the Greater Nomadic Council

Yglesias Discusses T.S. Eliot

Matthew Yglesias takes Senator Byrd to task for misreading T. S. Eliot. However, I don't think Yglesias gets it quite right either. The lines in question:

April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.

As interpretation, he writes:

Now as I read it, the point here is that April does three things. First, it breeds lilacs out of the dead land. Second, it mixes memory and desire. Third, it stirs dull roots with spring rain.

While I think it's great that he's trying to correct a perceived misreading of one of the major poetic works of the 20th century, his reading isn't very good. It's a rather superficial one concerned only with the process of spring, mischaracterizing the actions listed as distinct phenomena. As I read it, the lilacs, the mixture of "memory and desire", and the stirring "dull roots" are all different aspects of the same thing, the blooming of lilacs.

The dull roots are the roots of the lilacs whose growth mixes "memory and desire", the metaphysical heart of the passage buried between two concrete images. The memory referenced can be read as many—winter in the form of "dead land", the previous spring, last year's lilacs—as can the desire—the lilac's desire to break out from "the dead land" and blossom, the longing of lovers in springtime, and, paradoxically, the desire to regress, to return to the memories evoked. Naturally, as with any poem, these associations are not exhaustive, but the specter of winter and past springs along with the ache of longing combine to make Byrd's description of the "mournful April lilacs" somewhat accurate. The cruelty consists in the limbo-like nature of the lilac's existence, longing for something yet to be achieved while still mired in the past.

Of course, "The Wasteland" is such a rich poem that this reading also ignores many of the themes and deeper complexities, but I hope I've at least pointed to some of them. The problem with Yglesias' interpretation is that it is seeking a plot to explain the given lines rather than dealing with the poetic content. His interpretation isn't wrong, just misguided in its concern with the less important aspects of the passage.