précis on T.S Eliot Tradition and the individual Talent

Analytical Précis on T.S Eliot’s Tradition and the Individual Talent
Abstract: Eliot’s essay, The Tradition and the Individual Talent, is presented as three parts in which he discusses the definition and importance of tradition in poetry and the poet, and how does criticism, in order to be honest, should detach the poet from the poetry, and not only criticism should practice this, but the poet itself, so to achieve a mature poetic composition and the tradition and sense of continuity and community with the past and present poets and poetry.
Analysis: In the first part of the essay, Eliot states that tradition involves historical sense which is fundamental for the poet. The historical sense makes a man aware of his time and the past, as well; therefore his work of art will be traditional as he can merge the whole literature with his contemporaneity. In this sense, he considers that “[n]o poet, no artist of any art, has his complete meaning alone” (Eliot 499), in other words, the poet cannot be valued alone and “you must set him, for contrast and comparison, among the dead” (499). Eliot considers time and every work of literature as a whole, so the present and all the new additions made from this time can affect the perspectives that human beings might have regarding the past and the traditional literature. Then, the poet will “be judged by the standards of the past” (499) in order to establish a comparison where the two works of art are measured by each other. In consequence the critique will not state whether the new work of art is as good as the previous one.
In the second part of the essay, Eliot talks about the detachment of the poet from the poetry in order to create an honest criticism, the focus should be on the work itself rather than taking into account the poet and its personal characteristics. The depersonalisation of poetry is needed in order for the poetry to become timeless, to attach to itself the sense of tradition that has been already explained. A poet that has been able to detach his own emotions and personality to create a work of art that has his essence; however it is not himself represented in it but a more complex expression of emotions that has reached a complete and mature poetic composition. An immature writer could be easily identified since parts of its personality or emotions could be witnessed in its poetry. Another aspect of poetry that was criticised in The Tradition and the Individual Talent is how some writers sought for new emotions that end up not being emotions at all, instead of seeking new ways of portraying the ordinary emotions in a way that can be familiar to the readers so they could understand the experiences portrayed in the poetry. The poet ought to be unconscious of this detachment of the portrayal of experiences and emotions, or it could fall into the personalisation of poetry that Eliot criticized, since it would lack of the sense of tradition.
In the third part of the essay, Eliot states that the metaphysics or mysticism is not fundamental, so he confines it to practical conclusions that can be or not applied by the reader. Then, he reinforces the idea of detachment between the poet and poetry, although he considers that some readers appreciate the expression of sincere emotion in verse. In this sense, he establishes that not all the people are able to know when there is an expression of significant emotion, so the emotion of art is impersonal. And this impersonality cannot be reached by the poet unless he surrenders himself to the work of literature and, at the same time, he is aware of the historical sense.
Conclusion: Eliot argues that the poet must be detached from poetry, so there is a sense of depersonalization which coincides with Keats’ previous proposal as they both consider that the poet must not be represented in his creation. In this sense, it is impossible to know the personal life of the author by his works of literature.
In another aspect, it is important to notice that Eliot proposes a spatial notion about time and literature, from now on, they are considered as a whole, disregarding its linear notion. Therefore, the present can affect the past, and the same happens with literature as the new creations affect the perception that human beings have about the traditional literature. Eliot argues that the poet must be aware of his own time and of the past, and this historical sense, makes a writer traditional.
Finally, he considers that the main purpose of literature is not moral, a view that differs with the notion of Horace as it has not a moral utility and also with the notion of Dante, as he considers that metaphysics and mysticism can be applied or disregarded by the person who is interested in poetry.

Works Cited
Eliot, T.S. «Tradition and the Individual Talent.» Adams, Hazard, and Leroy Searle. Critical Theory Since Plato. 3rd. Thomson/Wadsworth, 2005. 495-503.

Cited: Eliot, T.S. «Tradition and the Individual Talent.» Adams, Hazard, and Leroy Searle. Critical Theory Since Plato. 3rd. Thomson/Wadsworth, 2005. 495-503.