Tradition and Individual Talent

There is often a negative connotation associated with tradition. Anything 'traditional' is often written off as boring or antiquated, something lost in the annals of time that just doesn't work for a modern audience.

Tradition can be defined as anything that is passed from generation to generation. In an artistic sense, such as literature, tradition is a method or style established by one writer or artist and subsequently followed by others.

T.S. Eliot, in his essay Tradition and Individual Talent, discusses this view of tradition in light of how things are not only written by authors, but also how they are read by various audiences.

To me, it is difficult to define this 'tradition.' I think there are a lot of questions surrounding the idea of tradition. How far back do we trace the path of literature, and where do we stop to decide that a certain work or author is the template for what we compare other works to? Are there degrees to which something can be 'traditional,' i.e, some things are more traditional than others? Is everything at least a little bit 'traditional,' even if it is completely obscure? It seems to me that tradition is, if anything, an ambiguous label that we attach to poems or stories that resemble older works to even the slightest degree. I was hoping that Eliot's essay could help me answer some of these questions.

First of all, Eliot says that as humans, it is our natural tendency to compare things, and this is the case for reading. As we read something, we compare it to something else we've read before. It might be a simple comparison that determines whether a book is good or bad, or it might be more complex, comparing themes, characters, or uses of symbolism. This is something that happens a lot in our American Lit class. "I enjoyed so-and-so, but when I read it, I couldn't help but think of..." In these types of discussions is where tradition is realized or revealed. We see the similarities between writers, which are carried on from generation to generation.

At one point, Eliot discourages this tradition. He believes that if blind adherence to the previous writing generation is what tradition really is, then it should be avoided at all costs. He says, "We dwell with satisfaction upon the poet's difference from his predecessors, especially his immediate predecessors. We endeavor to find something that can be isolated in order to be enjoyed." Eliot believes that as readers, we use this comparison tendency mentioned above to find what is unique about an author or poet's work, and this ultimately brings the reader satisfaction. It is not recognizing the similarities between two authors in which a reader finds delight, but rather digging deep into a poem or story and recognizing the differences.

Because of these similarities and differences, it is almost impossible to give a writer solitary meaning. In other words, it is almost impossible to give a writer praise or criticisms without comparing them to another writer. Readers and critics only give writers significance in relation to other writers.

With all this being said, I am still unsure about tradition. Eliot makes good arguments for going against tradition, but there are still some views that I hold on to that Eliot does not address. I believe that tradition and significance found in relation to other writers keeps conversation lively. If we don't look for these comparisons, or if these comparisons don't even exist, then how can we have classes like American Lit, where discussion is centered around the literary tradition?

In the end, I see the literary tradition as a necessary evil. It's necessary for the reader, but it does not allow the writer to gain prominence outside of the tradition. There will always be comparisons between genres and authors because that's how readers are wired to read. It isn't necessarily a bad thing. At least, not for the audience.