Thursday, April 29, 2010

Discussing the way fairy tales have moved in and out of oral culture over time, Marine Warner cites the medieval story of Saint Dympna, which provided an archetype for a whole category of tales:

"this is a story which enjoyed a wide circulation in different languages and was directed at audiences of different social registers and occupations, from the tavern to the parish church. The migration, from the vernacular to Latin and back again, itself casts doubt on glib distinctions between high and low culture."

I mention this mainly to highlight that last point. I'd been reading an article on The Argotist by Adam Fieled: Century XX After Four Quartets. This article claims that T.S. Eliot's "Four Quartets" is the high-water mark of twentieth century poetry in English, and that nothing that came after measures up to it; a proposition so absurd that I'm still not sure it isn't a joke. Field's argument hinges around the notion that Eliot's poem is an example of "High Art", and that the motley crew of American poets who came after failed to achieve this level. What are we to make of such an argument? We could remind Fieled that the playhouses of Elizabethan England were regarded as vulgar entertainment by contemporaries. Plays were barely regarded as literature, and Ben Jonson was roundly mocked for publishing his collected plays in book form. Fieled would no doubt regard these plays as the highest of High Art. As for "The Four Quartets", more on that dreary sermon in a later post.

6 comments:

John B-R said...

Alan, this is an example of an entirely "parvenu" poetics, which assumes there's an aesthetic ladder to climb. Parvenu poetics is a form of class war. Its values are those of people who are afraid, very afraid. Personally, I wouldn't call Four Quartets the worst thing ever written. Nor would I call it the best. Even terms like best and worst are part of the parvenu vocabulary.

Alan Baker said...

I think you're right John - I haven't seen that term before, but the concept makes sense. Class war is probably about right, although the "classes" involved can often be tiny (i.e. poetic schools); witness Carol Anne Duffy placing Don Paterson in the pantheon of Great Poets.

John B-R said...

Alan, you haven't seen the term before because I just invented it in response to your post. But it's pretty good, isn't it?

John B-R said...

Alan, remember, Eliot is the guy who wrote

“The population should be homogeneous; where two or more cultures exist in the same place they are likely either to be fiercely self-conscious or both to become adulterate. What is still more important is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.”

I'm certainly not going to claim that Adam Fieled is an anti-semite or anything as stupid as that; I'll bet he's a decent guy. I'm simply going to say that the whole distinction between high and low culture comes from a tremendous unease with "the other" ...

I don't believe that the classes involved are tiny "poetic schools", as you say: I believe they are real and worldwide.

I'm guessing Fieled doesn't get that, or he wouldn't be holding this position.

John B-R said...

I re-read Fieled and think this must be satire ...

Alan Baker said...

'Parvenu Poetics' is an excellent invention. That quote from Eliot is disturbing; I didn't mention his anti-semitism, nor his failure to repudiate it after WWII simply because it seemed to lead to a bigger discussion that there wasn't room for. But you're right to raise it.

On reflection, you're probably right about the 'classes' involved being big and worldwide. 'Official' poetry in the UK, represented by Duffy / Paterson certainly plays its part in maintaining a social hierarchy.