Karşıt Yörüngeler: T. S. Eliot’un The Waste Land Adlı Eserinde Yan Yana Getirme, Eşzamanlılık ve Mekânsal Biçim

Abstract

Bu makale, T. S. Eliot’un The Waste Land adlı eserinin açılış bölümü olan “The Burial of the Dead” kısmında yer alan iki karşıt sesi incelemektedir: biri lirik, yoğun ve içe dönük olarak ifade edici; diğeri ise kapsayıcı, retorik ve dışa dönük olarak bildirici bir sestir. Makale, nihayetinde bu iki sesin şiirin temel modernist jestini oluşturduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Joseph Frank’in mekânsal biçim kuramına dayanarak çalışma, bu iki sesin anlatısal sıralamanın gerektirdiği doğrusal bir yapı içinde değil, şiirin mekânsal yapısı içerisinde yan yana getirilmiş iki eşzamanlı imge olarak algılanması gerektiğini göstermektedir. Zamansal ve mekânsal estetiğin bu yıkımı, Eliot’ın kendi çağdaş tarihini tanımlamak için kullandığı titiz teşhiste ifade edildiği üzere, beyhudelik ve anarşinin muazzam panoramasına verilen modernist tepkide derin köklere sahiptir. Söylemleri bütünüyle karşıt olsa da, şairin ve peygamberin sesleri aynı kasvetli yıkımda, aynı fiziksel ve ruhsal çöküşte birleşmektedir. Eliot, tek bir ortak imgeye ulaşan bu iki uzlaşmaz yörüngenin şiddetli çarpışması içinde, yan yanalığın ve mekânsal biçimin modernist estetiğini en yetkin biçimde gerçekleştirmektedir.

Keywords

• Modernizm
• T. S. Eliot
• The Waste Land
• eşzamanlılık
• juxtaposisyon
• mekânsal biçim
• şiirsel ve peygamberane sesler

Ethical Statement

Bu araştırma için etik kurul izni gerekmemektedir

Opposing Trajectories: Juxtaposition, Simultaneity, and Spatial Form in T. S. Eliot’s The Waste Land

Abstract

The present paper examines two opposing voices in “The Burial of the Dead” the opening section of T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land: one lyrical, dense, and inwardly expressive; the other expansive, rhetorical, and outwardly declarative. It ultimately argues that these two voices constitute the poem's central modernist gesture. Drawing on Joseph Frank's theory of spatial form, the paper demonstrates how these two voices should be perceived not linearly, as expected from narrative sequencing, but simultaneously, as two juxtaposed images within the poem's spatial structure. This subversion of temporal and spatial aesthetics is deeply rooted in modernist response to the immense panorama of futility and anarchy which is his contemporary history, to use Eliot’s rigorous diagnosis. Although their discourses are entirely opposing, the poet and the prophet’s voices converge on the same bleak desolation: the same physical and spiritual ruin. It is in this violent collision of two irreconcilable trajectories arriving at a single shared image that Eliot most fully realizes the modernist aesthetic of juxtaposition and spatial form.

Keywords

• Modernism
• T. S. Eliot
• The Waste Land
• simultaneity
• juxtaposition
• spatial form
• poetic and prophetic voices

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval is not required for this research

References

1. Adorno, T. W. (1997). Aesthetic theory. A&C Black.
2. Beebe, M. (1974). Introduction: What modernism was. Journal of Modern Literature, 3(5), 1065-1084.
3. Blackmur, R. P. (1981). Language as gesture: Essays in poetry. Columbia University Press.
4. Bradbury, M., & McFarlane, J. (1976). The name and nature of modernism. In M. Brad-bury & J. McFarlane (Eds.), Modernism: A guide to European literature 1890–1930 (pp. 19–55). Penguin.
5. Bradbury, M., & McFarlane, J. (1991). Modernism: A Guide to European Literature 1890-1930. Penguin.
6. Culpeper, J. (2014). Language and characterisation: People in plays and other texts. Routledge.
7. Eliot, T. S. (1919). Tradition and the individual talent. The Egoist, 6(4), 56–57.
8. Eliot, T. S. (1921). The metaphysical poets. In Selected essays (pp. 241–250). Harcourt, Brace and Company.

9. Eliot, T. S. (1923). Ulysses, order, and myth. The Dial, 75(5), 480-483.
10. Eliot, T. S. (1999). Tradition and the individual talent. In Selected essays (pp. 13–22). Faber & Faber.
11. Eliot, T. S. (2009). Four quartets. Faber & Faber.
12. Eliot, T. S. (2010). The waste land and other poems. Broadview Press.
13. Eysteinsson, A. (1990). The concept of modernism. Cornell University Press.
14. Fishelov, D. (1990). Types of character, characteristics of types. Style, 24(3), 422–439.
15. Frank, J. (1945). Spatial form in modern literature: An essay in two parts. The Sewanee Review, 53(2), 221-240.
16. Fuchs, D. (1974). Saul Bellow and the modern tradition. Contemporary Literature, 15(1), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/1207710
17. Gardner, H. (1968). The art of T. S. Eliot. Cresset Press.
18. Gay, P. (2013). Modernism: The lure of heresy. WW Norton & Company .
19. Hollis, M. (2022). The waste land: A biography of a poem. Faber & Faber.
20. Hühn, P. (2017). Hühn, P. (2017). The Eventfulness of Non-events in modernist poetry: T. S. Eliot’s the waste land and Bertolt Brecht’s “vom armen BB”. Frontiers of Narrative Studies, 3(2), 319-335.
21. Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Duke University Press.
22. Jameson, F. (2003). The end of temporality. Critical Inquiry, 29(4), 695–718. https://doi. org/10.1086/377726
23. Lessing, G. E., & Frothingham, E. (2013). Laocoon: An essay upon the limits of painting and poetry. Dover Publications.
24. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1980). Spatial form in literature: Toward a general theory. Critical In-quiry, 6(3), 539–567. https://doi.org/10.1086/448064
25. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1968). The dehumanization of art and other essays on art, culture, and literature. Princeton University Press.
26. Pound, E. (1913). A Few don’ts by an imagiste. Poetry, 1(6), 200–206.
27. Rasula, J. (2022). What the thunder said: How the waste land made poetry modern. Princeton University Press.
28. Robinson, L. S., & Vogel, L. (1971). Modernism and history. New Literary History, 3(1), 177-199.
29. Suárez, J. A. (2001). T. S. Eliot’s the waste land, the gramophone, and the modernist dis-course network. New Literary History, 32(3), 747–768. https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2001.0048
30. Weimann, R. (1984). Structure and society in literary history. Johns Hopkins University Press.