egafd.com

Why Is it that many scholars and universities take at face value the observations of the discription of Life in London made by T.S.Eliot in his work The Waste Land as fact or even as credible. The Man was suffering emotional and mental problems, and his view on the world around him was skewed, yet this does not deter places of higher learning giving vivid discriptions of life in London from the Waste Land text as accurate.

His own moral and metal decline made it look like London was in Moral decay, It's a piece of work I have always had problems with.

Cate.

only know cats,sorry.

it's called being a lazy academic and just sprouting the same old crap to students who don't know better whilst they focus on their real careers

Because it is an accepted soundbite.
It's as bad as retards spouting out "The bard is such a prolific.....blah blah" whereas most people couldn't give a shite for Shakespeare.
I have read, I have studied, I have handed in eassys and I have been sick to the back teeth by the drab buggery of it all.

Apart from anything else, the interpretation very much relates to what in any work strikes a chord with the reader or mirrors an aspect of their life.

Critics can argue over the artistic merits of anything, but what to them is a work of genius might to me be the filthy bed of a drug and alcohol-addled skank. It's called a difference of opinion, or of taste. Meat, poison. Tomato, tomayto.

But what does it tell us about London today?

With you baby.

I was too fucking stupid to go to uni, but I am amused at the way universities promote themselves as centres where " free thinkers can discuss and debate bold new ideas without fear. "

But from what I see of them, in matters concerned with politics and sociology, there is only one view allowed and that is the 'correct' one. Anyone submitting essays promoting another view shouldn't expect to pass. So much for free and open discussion.

I got far more pleasure from thinking about cheerleaders in fishnet panties than I ever did from the Thoughts of Chairman Mao in fishnet panties.

Your right in a way Deano, If you introduce new ideas on an old theory you do go against the teachings of that Field, but as long as you can produce evidence to back up your view then you can at least hold your own.

I did my Dissertation on Alfred Hitchcock and the way Psycho changed not only the way in which we view films but also the in which America changed over the 50s and beyond.

Tutor told me it was a radical view to take but I proved my point and got a decent score, as with anything Deano if you are going to make a point you have to have things to back that up, thats life.

Chairman Mao in fishnet panties, Knew there was something strange about that guy.

Cate.