Courtney PelosoEnglish 467Dr. RosenfeldMay 15, 2007

Fixing the Fractured World: Poetry in Modernity

“Modernism is a reaction against the modern.” This quote from the article T.S.

Eliot and Modernity by Louis Menand, captures the essence of modern poetry. Poets of

the modern set, such as T.S. Eliot, D.H. Lawrence, Wilfred Owen, and Robert Graves,

all wrote of the exhausted, modern world. These poets struggle to find meaning and

purpose in a world that has been forever altered by war and technological change. The

challenge for poets like these comes within their chosen literary form itself – how is a

poet to write in this new, changed world?

The poet’s relationship to the very language they use in their work in something

they have struggled with since the beginning of writing poetry. Poets like Thomas

Hardy and A.E. Housman dealt with the problem of finding a way to use language to

adequately express their inner feelings. The poets of the slightly later, modern set,

specifically Eliot and Graves, dealt with the problem of finding a way to use language

to express and make sense of the changed world. The key struggle of modernism is the

desire to make sense of the present world through experimentation with language.

These poets strive to use their skill with language to create a literary form that applies

and fits well with their contemporary times.

This desire to use language to find their poetic place has a different outcome for

each poet. T.S. Eliot and Robert Graves both attempted to use language, through their

poetry, to capture the essence of the modern world. Dealing with the sense of loss that

thrived in their times, they struggled to use their poetry to retrieve what had been lost or

to create something new in replacement. In writing poetry, both Eliot and Graves

desired to make sense of the world outside themselves. They wished to make sense of

the world in its larger context, to both unify the world and find their own place within it.

The modern world in which Eliot and Graves wrote was a problematic time.

World War One had a deep impact on society at all levels, but especially in the sense of

loss it had created. The wholeness of the past had now become the fractured existence

of the present. The technology of the modern world had changed the sense of time from

a natural, cyclical measurement, in which time is measured as the seasons change, to a

measurement of progress where things are always moving forward. This change in time

also contributed to the gap felt between the individual and the world. The sublime that

was an integral part of romantic poetry and life no longer had the same effect and

impact on people of the modern world. Modernism was characterized by the sense that

the deep connection with nature was lost in the current world. The importance of the

sublime nature, just out of reach, was no longer as important because in the new world,

it seemed as if it could no longer exist.

This world obviously inspired a different, necessary type of poetry. Modernist

poets like Eliot, Graves, Auden, and Lawrence were forced to “react,” as Louis Menand

puts it, to the world in which they lived. Because the sublime in nature had lost its

appeal and importance, poets looked for the sublime within poetry itself. This new

world, where consciousness, rather than the romantic imagination, was now the

mediator between the individual and the world, required a changed vocabulary with the

appropriate imagery and words to capture the essence of the times.

This is what Eliot and Graves desired to find – a language to use in their poetry

that was appropriate in the new world and could recapture the wholeness that had been

lost because of the war and technology. However, this desire afforded a different

outcome for each poet. For T.S. Eliot, using language in the form of poetry to eradicate

the sense of loss in the modern world was a futile effort; the world could not be made

whole again, despite the best efforts of poets. For Robert Graves on the other hand,

poetry held the magic needed to fix the broken world. Graves believed language can

create and unify in order to help in grasping the solid ground that both he and Eliot

searched for in the new world. Eliot, however, did not believe poetry could create that

magic anymore. For him, the changed world had caused the irrevocable loss of that very

magical language. Eliot believed that the wholeness of the world itself could never

again return and the language poets use to try to make it whole could no longer succeed.

Graves, however, believed Eliot was wrong and that there certainly was a way for the

magical language to fix this fragmented world. Graves believed that he himself could

find the way.

In order to see how Graves was able to succeed in fixing the brokenness of the

world through his poetry, it is necessary to first look at the futile attempts of his

contemporary, T.S. Eliot. Through an analysis of Eliot’s The Waste Land, one can see

his approach to unifying the world once more and how he believed it was utterly

impossible for poetry to accomplish such a feat.

The lengthy, jumbled poem The Waste Land is, in its writing, evidence of Eliot’s

attempt to piece together and unify a world that has been broken in modernity. The

fragmented parts that Eliot brings together to create something whole, the poem itself,

show his attempt at bringing back together what is left in the world. His struggle of

discovering how a poet should write in this new world leads him to reach back into the

past and pull elements together to create his poem, The Waste Land. The true meaning

of this poem is found not in the countless symbols within it, but rather in the

impossibility of the poem itself. The confusion that permeates the lines of the poem

creates the sense of disquiet that parallels what Eliot himself feels living in the modern

world. The words and language of the poem come to no visible or clear solution by the

conclusion, but Eliot still succeeds in revealing the lens through which he sees the

world.

Eliot sees the world as irreversibly changed, and in that change, broken. The

very chaotic structure, or lack thereof, of The Waste Land shows this. Though he could

not succeed in using language to bring the world together in a coherent manner, he can

use language to do, for him, the only thing it can – reveal the fractured existence he sees

and feels in the modern world. To show this, he uses many different speakers in The

Waste Land. This is very much unlike the style of William Wordsworth, Gerard Manley

Hopkins, Thomas Hardy, and A.E. Housman, who use a single lyrical voice to express

the wholeness of feeling and the direct experience of emotion. Eliot believes that the

lyrical voice is fragmented in the modern world, which he effectively portrays in his

abrupt switches from one speaker to the next. This, along with his patchwork piecing

together of elements of the historical and literary past, creates the sense of the unfixable

fractured existence of modernity.

The basic symbol Eliot uses, which is alluded to in the title of the poem itself, is

the waste land. According to critic Cleanth Brooks, the same theme that is encompassed

in Eliot’s idea that the modern world is a waste land is developed and runs throughout

the poem. The fact that Eliot calls the world a waste land reveals that he believes the

world is dead, with only fragments of the past left. In modernity, there is nothing but

waste, as all the wholeness and goodness has been forever lost. As Brooks says, the

theme of death in life in the waste land begins with the first part of the poem, “The

Burial of the Dead.”

“The Burial of the Dead” creates “the general abstract statement of the situation”

(Brooks). Here, the reader can see that the existence of the people in the waste land is

more of a death than a life. Using contrasts and fragments of past stories, Eliot creates

the situation of the world he feels now exists. The beauty and life of the past no longer

exist. As Eliot says, “April is the cruelest month.” A time of year seen as beautiful and

life-giving in the past is seen by Eliot, through his modernist lens, as cruel because it

mixes “Memory and desire, stirring/ Dull roots with spring rain.” This seasonal change

causes the people to desire what has been lost, but this is a torment because it can never

again be found.

In the second section of The Waste Land, called “A Game of Chess,” more

concretely establishes the atmosphere and lives led by people in the waste land. Here,

the reader can more fully see that, to Eliot, lives in the waste land, or modernity are not

really lives at all. In this section, Eliot shows the contrasting scenes of high and low

class life but brings them together in the idea that no matter the magnificence of the life

you live, it has no real meaning in the modern waste land. This idea that, in modernity,

life is more like death, with a lost meaning and purpose, is specifically shown in how

the woman says to the man in Line 126, “Are you alive, or not? Is there nothing in your

head?” As Cleanth Brooks says, “These people, as people living in the waste land,

know nothing, see nothing, do not even live.” The people of Eliot’s poem live lives that

are unreal and meaningless in a world that is broken without the possibility of repair.

The repetition of verses such as “Hurry Up Please Its Time,” shows that, for Eliot, there

is nothing new or meaningful in the modern world. The technological progress is new,

but in terms of the life of an individual, no meaning or purpose can or will be found in

the modern world.

The third section of The Waste Land, called “The Fire Sermon,” is wrought with

symbolism that supports Eliot’s theme that modern life is dead and meaningless because

the world has been broken beyond repair. He contrasts the lonely river of modernity

with another river of the literary past, showing that even the serene beauty of the river is

broken in the modern world. The waste land is sterile, with no new life rising from it, as

shown in the line,” Rattled by the rat’s foot only, year to year.” For Eliot, year after

year, the “bones cast in a little low dry garret,” will never be disturbed by new life. The

image of the rat being the only disturbance flows with the idea that the new world is

sterile and not full of real, vibrant life. Also in this section, Eliot repeats his use of

“Unreal City,” which is first found in the first section, to reiterate the idea that modern

lives are no lives at all in a world that is no longer real itself.

The fourth section is called “Death by Water.” The contrast between fire and

water symbolizes the fire of trying to find a meaning of life put out by water, or

surrender, in realizing that the effort is wasted because no meaning will be found. This

section relates to Eliot’s giving up on trying to recreate and unify the modern world. He

realizes that he cannot grasp the solid ground or find meaning here and it is a waste to

try. This is specifically shown in, “As he rose and fell/ He passed the stages of his age

and youth/ Entering the whirlpool.” Here, Eliot is showing that the search for what has

been lost, or the desire to create a replacement, is futile. He rises to try, but falls,

realizing that he has already, and will still, waste his life trying. The search is like a

whirlpool, going around and around, with no solid ground to grasp and no end in sight.

What has been lost will remain lost.

The short fourth section is followed by the rather long fifth and final section

called “What the Thunder Said.” In this section, Eliot uses a lot of vivid, descriptive

language, such as “torchlight red on sweaty faces,” to build up the horror and negativity

of the waste land. This section is filled with imagery of ruins, such as “mudcracked

houses” and “Falling towers,” to show the mess that the modern world is. Even the

“flash of lightning” and the rain cannot create a meaningful life. The rain is supposed to

be life-giving, but in Eliot’s modern waste land, even it no longer has power. Eliot uses

many quotations in the final section of The Waste Land, again symbolizing his efforts to

use elements of the past to recapture the wholeness.

The Waste Land in its entirety is the product of a ruined man desperately

grasping at the straws of the past in an attempt to make sense of the modern world. In

the final stanza of the poem, Eliot says, “These fragments I have shored against my

ruins.” Here, Eliot is saying that in this poem he has tried to piece together the

fragments left from the past and fashion a wall to protect himself from the modern

world. He has not succeeded in putting them together in the correct order, however, and

therefore still feels the utter meaninglessness and “death-in-life” of the modern world

(Brooks). He has already been ruined by modernity and the past offers no solace or

protection for him. The very disorder and chaos of the poem reveals Eliot’s feelings of

modernity. Through the poem, The Waste Land, the reader can see that Eliot believes

there is no way to succeed in fixing the fractured world.

Robert Graves, on the other hand, believes it is entirely possible to use language

to create something new and meaningful in the modern world. Graves responds to

modernity by writing aesthetic and ordered poetry. He believes that language has the

mystical power to unify and create when use correctly. For Graves, the correct way to

capture and use the magic of language is to return to the feminine unity of the romantics

rather than the masculine competition of cleverness that poetry has become. He focuses

on creating a new mythological system to explain everything and unify the fractured

world. Unlike William Butler Yeats, who focuses on creating a new myth for just the

Irish, Graves desire to create a new universal myth. He tries to put back the universal

consciousness that was broken by the war. Again like Yeats, he has an appreciation for

aesthetics in the creation of this myth, but he develops more orderly, structured poetry.

The mythological system that Graves develops focuses on the White Goddess.

Working in service of the White Goddess of poetry, the poet can experience the

intensified life. For Graves, this is the sublime- striving to reach the unreachable in

service of the Goddess. Graves creates these new myths for the new age to use his

command of language to make the harsh modern world better. Graves believes, as critic

Douglas Day says, “Excellence in poetry it appears, entails a certain amount of hard

labor.” Even though Graves believes poetry is developed through “the magical

inspiration … at the roots of the creative process,” he knows that writing good poetry

requires devotion to the craft, and thus the White Goddess. He believes that the poetry

he writes is “true poetry,” and can therefore fix the broken modern world and make it

whole once again.

To see how Graves uses language to redeem the modern world, unlike Eliot who

could not find a way to do so, it is necessary to analyze his actual poetry. Two good

examples of the poetry of Robert Graves are The Cool Web and To Juan at the Winter

Solstice.

The Cool Web by Robert Graves is a poem about speech and language itself.

The reader can see in this poem the structure and order Graves believes is necessary. He

begins by saying, “Children are dumb to say how hot the day is.” Here, as well as in the

following three lines, Graves is describing how not to use language. To Graves, it is

childish to use the beautiful gift of language to simply state something obvious. He

believes we must use language to reveal deeper things than such. When used correctly,

speech can “chill the angry day,” and even “spell away the soldiers and the fright” of

war. Here, the reader can see that Graves is saying language holds the power to fix the

problems of the modern world. Graves believes that “the cool web of language” that

exists within us can be used to help us find the balance and moderation needed in the

modern world. It can help us grasp the solid ground. The final stanza of The Cool Web

serves as a warning to those of us who use speech and language. Graves warns us not to

“let our tongues lose self-possession” – to take responsibility and pride in the language

we use. This is because to Graves, language holds sacred, magical powers to fix and

create. The Cool Web was written as a direction for readers in how to use language to

effectively serve the White Goddess.

A poem that reveals even more of Graves’ emphasis on serving the White

Goddess is To Juan at the Winter Solstice. This poem, written to his son, who was born

on the winter solstice, is another poem of direction. In this poem, Graves is telling his

son how to live the intensified life. He is preaching that this can only be accomplished

by committing oneself to serving the White Goddess. He begins with, “There is one

story and one story only / That will prove worth your telling,” showing his son, and the

reader as well, that the only way to use language in the modern world is to write of the

White Goddess. To Graves, the only way to write poetry in the new age is the way he

does. He talks of “strange beasts,” “silver beauty,” and royalty, all elements in keeping

with his focus on the mythological as the direction for poetry in the modern world. “The

undying snake from chaos hatched” symbolizes the very poetry of Robert Graves and

those who choose to follow his lead. Born out of the chaos of modernity, evident in the

poetry of T.S. Eliot, Graves’ poetry is undying because it serves the White Goddess.

Like the snake which the Goddess created, the poetry that Graves creates will live on in

a modern world where everything else seems to be broken and dying, which Eliot writes

of in The Waste Land. Graves tells his son and his readers to “Dwell on her

graciousness, dwell on her smiling.” Here, he tells us that we should devote ourselves to

writing about the White Goddess that is poetry itself, using her majesty as material. To

Juan at the Winter Solstice ends with the line “But nothing promised that is not

performed.” Here, Graves warns that we must not fail in our promise to serve her and

write her story. In this poem, Graves succeeds in “memorably and dramatically

embody[ing] the myth,” contrary to the belief of Patrick J. Keane. Keane believes that

Graves “most ambitious work falls short of its promise” to do so. However, the ordered

structure, aesthetic language, and devotion Graves expresses in the poem very

effectively accomplishes his goals of being memorable and dramatic.

In conclusion, T.S. Eliot and Robert Graves both wrote their poetry in response

to the fractured modern world. They desired to find the right way to write their poetry in

this new age and to fix what had been broken. For Eliot, however, poetry and language

cannot accomplish this task, as shown through his fragmented poetry, whose chaos does

not lead to a conclusion in the end. Eliot sees no way to alleviate the harshness of the

modern world through poetry; all his poetry can do is reveal exactly that – the rough

fragments of a broken world. Unlike Eliot, for Graves, this is fixable. Graves believes

that he can succeed in fixing what has been broken by using the correct language. A

devotion to the White Goddess of poetry and the romantic femininity can help one to

recapture the wholeness that was lost in the modern age. Overall, both Eliot and Graves

respond to their time period, but with different opinions as to what power language has

in fixing it.