Acquiring Tradition

Much as I might find myself intrigued with many of the ideals of the Romanticism, I confess that after reading T.S. Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent" I find myself equally as intrigued with some of Eliot's highly anti-Romantic musings. In particular, I was quite taken with Eliot's views on the importance of reading in acquiring our traditions. Nowhere is Eliot more anti-Romantic than in his belief in the necessity of reading, and as an English major and avowed lover of literature, I'm quite inclined to agree with him.

Throughout my four years as an English major, and even in the few times I've written on this blog, I have often written of my passion for reading. My belief in the power of reading is undeniable, for it is an act which not only enlightens my worldview, but also strengthens my own writing. Eliot's views on the necessity of reading serve not only as an intriguing bit of anti-Romantic criticism, but also, in my opinion, as an invaluable piece of advice for any burgeoning writer.

Eliot's views on tradition, however, are harder for me to discern. Undoubtedly, Eliot's use of the word "tradition" is complex, its appearance signalling a multitude of signficance. Certainly Eliot uses the word "tradition" to convey a sense of timelessness, with the past and the present coming together to form a new "tradition." In class, a quote from William Faulkner's famed novel Requiem for a Nun was brought up as a helpful way of discerning the meaning of Eliot's use of "tradition":

The past is never dead. It's not even past.

The idea that the past is never behind us, but instead is forever connected with our present lives, is an idea that is admittedly confusing. I tend to view things in such black and white that a complex theories such as Eliot's and Faulkner's are hard for me to digest.

As I continue to engage in Formalist criticism and begin to more fully understand Eliot's complex views, it will be interesting to see how my own views on the role of tradition will be altered.