What does tradition have to do with poetry?

As I read through “From Tradition and the Individual Talent”, several passages caught my attention. I have often wondered what defines good poetry. What does it really look like? What gives certain critics and historians the right to judge what is good and what is not? Throughout the process of deciphering Eliot’s essay, I picked up several concepts that shed light onto my questions. Some concepts shed some light on my queries, but others simply generated more questions.

Eliot starts out by discussing the idea of tradition. He begins by discouraging the concept of tradition, but goes on to talk about how the definition of tradition needs to be seen from a wider perspective if it should be used in the context of poetry. This wider perspective is defined as “…the historical sense involves a perception not only in the pastness of the past, but of its presence; the historical sense compels a man to write not merely with his own generation in his bones, but with a feeling that…has a simultaneous existence…” This quote speaks to me in two ways. First, it stresses giving high value to writings of the past; a connectedness and an awareness of not simply one’s own writing, but the plethora of works that have been done in the past. Second, it stresses not simply reflections upon the past but also of being acutely aware of the future. This passage spoke to my “inner poet” (as cliché as that may sound), and contributed knowledge that I hadn’t even considered within my own writing. It deepens and expands my perspective on how literature can connect, although leaves me wondering what all fits into this web of “connectedness” that Eliot discusses.

However, within the idea of tradition, a specific issue caused me considerable confusion. “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.” As I read this passage, I wondered what original works of poetry made this particular statement a reality. If that statement is true, then can nothing beyond that distant starting point be considered “original”? It brings me, as an example (although not poetry specific, but literary none the less), to a comparison between Huck Finn and Eliot’s essay. Several critics have said that Huck Finn is basically the king of literary works. It is continually used as a gauge for literature used within schools. But what makes that piece of literature almost a seemingly “original” piece to be used as a measure for other literary pieces? Has the literary community considered the piece within the vast network of previous pieces? It seems to have become solitary in its literary existence. The scholars that stand behind Huck Finn and continue to keep it on its pedestal seem to be practicing Eliot’s definition of “narrow” tradition. I wonder if they could learn a thing or two from Eliot’s writing.

I do though agree with Eliot’s statement of, “You cannot value him alone; you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead”. When someone looks at a piece of poetry (or art), I guarantee that there is a comparison happening. No matter if it is conscious or unconscious within the mind, there is a comparison occurring against previous authors and artists. But that means that the concept of “original” can no longer exist (as questioned earlier). Everything is linked to the past and essentially, the future. There is no separation, but a continuation in the network of past, present and future works. Eliot does agree however, that there are individual differences between each poetic work, but it has no choice but to be judged against other writers through the vast network that is literature. Is this truth then fair or unfair to poets, whether dead, seasoned, or new? Or, can it be seen as an encouragement to writers that their work is becoming (no matter what criticism may arise) part of an ever changing phenomenon?

Regardless of the questions Eliot’s essay created, it gave me plenty of insight and worthwhile food for thought. His insights on poetic connectedness and deeper understanding of tradition opened up a new door of personal thought and examination.