After studying both 'Tradition and Individual Ability' by T. S. Eliot, and William Wordsworth's views in his Preface to 'Lyrical Ballads', it became clear if you ask me that the conflicting ideas indicated by each of the passages commanded assent specifically areas of their theses.
'Tradition and the Individual Talent', compiled by T. S. Eliot and published in 1920, and explores in two parts his views on poetry with regards to literary tradition, and also the intrinsic relationship between the poet and his work. This essay was written shortly after World War I, and certainly Eliot was writing at an extremely sensitive and especially disunited time. Following the war there is a feeling of what have been and that which was to come in conditions of literature, and the avant-garde activity really gained momentum at this time, with new ideas and creations being submit. The Lyrical Ballads were first posted in 1798 and made up of works by both Wordsworth and Coleridge, which culminated in instigating the Intimate Movement in British literature; in 1801 Wordsworth added the Preface in which he go about highlighting his poetic ideologies.
The central problem raised in the question is whether there is a place for real-life emotion in verbal artwork, and certainly T. S. Eliot opposes this, believing that the creation of true skill is manufactured by an activity of depersonalisation on the poet's behalf. He has mentioned in his work that poetics serve the poet as a getaway from any emotion that he / she may feel, and therefore that 'we must think that "emotion recollected in tranquillity" can be an inexact solution. '
In complete compare to this idea, William Wordsworth, combined with the other Affectionate poets and writers, strongly incorporated his own personal thoughts and emotions into the poetry, once we are told that they are 'mapped across the ground of Wordsworth's poetry and prose'. Therefore, corresponding to his own values, Wordsworth's personality is very prominent throughout his sort out his feelings.
In the next half of the essay 'Traditions and the Individual Skill', T. S. Eliot presents his ideas on the poetry with regards to the writer: he expands his theory of depersonalisation and boasts that any great work of poetry is not described by an creator with an improved or even more interesting personality, instead of an author with a, perhaps, lifeless or monotonous identity, for it is not, after all, demonstrated in the task. Eliot expresses this view with a scientific analogy, suggesting a filament of platinum to symbolize the personality of the poet, and oxygen and sulphur dioxide to symbolise the feelings and thoughts of the author accessible whilst writing his work. In this particular scientific experiment, the ultimate final result would produce sulphuric acid, but, as Eliot strains to point out, there would be no trace in the product whatsoever of the filament of platinum, and for that reason, the personality of the writer in the done literary work. Eliot draws a distinction between your personality of the writer and his creative brain, stating that the better an artist is, 'the more completely split in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates' the ultimate result. In place, Eliot makes a distinction between the poets' feelings and emotions: he is suggesting that whenever the artist is creating his work, the sensation he experiences when the right saying or idea is produced that he has been trying for is separate from the emotions he used at the beginning of the creative process, which is the author's response to the discovery of these which are present in the final work. The personality of the poet and his personal experience are therefore a necessary component of developing a literary work, nonetheless they are not present in the ultimate product, and because of this the impressions 'which become important in the poetry may play quite a negligible part in the person, the personality. ' Eliot concludes that the poet should use regular feelings, instead of wanting to unfold some new thoughts expressing, and in doing this he will produce something that does not have any link with the emotion in any way. He asserts that Wordsworth's view of the 'recollection' of thoughts can't be true to be able to produce a great literary work, because it is created through 'a concentration which does not happen consciously or of deliberation. ' Finally he exerts his proven fact that poetry is not taking from 'feeling recollected in tranquillity', but is instead a welcome avenue of escape from the feelings and personality of the author.
Opposed to Eliot's theory that poetry is an organised process is the spontaneous approach to Wordsworth and the Intimate Movement. The ideology of the Romantics is most beneficial emulated in the Preface to the Lyrical Ballads, in which Wordsworth stands to justify his poetry and viewpoints in retaliation to the criticism his school of thought received. Certainly Wordsworth ascertains in his beliefs that there is a firm place for real-life feelings in verbal fine art. Wordsworth talks about that in his own view a good poet 'has obtained a larger readiness and electricity in expressing what he thinks and feels' in his work, and she or he places out the identify with the reader by attempting to bring his 'vocabulary near the dialect of men'. Clearly there's a direct comparison between Eliot's view that to really be considered a great poet, and to be able to truly rediscover literary traditions, the writer must surrender his personality entirely to the work, and Wordsworth's conviction that the artist's marriage to his or her work was key. Certainly M. H. Abrams theory is apt in relation to the Romantics, as he claims the analogy of fine art as a mirror was used, but fired up the writer themselves to reveal and indicate the personality of these, instead of the external present state. Furthermore we are advised by James Butler that 'Wordsworth switched inward and backward, writing in blank verse an autobiographical group of adult mediations' which were shown in his work.
A similarity between both schools of thought however lies in the realisation that, as referred to by Wordsworth, the 'poetic diction' have been worn out and was no longer a desired part of poetics. He proclaims that 'the Poet must descend out of this supposed level; and, to be able to excite rational sympathy, he must share himself as other men express themselves. ' Eliot concurs with other critics of his time that Wordsworth, along with Coleridge and other Romantics were in charge of this departure from stringent poetic diction, although conceding that it was in no way a genuine thought.
I would be inclined to criticise both these theories to be able to ascertain in which approach the majority of my faith might rest. In Eliot's work it would certainly seem difficult to presume that an creator can be completely depersonalised from a work in which he himself has generated. His assertion that you will see a distinction manufactured in the natural creative process between the author, his personal thoughts and his literary product generated at the end is, to me, doubtful. I would be positive in suspecting that there should be some remnant of the writer and his personality, however small, kept on his work. I do however agree with Eliot that perhaps to target totally on the thoughts and feelings of the author is wrong, and there is a need at the moment of writing for the literary critics and scholars to re-focus on the poetry again.
Wordsworth view that 'poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful emotions' is obviously obvious throughout the Lyrical Ballads, and his 'powerful emotions' are best represented in his information of nature from urban centres. Wordsworth's appreciation of dynamics was definitely dominant in a lot of his works, and he tells us that it's important to him 'because for the reason that condition of life our elementary feelings coexist in circumstances of greater simplicity, and, subsequently, may become more accurately contemplated, and even more forcibly communicated' to the reader of his poetry. The conflicting idea between poetry as an organised, methodical process, and the spontaneity and impulsiveness advised by the Romantics is interesting to explore. Among the clearer comparisons to be produced between your two is Eliot's assertion that the article writer, by depersonalising himself from his work, will be able to provide 'emotions which he hasn't experienced [and they] will serve his move as well as those familiar to him. ' He declares that if the experiences utilized by the author to be able to write his work are real or fictitious make no difference to the quality of the final results, because it is not these personal feelings that are being illustrated in the poetry. I think Eliot's theory may offer valuable insights into some literary texts, but the beliefs and beliefs of Wordsworth are hard to entirely dismiss in his favour.
In conclusion to my examination of both Eliot's 'Custom and Individual Ability' and Wordsworth's 'Preface' to the Lyrical Ballads, I would say that both carry critical indicators and ideas for the question of whether there is a place for real-life emotion in verbal fine art. Eliot, it is clear, does not agree that there's a place for the feeling of the author in his last work, and tightly projects his theory of depersonalisation, using his analogy of the catalyst of the filament of platinum as the personality of the author and the chemical effect which ensues as the literary process to further this philosophy. In this way poetry serves as a retreat for the writer from both his personality and the emotions of which he suffers. The Preface and the thoughts therein of Wordsworth's are therefore diametrically opposed to Eliot, stressing the origin of poetry 'from emotion recollected in tranquillity'. He features in the preface that he desires to show how 'sense offers importance to the action and the situation' in the poetry, and not the other way around. He uses throughout his poetry various emotional language, and perhaps, without this, the content of the poems do not amount to much in themselves. My criticism on the text of the 'Preface' would be Wordsworth's inability to provide an example of a 'spontaneous overflow of powerful thoughts'. We, as reader, are only able to imagine the 'overflowing emotions' of Wordsworth, but we are introduced numerous good examples involving his strong values in what poetry should be.
I trust aspects of both theses to a certain degree, but I'd support more confidently that there surely is a location for real-life feelings in verbal artwork. I cannot wholly conceive that the writer is truly in a position to remove him or herself using their own literary masterpieces, and be wholly depersonalised because of this. Surely there will be a trace, however small, of the personality of the writer left in the work. The incorporation of technological procedures into literature is hard for me personally to appreciate. Certainly the reactions of individuals to literature aren't easy to understand in relation to chemical reactions because they are not mapped out, and have no destined solution. Eliot does indeed however stress that the labour and amount of the author are important, but I think Wordsworth's thesis is constantly on the control assent.
