13 Comments

Thanks for exploring another great essay. I really dig this series.

I appreciate how you provided a more compelling argument for why the classics are important, rather than the usual advice given to students (because you need to) or other pedants (because they are the highest art).

Some old stories (for example, I'm rereading the Odyssey right now) are not that great, by today's standards. But that's because everything that came after them built upon them. And still, we can see the prototype for all those later stories in the old ones, which is charming. It's like seeing the childhood drawings of a famous artist-- but in this case the artist is humanity itself.

I also appreciated the examples of the Beatles and Shakespeare; they really contextualized the argument. Especially the point about how deeply Shakespeare studied Plutarch vs. how broadly he studied history in general. Interestingly, this is the advice Robert McKee gives to storytellers-- rather than trying to make your story as universal as possible (which just makes it bland), make it as specific as possible, to a corner of the world that you know so well that you might as well be its God. And then, magically, people will find it relatable, often in the details you could never have predicted them to.

So I think that's a great counter to the overwhelming obligation to study the entire canon-- instead just seek out what seems interesting to you, and learn it deeply. This is better than a broad but superficial understanding of the whole canon anyways.

Lastly, regarding anti-tradition, a novice has to understand the rules in order to properly break them. We can break from tradition, but only once we know why, and when and where to do so. So much bad art is created due to a reckless disregard of what makes classic stories great. It may feel formulaic at first, but once we find out how to honor the past in that individual corner of the world we created, it will end up being extremely unique, while also being quality. And later in our careers, we can break more rules.

But experimental art is when too many rules are broken. It's never really enjoyable to experience, merely interesting to remark upon. Experimental art may open the way for other, newer types of art. But it is in itself not very artistic-- merely political.

Expand full comment

Thanks for your comment Grant!

"Some old stories (for example, I'm rereading the Odyssey right now) are not that great, by today's standards. But that's because everything that came after them built upon them. And still, we can see the prototype for all those later stories in the old ones, which is charming. It's like seeing the childhood drawings of a famous artist-- but in this case the artist is humanity itself."

That's a great way to put it. And I think that's right, there's something interesting in reading old stories and seeing how they (and the practice of storytelling itself) evolve over time. I often find that older stories feel less 'refined' in their structure and use of language, but at the same time there is something interesting in the various unexpected tangents and other elements that result from this. The way that Chretien de Troyes describes his Arthurian characters is almost comical - they all happen to be the *most* gallant, handsome, and chivalrous, or else are utterly repulsive, debase, etc. - but it helps to transport you into his mythical world in which these things really are true.

"rather than trying to make your story as universal as possible (which just makes it bland), make it as specific as possible, to a corner of the world that you know so well that you might as well be its God. And then, magically, people will find it relatable, often in the details you could never have predicted them to." - interesting point. You're never going to be able to please everyone, but if you can find your 'thing' and put all of yourself into it, the right people will be drawn to it.

"regarding anti-tradition, a novice has to understand the rules in order to properly break them. We can break from tradition, but only once we know why, and when and where to do so. So much bad art is created due to a reckless disregard of what makes classic stories great. It may feel formulaic at first, but once we find out how to honor the past in that individual corner of the world we created, it will end up being extremely unique, while also being quality. "

I think this is so important. Many modern films, novels, etc. today are trying too hard to avoid or subvert old tropes, and it just makes for bad storytelling.

Expand full comment

Yeah I think the Arthurian legends (as you describe them) are quite similar to other traditional stories where everything is the *most.* Nowadays we’ve reached a level of subtlety in storytelling (and in acting) where things are much more realistic and therefore credible and therefore relatable. Even when the issue at stake is not the whole world. But it can feel that way to the characters— e.g. Little Miss Sunshine

Expand full comment

Fascinating. I remember the day I realized that all tradition isn't bad---that I had been enculturated to believe it was bad and to never question that premise. But truly, we cannot escape tradition even if we want to. Everything is understood in relation to it, even "anti-traditional" art. The value in anti-traditional approaches is, I believe, to explore the mistakes of our predecessors and strive to improve, just as our predecessors strive to improve on the examples they themselves were given.

Expand full comment

"The value in anti-traditional approaches is, I believe, to explore the mistakes of our predecessors and strive to improve, just as our predecessors strive to improve on the examples they themselves were given."

I think that's true, but the problem with consciously anti-traditional art is that in the process of rejecting everything perceived as 'traditional', even those traditions that have a necessary function are eventually destroyed. Traditional architectural and town planning principles are only 'traditional' because they proved effective over centuries (as well as more beautiful). By rejecting architectural traditions, architects have ruined whole cities.

Expand full comment

That's a great point, and I agree. While rejecting Tradition is culturally seen as progressive and enlightened, it actually sets us back many, many years.

Expand full comment

Otto Rank says something similar in that everyone's psychology is dominated by the prevailing ideology and, while no one knows why the creative urge is strong in folks like Eliot, the struggle between Art and Artist is the relation of an individual to the society. One feature of this relation is how symbols taken from the culture are reconfigured with individual expression. Another, curious feature, is how a strong ideology brings out the creations we think of as genius (Michelangelo, Dostoevsky, etc.) in an individual response to a dominating social order. Of course, the modern individual ideology means that everyone has to be an individual in order to belong, but Eliot was near the beginning where there was still a cultural tradition that could be rejected and sold back to the society as the new tradition.

Expand full comment

"Another, curious feature, is how a strong ideology brings out the creations we think of as genius (Michelangelo, Dostoevsky, etc.) in an individual response to a dominating social order."

This is an interesting point - it seems to me that the creative process requires passion to some degree, and for many people their ideology is something about which they are deeply passionate. The Modernists came to prominence in a time when Christianity was on the decline and political ideologies were on the rise, so the big changes we see in modern works (e.g., more abstraction, less of an emphasis on symmetry and beauty) were likely in part motivated by the different emphasis placed on these things by modern ideologies.

Eliot is an interesting case. He doesn't strike me as a very political person (although perhaps I've missed something in his biography) - his 'ideology' seemed to be more about the importance of art and the artistic/literary tradition, at least until his conversion to Christianity.

Expand full comment

>" I hope self-citation isn’t frowned upon here ..."

“By necessity, by proclivity, and by delight, we all quote.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/62111-by-necessity-by-proclivity-and-by-delight-we-all-quote

Even, periodically, ourselves ... 😉🙂

Expand full comment

Great quote! Nothing wrong with a bit of self-citation.

Expand full comment

What did you think of Eliot’s essay, overall?

Do you agree with Eliot’s impersonal approach to poetry? If you’ve read a lot of poetry yourself, how does his poetic work compare to more ‘personal’ poets for you?

How do you think the conscious rejection of Tradition has affected contemporary art, literature, etc.? Is there any value in taking an anti-Traditional approach to art?

Expand full comment

"Is there any value in taking an anti-Traditional approach to art?"

Shocking the squares.

But on a more serious note I like Pound's definition of culture as "what's left over after you forgot what you tried to learn." So, culture is a learned instinct, I think he meant. LIke learning how to ride a bicycle. At first you have to think about this and that, then after much practice it becomes deep mode.

I suspect Modernists felt maybe the "culture" had become too self-consicous in a way. Too petty, bourgeois and mercantile and being materialists themselves could only use different forms rather than content. Just my intuition. In visual art, representation was considered mere illustration, and the Modernists were going to get to the "real" underlying bits of human consciousness, like Freud, say. So, you got automatic this and surreal that.

Expand full comment

"So, culture is a learned instinct, I think he meant. LIke learning how to ride a bicycle. At first you have to think about this and that, then after much practice it becomes deep mode."

I think that's right, and Eliot seems to have been making a similar point. You immerse yourself in culture, it takes conscious effort, and then after a while you start to internalise it and it becomes a part of you. Not surprising that Eliot and Pound would make similar points given their friendship and close professional relationship.

"I suspect Modernists felt maybe the "culture" had become too self-consicous in a way. Too petty, bourgeois and mercantile and being materialists themselves could only use different forms rather than content. Just my intuition."

Interesting point!

Expand full comment