I find the whole thing a bit long. I wont say overrated, because it is incredible, but it's not fit for regular human consumption in its entirety. Maybe if I lived back then and had to listen to Mina Loy blather on at parties, then I might not find it so hard to deal with all at once, but for now, small doses. And this one dose is potent enough.
PS: I know you were just joking, but I thought some explanation was in order.
Yikes, you actually think listening to Eliot is beautiful? I mean, the poetry is, of course, but his voice? He sounds so sickly and stuffy, which is indeed appropriate, but I think I'd much rather listen to Cate Blanchett read it or even Avery Brooks or Charles Robinson.
I definitely agree that he *should* be the best at narrating his own poems, but I think the Wasteland is one case where he is not. Take for example the myriad voices, or silly talks, or even HURRY UP PLEASE, IT'S TIME. When you read them it is far easier to see the distinct nature of these voices, in a way that gets rolled over when Eliot speaks them. He gives them almost no life of their own. The tape of the Wasteland that I've heard sounds very much like J. Alfred Prufrock reading a copy it. It's funny this should come up as my professor made these same arguments today in class.
don't agree -- the fragments work too well as fragments -- they snip out so easily that, reading them, you have the impression that the whole is a series of uncomplicated lyric moments, and miss what's important about them--how those moments clash and jar against each other. If the WL was what it seems to be when read in part it would be lovely but minor, when in fact it's a big, noble ruin.
(The comment has been removed)
PS: I know you were just joking, but I thought some explanation was in order.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment