"Understanding Vita & Virginia: Love, Letters, and Legacy"

This blog is part of  pre-reading task for Virginia Woolf's Orlando given by professor Prakriti Bhatt Ma'am.  (Department of English, MKBU).

 Exploring Love, Creativity, and Identity in Vita & Virginia

The 2018 film Vita & Virginia masterfully brings to life the extraordinary relationship between Virginia Woolf and Vita Sackville-West. Set against the backdrop of 1920s England, the film delves into themes of love, marriage, societal expectations, and mental health, while also offering insight into Woolf’s creative genius. Below, I explore key aspects of the film by addressing thematic questions that illuminate its depth and complexity.

1) How do the letters function not only as a medium of communication between the two central characters but also as narrative tool within the film?

In Vita & Virginia, letters serve as a profound medium of communication, deepening the connection between the two central characters, Virginia Woolf and Vita Sackville-West. These letters are not merely exchanges of thoughts but act as windows into their inner worlds, offering glimpses of their desires, emotions, and intellectual companionship.

1. Medium of Communication: The letters function as a bridge, transcending physical distance and societal constraints. They reveal the nuanced layers of their relationship—intellectual admiration, romantic longing, and creative inspiration. The eloquence and passion within these written words reflect the depth of their bond and provide insights into their individual perspectives.

2. Narrative Tool:

Character Development: Through the letters, the audience observes the evolving dynamics of their relationship. Virginia’s introspective and poetic musings contrast with Vita’s bold and effusive declarations, showcasing their distinct personalities.

Reinforcing Themes: The letters encapsulate themes of love, creativity, and the fluidity of identity, which are central to both the film and Woolf’s Orlando.

Structuring the Film: The filmmakers use the letters as a narrative device to move the story forward, marking key turning points in their relationship and highlighting moments of vulnerability and empowerment.

Intertextual Connection: The letters mirror the artistic and emotional currents that eventually shape Orlando, blurring the line between real-life inspiration and literary creation.

In essence, the letters in Vita & Virginia are not just personal exchanges but integral elements of the storytelling. They amplify the film’s emotional and intellectual resonance, paralleling the transformative journey of both the characters and Woolf’s literary masterpiece.

Discuss some of the views regarding marriage, relationship and the role of society presented by the various characters in the film.

In Vita & Virginia, the film explores diverse perspectives on marriage, relationships, and societal roles, primarily through the lens of its central characters and their interactions. The narrative reflects the complexities of these themes during the early 20th century, emphasizing the tension between individual desires and societal expectations.

1. Vita Sackville-West

Marriage as a Social Contract: Vita views her marriage to Harold Nicolson as a functional arrangement rather than a conventional union of love and fidelity. She embraces her individuality and explores relationships outside her marriage, challenging traditional norms.

Romantic and Sexual Fluidity: Vita's perspective on relationships is unapologetically fluid. She values passion and connection over societal approval, as seen in her pursuit of Virginia despite the constraints of her status and reputation.

Defiance of Gender Roles: Vita rejects the rigid roles imposed on women by society. Her boldness in living authentically highlights her resistance to patriarchal norms.

2. Virginia Woolf

Ambivalence Towards Marriage: Virginia’s relationship with her husband, Leonard Woolf, is complex. She appreciates his unwavering support and care, especially given her mental health struggles, yet she feels constrained by the traditional expectations of a wife.

Creative Freedom: For Virginia, relationships are deeply tied to intellectual and emotional stimulation. Her bond with Vita transcends societal definitions of love and companionship, inspiring her creatively and personally.

Society’s Role in Isolation: Virginia’s fragile mental state often makes her feel alienated, and societal pressures amplify this isolation. Her relationship with Vita becomes a sanctuary from these external forces.

3. Harold Nicolson

Marriage as a Partnership: Harold represents a pragmatic approach to marriage. He accepts Vita’s relationships with women and prioritizes their mutual respect and understanding. This unconventional dynamic reflects a progressive attitude towards marital roles.

4. Clive Bell and Bloomsbury Group

Bohemian Views on Relationships: Members of the Bloomsbury Group, including Clive Bell, advocate for freedom in personal relationships, prioritizing intellectual connection over societal constraints. Their views on love and marriage reflect a counter-cultural stance that was revolutionary for the time.

Themes Highlighted in the Film:

Individual Desires vs. Societal Expectations: The characters grapple with balancing personal fulfillment and societal judgment, highlighting the restrictive norms of the era.

Marriage Beyond Convention: The film critiques the traditional notion of marriage as a binding institution, suggesting it can be reimagined as a partnership based on mutual respect and flexibility.

Fluidity in Love and Identity: The relationships in the film underscore the fluid nature of love and identity, paving the way for a broader understanding of human connection.

Overall, Vita & Virginia presents a rich tapestry of perspectives on marriage and relationships, urging viewers to question societal norms and embrace the multifaceted nature of love.

In your opinion, is the film able to capture Woolf's depressive state with sincerity & genuity?

Yes, Vita & Virginia effectively captures Virginia Woolf's depressive state with sincerity and genuity, though it does so with a focus on her creative struggles and personal relationships rather than an exhaustive exploration of her mental health. The film portrays her emotional fragility and bouts of depression in a manner that aligns with her historical struggles while avoiding excessive dramatization.

Strengths in Depicting Woolf’s Depressive State

1. Subtle and Nuanced Portrayal:

The film does not sensationalize Woolf’s mental health but instead portrays her depressive episodes with restraint. Her moments of despair are interwoven into her creative process and relationships, emphasizing the complexity of her experience.

Scenes of isolation, anxiety, and her difficulty navigating social settings provide a realistic depiction of depression without reducing her character to her struggles.

2. Creative Expression as a Coping Mechanism:

The film highlights Woolf’s reliance on writing as both an outlet and a source of emotional turbulence. Her connection with Vita inspires her creatively but also exacerbates her internal conflicts, illustrating the intricate relationship between genius and mental health.

3. Supportive Relationships:

Leonard Woolf’s care for Virginia is portrayed with tenderness, showing his efforts to provide stability in her life. His protective but non-intrusive demeanor reflects the delicate balance required in supporting someone with depression.

Vita Sackville-West’s presence brings moments of joy and inspiration, but her unpredictability also triggers Virginia’s feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt, further complicating her emotional state.

4. Visual and Cinematic Techniques:

The film employs muted color palettes and lingering, introspective shots to visually represent Virginia’s depressive episodes. These techniques create an immersive experience, allowing the audience to feel her internal struggles.

Limitations

While the film captures her depression effectively, it occasionally prioritizes her relationship with Vita over a deeper exploration of her mental health. Viewers unfamiliar with Woolf’s biography might not fully grasp the severity of her condition or the broader context of her lifelong battle with mental illness.

Overall Assessment

Vita & Virginia approaches Woolf’s depressive state with sincerity, balancing her vulnerabilities with her strength and genius. Though it does not delve deeply into the clinical aspects of her condition, it successfully conveys her emotional turmoil in a way that feels authentic and respectful.

Share your thoughts about the portrayal of the relationship between Virginia Woolf and Vita Sackville West. (Here, discuss points like who initiated the relationship, their first meeting, their last meeting, etc)

The portrayal of the relationship between Virginia Woolf and Vita Sackville-West in Vita & Virginia is rich, complex, and layered, capturing the nuances of their intellectual and emotional connection. Their relationship is depicted as transformative, with both women inspiring and challenging each other in profound ways, while also grappling with the constraints of their time.

1. The Initiation of the Relationship

Who Initiated the Relationship?

Vita Sackville-West is portrayed as the initiator of the relationship. Her fascination with Virginia’s literary genius drives her to pursue a deeper connection. Vita’s confidence and charm contrast sharply with Virginia’s introspective and reserved nature, creating a dynamic interplay between the two.

First Meeting:

Their first meeting, as depicted in the film, is marked by Vita’s boldness and Virginia’s quiet intrigue. Vita’s flirtatious demeanor and open admiration for Virginia’s work set the tone for their relationship, while Virginia’s initial hesitance reflects her guarded personality.

2. The Development of Their Relationship

The film illustrates how their bond transcended the boundaries of friendship and blossomed into a romantic and intellectual partnership.

Emotional and Creative Impact: Vita’s presence acts as both a muse and a catalyst for Virginia’s creative endeavors, particularly influencing her novel Orlando. In return, Virginia’s introspective brilliance challenges Vita to explore deeper layers of thought and emotion.

Contrasting Personalities: The dynamic between Virginia’s fragile, introverted genius and Vita’s bold, adventurous spirit adds depth to their connection. The film portrays this contrast as both a source of attraction and tension.

3. Their Last Meeting

The film poignantly captures their eventual drifting apart. While their last meeting is not overly dramatized, it conveys the emotional distance that grows between them due to their differing needs and circumstances.

Vita’s inability to fully understand Virginia’s mental health struggles, combined with her own free-spirited nature, creates an emotional gap that remains unresolved.

4. Themes Explored Through Their Relationship

Love Beyond Norms: Their relationship defies the conventional boundaries of the time, challenging societal expectations of love and marriage.

Inspiration and Transformation: Vita and Virginia’s bond is depicted as mutually transformative, with Vita inspiring Virginia’s literary masterpiece Orlando, which immortalizes their relationship in art.

Fragility and Strength: The film delves into the fragility of Virginia’s mental state and the strength of Vita’s determination, exploring how these qualities influence their connection.

Personal Reflection

The film beautifully captures the essence of their relationship, portraying it as a profound meeting of minds and hearts. The chemistry between the two central characters feels genuine, and their shared moments—both joyful and painful—are depicted with sensitivity. Their relationship is not romanticized but presented as a multifaceted bond, shaped by passion, creativity, and human imperfection.

Conclusion:
Vita & Virginia portrays a relationship shaped by intellectual allure, emotional complexity, and creative synergy. Vita boldly pursues Virginia, whose introspective nature both invites and resists intimacy. Their bond, driven by desire and inspiration, is shadowed by jealousy and vulnerability. The film captures how their love fuels Virginia’s writing yet strains under mismatched needs—Vita’s expansive spirit and Virginia’s quiet longing. In the end, their connection, though fleeting, leaves a lasting imprint, reflecting the beauty and pain of transformative love.

References

Bechdel, Alison. “‘As a Body Hers Is Perfection’: Alison Bechdel on the Love Letters of Virginia Woolf and Vita Sackville-West.” The Guardian, 1 Feb. 2021, www.theguardian.com/books/2021/feb/01/as-a-body-hers-is-perfection-alison-bechdel-on-the-love-letters-of-virginia-woolf-and-vita-sackville-west.

Haynes, Suyin. “What to Know About Virginia Woolf’s Love Affair With Vita Sackville-West.” TIME, 23 Aug. 2019, time.com/5655270/virginia-woolf-vita-sackville-west-relationship.

Laughlin, Anne. “Vita & Virginia: “a Longing Far Beyond the Sexual”” Lambda Literary Review, 22 Sept. 2021, lambdaliterary.org/2021/09/vita-and-virginia-2.

Stead, Lisa. “‘Forget it’s between two women’: negotiating a queer Virginia Woolf in Chanya Button’s Vita and Virginia.” Celebrity Studies, 2024, pp. 1–15. doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2024.2310305.

Vita and Virginia. Directed by Chanya Button, Bl!nder Films/Mirror Productions/Protagonist Pictures/Mehra Entertainment/LipSync Productions/Rather Good Films Ltd/Screen Ireland, 2018.

Practical criticism of the poem :ભગવાન મહાવીર અને જેઠો ભરવાડ

This blog is part of a classroom activity focused on I.A. Richards' practical criticism regarding figurative language. Here, I'll delve into a poem, examining its practical aspects such as language usage, structure, metaphors, and figures of speech.

 For background reading of Practical criticism visit below link. Practical Criticism

ભગવાન મહાવીર અને જેઠો ભરવાડ

                                                      સૌમ્ય જોશી

આ સ્યોરી કેવા આયો સું ન ઘાબાજરિયું લાયો સું.

હજુય દુઃખતું હોય તો લગાડ કોન પર ન વાત હોંભર મારી.,

તીજા ઘોરણમો તારો પાઠ આવ છઃ ‘ભગવોન મહાવીર’.

અવ ભા ના પાડતા’તા તોય સોડીન ભણાવા મેલી મોંડમોંડ.

તે ઈણે ઈસ્કૂલથી આઈને પથારી ફેવરી કાલ.

ડાયરેક્ટ ભાને જઈન કીધું

ક આપડા બાપ-દાદા રાક્ષસ તો મહાવીરના ભગવોનનાં કોનમાં ખીલા ઘોંચ્યા.

હવ ભાની પરશનાલિટી તન ખબર નહીં,

ઓંખ લાલ થાય એટલે શીઘ્ઘો ફેંશલો.

મને કે’ ઈસ્કૂલેથી ઉઠાડી મેલ સોડીન.

આ તારા પાઠે તો પથારી ફેવરી હાચ્ચન.

હવ પેલાએ ખીલા ઘોંચ્યા એ ખોટું કર્યું મુંય માનું સું.

પણ ઈન ઓછી ખબર હતી તું ભગવોન થવાનો

ને તીજા ધોરણમાં પાઠ આવવાનો તારો

ઈનું તો ડોબું ખોવઈ જ્યું તો ગભરઈ જ્યો બિચારો

બાપડાના ભા મારા ભા જેવા હશે

આ મારથી ચંદી ખોવઈ જઈતી તો ભાએ ભીંત જોડે ભટકઈન બારી કરી આલી’તી ઘરમોં

તો પેલાનું તો આખું ડોબું જ્યું તારા લીધે

દિમાગ બરાબર તપ્યું હશે તો ઘોંચી દીધા ખીલા

વોંક ઈનો શી. હાડીહત્તર વાર ખરો

પણ થોડો વોંક તારીય ખરોક નઈ?

અવ બચારો ચ્યોંક જ્યો

તો બે મિનિટ અંશ્યું ફાડીન ઈનું ડોબું હાચવી લીધું હોત તો તું ભગવોન ના થાત?

તારું તપ તૂટી જાત?

અવ ઈનું ડોબુંય ઈનું તપ જ હતુન ભઈ?

ચલો એય જવા દો

તપ પતાઈન મોટો મા’ત્મા થઈન બધાન અપદેસ આલવા મંડ્યો પસીય તન ઈમ થ્યું ક પેલાનું ડોબું પણ અલાઉં?

તું ભગવોન, માર તન બઉ સવાલ નહીં પૂસવા

મુ ખાલી એટલું કઉસું ક વોંક બેયનો સે તો ભૂલચૂક લેવીદેવી કરીન પેલો પાઠ કઢાયન ચોપડીમથી,

હખેથી ભણવા દેને મારી સોડીન

આ હજાર દેરાં શી તારાં આરસનાં તો એક પાઠ નઈ હોય તો કંઈ ખાટુંમોરુ નઈ થાય.

તોય તન એવું હોય તો પાઠ ના કઢાઈસ બસ

ખાલી એક લીટી ઉમેરાય ઈમોં

ક પેલો ગોવાળિયો આયો’તો,

સ્યોરી કઈ જ્યો સ,

ન ઘાબાજરિયું દઈ જ્યો સ.

                                                 Analysis 

Summary of the Poem

"ભગવાન મહાવીર અને જેઠો ભરવાડ" by Soumya Joshi is a satirical poem that juxtaposes the lives of Lord Mahavira and Jetho Bharwad, a common shepherd. The narrator humorously critiques how societal narratives glorify spiritual figures like Mahavira while marginalizing ordinary individuals like Jetho. The shepherd, whose pot (symbolizing his dignity or livelihood) is metaphorically “lost,” represents the ignored sufferings of common people. The poem questions the cost of spiritual greatness, asking whether Mahavira’s enlightenment was worth the sacrifice of the shepherd’s ordinary life. Through this sharp irony, Joshi comments on history’s selective memory, emphasizing empathy for the marginalized.

 Problems regarding not having  Cultural and Historical context

1. Religious Inconspicuousness

Lord Mahavira, a revered figure in Jainism, represents the ultimate renunciation and spiritual enlightenment. His life story is marked by immense suffering, which is often seen as necessary for spiritual growth.

The poem critiques the glorification of this suffering while neglecting the perspective of those affected by it, like Jetho Bharwad, a representative of common humanity.

2. Social Code of conduct: 

In Gujarati culture, Bharwads (shepherds) are often symbolic of rural, marginalized communities. By placing Jetho alongside Mahavira, Joshi highlights the socio-economic divide and the often-overlooked stories of the oppressed.

3. Historical distance: 

The poem alludes to how history celebrates spiritual and heroic figures but erases the contributions and struggles of ordinary people. This is a commentary on the selective narratives that privilege greatness at the expense of common lives.

4. Modern Satire:

Joshi uses conversational and colloquial Gujarati to connect with a modern audience, making the critique relatable and accessible. The humor and irony expose societal hypocrisies, encouraging readers to reevaluate their perspectives on greatness and suffering.

I.A. Richards' four types of misunderstanding in figurative language:

1. Misunderstanding of the sense of poetry: Careless, intuitive reading

The poem’s informal tone and irregular syntax might lead to a careless reading, where readers focus on the surface story of Jetho’s misunderstanding without reflecting on the spiritual implications.

2. Over-literal reading: Prosaic reading

A literal reading might overlook the metaphorical aspects of the poem, like the "tied ropes" representing emotional or spiritual constraints, not just a physical act.

3. Defective scholarship: Inappropriate metaphor

The poem critiques how Jetho's simplified understanding of Mahavir’s teachings represents defective scholarship, where deeper spiritual meanings are lost due to oversimplification.

4. Difference in meaning of words in poetry and prose

The poem uses metaphors and personification, such as "tied ropes", that convey deeper emotional and spiritual meanings, which differ from their literal, everyday usage in prose.

Questions which were arised while reading the poem are below:

 1) What is the meaning of words like સ્યોરી ,ઘાબાજરિયું ,ચંદી ? ( lack of Vocabulary)

2) What is the Spiritual /religious context of the poem ? ( Understanding of intertextuality helped )

3) Is the poem criticizing the traditional views of society or education ?

4) What is the meaning if this line '' આ મારથી ચંદી ખોવઈ જઈતી તો ભાએ ભીંત જોડે ભટકઈન બારી કરી આલી '' ? 

4)  What is the significance of the line "ખાલી એક લીટી ઉમેરાય ઈમોં'' ? 

5) Why only ઘાબાજરિયું is given ? How do phrases like'' ઘાબાજરિયું દઈ જ્યો '' reflect the cultural or emotional landscape of the speaker ? 

  

Main confusion : Regarding recitation of the poem and it's dialect of Gujarati Language (Saurashtrian dialect).

 Thank You

 References : 

Barad, Dilip. (2024). I.A. Richards - Figurative Language - Practical Criticism. 10.13140/RG.2.2.23687.98724. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377146653_IA_Richards_-_Figurative_Language_-_Practical_Criticism/citations 

A Comparative Study of War Poetry

 Choose one poem from the English literary cannon which deals with the theme of war and compare it with any one of the five war poems you have studied in this unit. [Discuss aspects like the style of the poems, language employed, treatment of the theme of war, etc.] How are they different? Are there any similarities?

Themes: Contrasting Ideologies of War

1. "Charge of the Light Brigade":

Tennyson captures the grandeur of military valor, despite the flawed strategy behind the charge. The poem glorifies obedience and sacrifice, portraying war as a noble duty. The line “Honor the charge they made” reinforces the sanctity of their sacrifice.

War, in this poem, is seen as a necessary evil, a stage where men prove their courage and commitment to their nation. The focus is not on the horrors of war but on the unyielding spirit of the soldiers.

2. "Dulce Et Decorum Est":

Wilfred Owen shatters this romanticized notion of war, presenting it as chaotic, cruel, and dehumanizing. The soldiers are described as “bent double, like old beggars under sacks,” stripped of all glory and heroism.

Through vivid and grotesque imagery, Owen exposes the physical and psychological toll of war. He dismisses the patriotic notion encapsulated in the Latin phrase “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” (It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country) as a lie perpetuated by those removed from the battlefield.

Language and Tone: From Grandiosity to Brutality

1. Tennyson’s Language and Tone:

Tone: Elevated, rhythmic, and reverent. The meter mirrors the galloping of horses, immersing the reader in the charge. The repetition of “Half a league, half a league” evokes movement and urgency.

Language: Romantic and lofty, with phrases like “Cannon to right of them, / Cannon to left of them” creating a sense of grandeur and inevitability.

2. Owen’s Language and Tone:

Tone: Bitter, haunting, and accusatory. The poem is a direct challenge to the romanticized views of war, with its closing lines questioning societal propaganda.

Language: Graphic and visceral, with images such as “blood / Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs.” The language shocks and unsettles, forcing readers to confront the stark reality of combat.

Perspective and Distance

1. Tennyson:

Written from a third-person perspective, Tennyson maintains a distance from the battlefield. This detachment allows him to focus on the ideals of heroism rather than the grim details of war. His account is an outsider’s homage to bravery.

2. Owen:

Owen’s first-hand experience as a soldier brings unparalleled authenticity to his work. The first-person perspective immerses readers in the suffocating horrors of war, as seen in lines like “In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, / He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.”

Philosophical Underpinnings

1. Tennyson’s War Idealism:

Tennyson’s Victorian context, with its imperial pride, shapes his portrayal of war as a space for nationalistic and personal honor. The soldiers are celebrated for their duty, irrespective of the futility of their mission.

2. Owen’s War Realism:

Owen, influenced by the disillusionment of World War I, challenges the narratives of honor and duty. His work critiques those who glorify war without understanding its devastating impact on human lives.

Similarities:

Shared Themes: Both poems address the themes of sacrifice and the cost of war.

Focus on Soldiers: Despite their different tones, both poets emphasize the soldiers' resilience and suffering.

Critique of Leadership: Tennyson subtly critiques military command (“Someone had blundered”), while Owen outright condemns the propagandists of war.

Differences: Romanticized Heroism vs. Harsh Reality

Tennyson: Views war as a stage for glory, even in tragedy.

Owen: Rejects all romantic notions, portraying war as inherently destructive and meaningless.

In conclusion, these poems serve as two sides of the same coin, reflecting the evolving perspectives on war. Tennyson glorifies, while Owen exposes. Together, they highlight the complexity of war and its enduring impact on humanity.

War poetry is not necessarily ‘anti-war’. It is, however, about the very large questions of life: identity, innocence, guilt, loyalty, courage, compassion, humanity, duty, desire, death." Discuss this statement in the context of any two of the war poems you have studied.

The statement that war poetry is not necessarily "anti-war" but grapples with profound questions of life—identity, innocence, guilt, loyalty, courage, compassion, humanity, duty, desire, and death—captures the depth and diversity of war poetry. To explore this idea, let us analyze "The Soldier" by Rupert Brooke and "Dulce Et Decorum Est" by Wilfred Owen.

1. Identity and Patriotism in The Soldier

Rupert Brooke’s "The Soldier" encapsulates the idealistic view of war and patriotism. The poem reflects on the identity of the soldier, tied deeply to his homeland.

Identity and Loyalty: Brooke portrays the soldier as a personification of England, suggesting that even in death, his body will enrich the foreign land with England’s virtues:

“If I should die, think only this of me: / That there’s some corner of a foreign field / That is forever England.”

Here, the soldier’s sense of self is inseparable from his duty and loyalty to his nation.

Innocence and Idealism: The poem exudes innocence and an untainted belief in the nobility of war. Brooke romanticizes death, viewing it as a noble sacrifice that ensures the continuation of England’s legacy.

While not explicitly "anti-war," the poem raises questions about identity, duty, and the individual's place in the collective narrative of war.

2. Guilt, Humanity, and Death in Dulce Et Decorum Est

Wilfred Owen’s "Dulce Et Decorum Est" offers a starkly contrasting view. While Brooke glorifies sacrifice, Owen exposes the trauma and guilt borne by soldiers.

Guilt and Compassion: Owen vividly describes a soldier's agonizing death from a gas attack, capturing the speaker’s helplessness:

“In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, / He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.”

The recurring nightmares underscore the survivor’s guilt and the lingering impact of war on humanity.

Death and Dehumanization: Owen depicts soldiers as physically and mentally broken:

“Bent double, like old beggars under sacks.”

This brutal imagery strips away the romanticism of war, emphasizing its destructive power over life and humanity.

Owen’s poem confronts the reader with the realities of death and suffering, challenging the "old lie" that it is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country.

Contrasts Between the Poems

Tone and Perspective: The Soldier adopts an idealistic tone, focusing on the nobility of sacrifice, while Dulce Et Decorum Est is bitter and accusatory, critiquing the glorification of war.

Themes of Death: In Brooke’s poem, death is a spiritual union with one’s country; in Owen’s, it is a grim, meaningless reality.

View on Duty: Brooke portrays duty as sacred and fulfilling, whereas Owen questions the purpose and morality of the duty imposed by war.

Similarities in Addressing Large Questions

Both poems grapple with the theme of death, though they interpret its meaning differently.

Both reflect on the soldier’s identity and humanity, whether in the context of patriotic pride or the dehumanizing effects of war.

War poetry, as demonstrated by these two works, delves into the profound questions of life without necessarily condemning or glorifying war. The Soldier emphasizes identity, loyalty, and the nobility of sacrifice, while Dulce Et Decorum Est exposes guilt, suffering, and the loss of innocence. Together, they highlight the multifaceted nature of war poetry, providing contrasting yet complementary perspectives on the human experience in war.

Compare Ivor Gurney's The Target with Wilfred Owen's Dulce et Decorum Est. What are some notable similarities and differences between these two war poets and their poetry?

Comparison of Ivor Gurney’s The Target and Wilfred Owen’s Dulce Et Decorum Est

Both The Target by Ivor Gurney and Dulce Et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen provide stark insights into the realities of war, yet their tone, perspective, and treatment of the subject differ.

Similarities

1. Realism and Authenticity:

Both poets write from personal experiences of war, grounding their poems in the harsh realities of battle.

Gurney’s soldier struggles with guilt and regret over killing ("You’d hardly know / I’d killed, but he — knew well"), while Owen’s soldiers endure the horrors of a gas attack.

2. Critique of War:

Both poems challenge romanticized notions of war.

Gurney’s work questions the morality of killing, reflecting on the psychological burden of war. Similarly, Owen exposes the futility and suffering of war, calling the propaganda of “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” (It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country) a lie.

3. Focus on the Individual Soldier:

Both poems center on the individual soldier’s emotions—guilt, exhaustion, and helplessness.

Gurney’s narrator struggles with personal guilt, while Owen’s speaker reflects on the physical and emotional toll of witnessing a comrade’s death.

4. Imagery of Suffering:

Vivid imagery underscores the soldiers’ suffering in both poems. Gurney captures the soldier’s mental torment, and Owen’s graphic description of the gas victim (“guttering, choking, drowning”) emphasizes the physical horrors of war.

Differences

1. Perspective on Death and Guilt:

In The Target, Gurney’s soldier is haunted by the guilt of killing another man, reflecting on the moral implications:

“I shot him, and it had to be / One of us.”

In contrast, Dulce Et Decorum Est focuses on the death of a comrade and the survivor’s helplessness and guilt in failing to save him.

2. Tone:

Gurney’s tone is introspective, meditative, and personal, focusing on the moral and emotional burden of the soldier.

Owen’s tone is bitter and accusatory, directly addressing those who glorify war without understanding its horrors.

3. Critique of Propaganda:

Owen explicitly critiques war propaganda, calling it “The old Lie.”

Gurney’s poem is less overtly critical of external forces and instead focuses on the internal struggles of the soldier.

4. Language and Style:

Gurney uses conversational and reflective language, emphasizing the soldier’s internal dialogue.

Owen’s language is more vivid and graphic, employing striking imagery to shock and move the reader.

5. Focus:

The Target is more concerned with the soldier’s guilt and its impact on his psyche.

Dulce Et Decorum Est addresses broader themes of war’s futility and the betrayal of those who promote it.

Conclusion

While both poems critique the grim realities of war, The Target delves into the personal guilt and moral conflict of a soldier, whereas Dulce Et Decorum Est broadens the scope to condemn the societal glorification of war. Together, these works provide complementary perspectives—one introspective and the other confrontational—on the devastating human cost of warfare.

"The Impersonal Poet: Exploring T.S. Eliot's ‘Tradition and the Individual Talent’"

This blog is part of the Bridge Course task given by Dr. Dilip Barad sir on the topic 'Criticism: Tradition and Individual Talent by T.S. Eliot.Here is the link to the professor's research article for background reading: Click here.

 T.S. Eliot and His Revolutionary Criticism

Introduction to T.S. Eliot

T.S. Eliot (1888–1965), one of the most influential figures of the 20th century, reshaped modern literature through his poetry, plays, and critical essays. Born in St. Louis, Missouri, Eliot later became a British citizen and adopted England as his intellectual home. His works, including The Waste Land, Four Quartets, and The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, exemplify the complexities of modernism, blending intellectual rigor, historical allusions, and personal introspection.

Equally important are Eliot's contributions to literary criticism, particularly his essay Tradition and the Individual Talent (1919). Here, Eliot critiques Romanticism's focus on self-expression, advocating instead for a poetic process grounded in tradition and objectivity. His critical theories such as the concept of "historical sense," the interplay between tradition and individual talent, and his theory of depersonalization have become cornerstones of modern literary criticism.

About Tradition and the Individual Talent

This essay, published in 1919, is divided into three sections:

1. Tradition and the Role of the Poet

2. The Theory of Depersonalization

3. The Critic’s Role in Evaluating Poetry

Eliot challenges the idea of poetry as a spontaneous outpouring of emotions, instead presenting it as a disciplined craft rooted in tradition. He proposes that true creativity involves both an awareness of literary heritage and a depersonalized approach to artistic expression. Eliot uses examples, analogies, and philosophical insights to illustrate his arguments, making this essay a cornerstone of literary theory.

How would you like to explain Eliot's concept of 'Tradition'? Do you agree with it? What do you understand by 'Historical Sense' ? 

T.S. Eliot’s concept of 'Tradition' is one of the key ideas in his essay Tradition and the Individual Talent. For Eliot, tradition is not just about copying or adhering to the past. Instead, it’s about understanding the past, learning from it, and then building on it to create new art that is relevant to the present and future. Tradition, in this sense, is something dynamic and evolving; it’s not a static, fixed set of rules but a continuous process of engaging with what has come before while contributing something new to it.

When Eliot says, “The historical sense involves a perception, not only of the pastness of the past but of its presence,” he’s explaining that a writer with a true sense of tradition doesn’t just see the past as something that has already happened and is now irrelevant. Instead, they see the past as still alive and present in the current moment, influencing and interacting with the present. To understand this, think of how our present ideas, cultural practices, and even language are shaped by what has come before. A writer with the "historical sense" sees these connections and uses them in their work.

Eliot's Historical Sense:

When Eliot talks about the “historical sense”, he’s referring to the writer’s ability to recognize the continuous relationship between the past and the present. This historical sense means that a writer is aware of how the past is not only something that has happened but also something that lives on through literature, language, and culture. It’s like understanding that all the writers before you have already shaped the landscape of literature in some way, and now, it’s your turn to contribute to that ongoing conversation.

Eliot says that this historical sense is “a sense of the timeless as well as of the temporal, and of the timeless and of the temporal together.” This means that a writer needs to understand both timeless elements (those ideas or themes that endure across time, like love, death, or identity) and temporal elements (things specific to a certain time or place). A good writer combines both in their work, making it relevant to both the present and the future while still acknowledging the past.

For example, when Eliot writes The Waste Land, he incorporates a vast array of historical references myths, religion, and classical literature showing how the past is ever-present in the modern world. Even though the poem is about the disillusionment of the modern world, it constantly draws on the past to show how the present is shaped by earlier cultural, social, and spiritual ideas.

Do I agree with Eliot’s concept of Tradition?

Yes, I agree with Eliot’s concept of tradition because it emphasizes the importance of continuity in literature. Rather than focusing solely on the individual, Eliot’s view encourages writers to engage with the wealth of human experience that has been passed down through generations. This doesn’t mean copying the past, but rather understanding it and using it to create something meaningful for today’s world.

Literature is not created in a vacuum. Every work of art stands on the shoulders of those that came before it. By acknowledging this tradition, writers can create works that are more profound and more connected to the universal human experience. For instance, when we read modern novels, we can often trace how they are influenced by older texts, whether it's in terms of narrative structure, themes, or character development.

In summary, Eliot’s idea of tradition is about connecting the past and present, about recognizing that the past is not something that is dead and gone, but something that continues to shape the world today. His historical sense helps a writer to understand how the past and present coexist and influence each other. This connection is essential for writing something that is timeless yet still speaks to the concerns of the present. I believe this perspective is valuable, as it emphasizes the importance of context, continuity, and engagement with the wider tradition of human thought and culture in literature.

The Relationship Between Tradition and Individual Talent

Eliot argues that tradition is not a mere collection of old works or ideas that a writer should blindly follow. Instead, it’s an active process of engaging with the past. Tradition, for Eliot, is the accumulated knowledge and creative work of previous generations of writers and thinkers. It represents the history of human expression, culture, and thought that precedes the individual writer’s time.

However, a writer is not just a passive observer or copier of tradition. The individual talent is essential to make the tradition meaningful in the present. A writer’s individual talent is the ability to bring something new to this tradition something fresh and unique that adds to the ongoing cultural conversation.

What Eliot Says in the Text:

Eliot writes, “No poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone. His significance, his appreciation, is the appreciation of his relation to the dead poets and artists.” This means that no writer is fully meaningful by themselves. They only achieve significance through their connection to those who came before them. The individual talent of a writer depends on an understanding of and engagement with tradition. For Eliot, talent is not about creating in isolation but about creating within the context of a literary tradition that stretches back in time.

Eliot further explains, “The poet must be aware of the past, and his work is a synthesis of the old and the new.” The poet’s task is to balance their unique voice with the echoes of the past, creating something that feels both original and deeply rooted in tradition.

Example from the Text:

Eliot uses the example of "the best writers" in history, like Shakespeare or Dante, to explain this relationship. He says that these writers weren’t just influenced by tradition they transformed it. For instance, when Shakespeare wrote his plays, he didn’t invent everything from scratch; he drew upon the traditions of Greek drama, English history, and other cultural elements. Yet, his individual talent allowed him to redefine these traditions and create something entirely new that resonated across time.

Eliot writes, “The poet must have a historical sense,  meaning that the writer needs to recognize the influence of past writers and artists. A writer with a historical sense doesn’t just imitate the past; they synthesize it into their own work, transforming tradition and making it relevant to their own time.

Why Both Tradition and Talent Are Necessary:

According to Eliot, the combination of tradition and individual talent is essential for great art. Tradition provides the foundation on which the writer stands, while individual talent allows the writer to innovate and create new meanings from that foundation. Without tradition, the writer risks creating something that lacks depth or connection to the larger cultural and literary context. Without individual talent, the writer may only repeat what has already been done, without contributing anything new.

Explain: "Some can absorb knowledge; the more tardy must sweat for it. Shakespeare acquired more essential history from Plutarch than most men could from the whole British Museum".

In this statement, T.S. Eliot is commenting on the difference in how individuals acquire knowledge and how some people are naturally gifted at absorbing it, while others must work harder to grasp it. The quote also reflects on Shakespeare’s ability to extract profound insights from a single source, such as Plutarch’s Lives, compared to how most people would struggle to gain similar understanding even after extensive study of a vast collection of material, like that in the British Museum.

Breaking It Down:

1. "Some can absorb knowledge; the more tardy must sweat for it."

This means that some people are naturally able to understand and internalize knowledge easily, almost effortlessly. These individuals have a quick intellectual grasp.

On the other hand, there are those who are slower in absorbing knowledge and who need to put in more effort (or "sweat") to gain understanding.

2. "Shakespeare acquired more essential history from Plutarch than most men could from the whole British Museum.

Shakespeare is presented as a model of someone who could effortlessly absorb essential knowledge. Even though Plutarch’s Lives (a collection of biographies) was a relatively narrow source, Shakespeare used it to create profound, timeless works like Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra. Through his deep understanding of Plutarch’s writings, Shakespeare was able to gain an essential grasp of history.

The British Museum represents a vast accumulation of knowledge, history, and information. Eliot suggests that even with access to such a huge storehouse of knowledge, many people could not learn or create with the same insight and depth that Shakespeare had from just one source. This emphasizes Shakespeare’s unique genius his ability to absorb and synthesize information in a way that produced timeless works of literature.

The Larger Implication:

Eliot is highlighting the idea that true understanding and creativity don’t come from accumulating vast amounts of information, but from absorbing and synthesizing knowledge in a profound and meaningful way. Shakespeare’s ability to turn even a single source into such a powerful influence on his writing shows that deep insight and talent are more important than the mere quantity of knowledge.

In essence, Eliot is celebrating Shakespeare’s extraordinary intellectual and artistic ability, which allowed him to extract essential truths and historical understanding from just one book, demonstrating that great talent is about quality of understanding, not just quantity of knowledge.

Explain: "Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry." 

T.S. Eliot’s statement, "Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation are directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry," emphasizes that when analyzing poetry, the focus should be on the work itself rather than the person who wrote it. In other words, criticism and appreciation should evaluate the poem's qualities, its structure, themes, language, and overall effectiveness, rather than being influenced by the poet's personal life, character, or reputation.

Breaking It Down:

1. "Honest criticism":

Honest criticism refers to a truthful, fair, and unbiased assessment of a poem. It means approaching the work with an open mind, setting aside any personal biases or preconceived notions about the poet. This type of criticism is focused on evaluating the art, not the artist.

2. "Sensitive appreciation":

Sensitive appreciation involves recognizing and valuing the emotional and intellectual depth of the poem. It's about understanding the subtlety, beauty, and craft involved in the work. This approach appreciates the poem on its own merits, appreciating its aesthetic and intellectual qualities.

3. "Not upon the poet but upon the poetry":

Eliot is suggesting that the critic’s attention should be directed toward the poem itself and how well it works as a piece of art. The poet’s personal life, character, or reputation should not cloud the judgment of the poem. For example, a critic should not give a poem more praise simply because they admire the poet or dislike it because they disapprove of the poet’s personality or beliefs.

Example in Practice:

For instance, if a critic were to review T.S. Eliot's own poem "The Waste Land," the critique should focus on how well the poem conveys its themes of fragmentation, modern despair, and the search for meaning, as well as its use of allusions, structure, and language. The critic should avoid letting any opinion about Eliot as a person or his political views influence their evaluation of the poem itself.

Larger Implication:

Eliot’s point is that poetry should be evaluated based on its artistic and intellectual content, not influenced by the poet’s background, beliefs, or personality. This allows for a more objective and fair assessment of the work, enabling critics to appreciate the universality and timelessness of poetry beyond the individual who created it.

This approach also encourages readers to connect with the poetry itself, rather than becoming distracted by the poet’s personal life. It advocates for a deeper engagement with the art rather than the artist, fostering an appreciation of literature in its purest, most objective form.

How would you like to explain Eliot's theory of depersonalization? You can explain this with the help of a chemical reaction in the presence of a catalyst agent, platinum. 

T.S. Eliot’s theory of depersonalization in poetry suggests that the poet should remove their personal emotions and experiences from the poem to allow the poem itself to exist independently. The poet's role is to act as a kind of medium that transforms their personal feelings into something universal, which speaks to others. This idea can be understood by comparing it to a chemical reaction in the presence of a catalyst.

Explanation with the Catalyst Example:

In a chemical reaction, a catalyst (like platinum) speeds up the process without being part of the final product. The catalyst does not get consumed in the reaction, but it makes the reaction happen more efficiently. Similarly, in Eliot’s view, the poet acts as a catalyst in the creative process. The poet's personal experiences and emotions are like the raw materials in a chemical reaction, but it is the poet's skill and technique (the "catalyst") that transforms those personal feelings into universal art.

For example, let's say a poet feels a deep sense of sadness, but instead of just expressing this sadness directly, the poet uses poetic techniques like symbolism, rhythm, and metaphor to transform that sadness into something that anyone reading the poem can relate to, even if they haven’t experienced the same thing. The poet's individual feelings are not the focus; instead, the finished poem is what matters.

Breaking it Down:

Personal emotion = Raw material (like chemicals in a reaction)

Poet’s skill = Catalyst (like platinum)

Universal poem = The final product (the result of the reaction)

Just as platinum does not become part of the chemical reaction but helps bring about a new substance, the poet’s personal self is not directly part of the poem. Instead, the poet's personal experience is transformed into something greater, allowing the poem to speak to the readers, much like a catalyst transforms substances into something new and useful.

In Eliot’s theory of depersonalization, the poet’s personal self is like a catalyst: it helps bring about the poem, but it is not the poem itself. The poem should stand apart from the poet’s personal life, expressing emotions in a way that is not personal but universal, allowing it to resonate with many readers.

Explain: "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." Write two points on which one can write a critique of 'T.S. Eliot as a critic.'.

Explanation of the Quote:

The quote "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" reflects T.S. Eliot's belief in the depersonalization of poetry. Let's break it down:

1. Escape from Emotion:

Eliot argues that poetry should not simply be an outpouring of personal emotions. Instead, it should transcend individual feelings and express emotions in a universal manner. The poet’s emotions should be transformed and presented through techniques that give them depth and meaning beyond just personal expression. This way, poetry can resonate with a wider audience, allowing them to feel or relate to those emotions without focusing on the poet's personal experiences.

2. Escape from Personality:

Eliot suggests that poetry is not about the poet’s individual personality. Rather than writing poems that reflect the poet’s own persona or life story, the poet’s personality should be "escapable"—that is, the poem should not be bound by personal subjectivity. The focus should be on the poem itself, its themes, and how it speaks to the reader, rather than on the poet's individuality. This is a key aspect of depersonalization, where the poet becomes a medium through which the poem exists, not a central figure.

Two Points for Critiquing T.S. Eliot as a Critic:

1. Overemphasis on Depersonalization:

One critique of Eliot’s view on depersonalization is that it limits the personal voice in poetry. While Eliot emphasizes that the poet should detach themselves from the poem to make it universal, this might stifle individuality. Critics may argue that some of the most powerful poetry comes from the poet’s raw, personal emotions, and that personal experience is crucial to creating art that resonates deeply with readers. By insisting that poetry should escape personal emotion, Eliot might be underestimating the value of subjective experience in poetic expression.

2. Exclusion of the Poet’s Role:

Another critique is that Eliot’s theory of depersonalization diminishes the poet's role in the creative process. In his view, the poet acts almost as a passive medium, where emotions and experiences are translated into universal art. Critics might argue that this undervalues the active role of the poet, who brings their unique perspective, creativity, and personal insight to the poem. By focusing so heavily on the objective nature of poetry, Eliot may neglect the importance of the poet's voice and identity in the making of meaningful art.

These critiques suggest that while Eliot’s ideas about poetry are groundbreaking, they might restrict the emotional depth and personal expression that are often central to the art form.

Conclusion

T.S. Eliot’s Tradition and the Individual Talent offers a revolutionary approach to literature, emphasizing the importance of tradition while allowing room for individual creativity. His idea of "historical sense" highlights the connection between past and present in shaping meaningful art. Eliot’s theory of depersonalization, though impactful, has faced criticism for potentially limiting personal expression in poetry. Overall, Eliot’s work remains a cornerstone of modern literary criticism, advocating for a balance between tradition and innovation in creating timeless, universal art.

References:

1. Barad, Dilip. “T. S. Eliot: Tradition and the Individual Talent.” ResearchGate, Jan. 2024, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32695.91047.

2. Eliot, T. S. Essay on Poetic Theory: Tradition and the Individual Talent. Poetry Foundation, 2009.

3. Kramer, Jürgen. “T. S. Eliot’s Concept of Tradition: A Revaluation.” New German Critique, no. 6, 1975, pp. 20–30. JSTOR, doi.org/10.2307/487651.

4. Praz, Mario. “T. S. Eliot as a Critic.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 74, no. 1, 1966, pp. 256–71. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27541397.