Individuality, Novelty, and Conformity Theme Analysis

Throughout Eliot’s “Tradition and the Individual Talent,” the great poet makes sacrifices for the greater good of their work. In Part 1 of the essay, Eliot suggests that the poet sacrifices novelty and individuality for the sake of adhering to tradition; their poetry, instead of being totally new, is “a living whole” of all poetry. In Part 2, Eliot argues that the poet makes poetry effective by depersonalizing it. All in all, the poet is undertaking a “continual surrender of himself […] to something which is more valuable.” However, although it may seem that the poet is sacrificing both originality and individuality, Eliot seems to be arguing that, through this surrender, the poet actually achieves both. When examining the poet’s conformity with the past, Eliot claims that, in order to conform, the work must not only be new but also individual. Likewise, the poet achieves “significant emotion” in a poem by extinguishing personal emotions. Through these paradoxical claims, Eliot suggests that readers tend to recognize individuality and novelty incorrectly, arguing that the poet actually attains them most while actually appearing to conform.

Throughout his essay, Eliot presents the ideal poet as someone who makes many sacrifices. First of all, the poet sacrifices individuality. Eliot claims that “no artist of any art has [their] complete meaning alone.” A poem is only valuable if it is set in relation to other poems, which means that the poet isn’t appreciated for the way they stand out, but for the way they fit in. Furthermore, the poet must give up seeking what is new and novel. Eliot claims that the poet goes about their job wrongly when they seek new experiences to inform their work. Rather, they should “use the ordinary ones,” and in so doing keep their work traditional and impersonal. Lastly, the poet cannot hope to express their own emotions or personality in their poems. Eliot claims that poetry is not an expression at all, but “an escape from emotion, […] an escape from personality.” All in all, the ideal poet sacrifices individuality, novelty, and personality when they write.

These sacrifices are all made in order to serve art—a much greater cause than the poet’s personal aims. First of all, Eliot claims that the entire history of art is more significant than the individual artist. He calls the entire history of literature in Europe a “mind” and compares this to the mind of the poet. He states that, over time, the poet will come to understand that this “mind” of the history of art in Europe is “more important than [their] own private mind,” suggesting that the poet relinquish their personal aims. In order to be more aware of this “mind” of art history, the artist must continually “surrender [themselves] as [they are] at the moment to something more valuable.” It seems as though Eliot is suggesting that the poet is a martyr to their own work, and that the act of writing is the act of self-sacrifice. This self-sacrifice leads the poet to be overlooked in the act of appreciating poetry. Eliot says that “honest criticism and sensitive appreciation is directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry.” This suggests that, when the poet surrenders to the greater good of their work, they lose all part in the final product, and the poem stands alone in its glory.

Ironically, however, Eliot claims that the poet, in surrendering to their work, actually gains all they thought they were sacrificing. Their work becomes newer, more individual, and more emotional as a result. First, when a poem conforms to the past, it actually has to be new to do so. Eliot makes the claim that “to conform merely would be for the new work not really to conform at all.” For if it did merely conform, “it would not be new, and would therefore not be a work of art.” Eliot’s claim is that only a true work of art belongs with other past works of art, and art is only true if it is new. Therefore, in Eliot’s vision, conforming and being new are the same. Likewise, being individual and conforming are also in some sense the same. Eliot claims that, when examining either a piece of art’s individuality or its conformity with the past, “we are hardly likely to find that it is one and not the other.” Furthermore, Eliot claims that the act of depersonalizing poetry can only be done by someone who has personality. Writing poetry is not an expression of one’s personality but an escape from it, but at the same time, Eliot maintains that “only those who have personality and emotions knows what it means to want to escape from these things.” This shows that a person has to have personality in order to make the necessary escape from it in their poetry. Ultimately, the poet with personality who makes this escape will achieve “significant emotion” in their poetry. That emotion might even be more significant than the “boring, or crude, or flat” emotions the poet personally experiences. The poet achieves more personality, it seems, by forgoing their own.

Although the poet gains individuality, novelty, and significant personality in their poetry, they cannot do so without seeming to do the opposite. Eliot’s paradoxical statements show that the poet must first sacrifice all individuality, novelty, and personality in themselves before they can find those things multiplied in their poetry. While the poet seems to be self-sacrificing and conforming to the past, what they are really doing is transferring all value from themselves to their poetry. The result is that the poet’s work gains all the significance the poet had to initially sacrifice.