Analysis Of Eliot's Impersonal Theory Of Poetry

This piece primarily focuses upon redefining the definition, importance, and role of tradition in the literary world, as well as explicating the relationship between storytelling history and the storyteller. Eliot posits that, though originality and novelty are often praised, no work of art functions independently of all of the art that precedes it. He suggests that, rather than distinguishing literary mastery by identifying what is “new” and what is “old”, critics and creators alike should adopt his Impersonal Theory of poetry. This theory suggests that a refined poet can depersonalize themselves from their work in such a way as to construct it with a critical eye, simultaneously portraying significant emotion and arousing complex feelings

The mind initially reels at such a statement. After all, writing itself is often seen as a self-serving and somewhat autobiographical practice. However, Eliot supposes that using Impersonal Theory to develop a “consciousness of the past” and a “more finely perfected medium in which special, or very varied, feelings are at liberty to enter into new combinations” is the true mark of a mature poet (958). His proposal for the craft of quality writing is summed up in one of his final remarks, “the emotion of art is impersonal,”(961). While this is entirely contradictory to the commonly accepted idea of the deeply personal nature of storytelling, it actually emphasizes the primary reason for writing for an audience. If a piece of art only has meaning to the individual who created, it has no value to the public and, according to Eliot, should be considered “bad” art. It is the universality of emotion, and the skill of the creator in portraying it, which allows for art to persist across the sands of time. This cannot be executed successfully whilst the writer’s judgement is clouded with personal impulses and unbridled sensations. Shared art finds meaning in communication, and clear communication requires effort and