reaction after reading T.S. Eliot’s “Tradition and the Individual Talent.”