The Waste Land as Satire

[Thomas Eckhardt]

David Simpson wrote:

> There is another sense in which The Waste Land qualifies. Among other things
> it offers a fair example of "Menippean" satire  (to use a term from Northrop
> Frye's ANATOMY OF CRITICISM that would also seem to apply particularly well
> to Pynchon's novels.) Named for a Greek poet (whose works are now lost), the
> Menippean work, according to Frye, is characterized by multiple styles
> (including the mingling of prose and rhyme, polished verse and doggerel),
> outrageous or vivid characters, plots laden with theories and ideas,
> fragmentary composition, and lavish displays of learning. This seems to me
> to be a useful, if inadequate, description of  Eliot's poem (I agree that
> The Waste Land simply has too many powerfully emotional and elegiac elements
> to be completely reduced to the cartoonlike status of the Menippean mode).
> It also seems like a fairly dead-on characterization of V. and Lot 49.

Having sought out again the passage from Frye's book (309-310) - which I alluded
to in my commentary after merely having skimmed the section because I mainly was
trying to find some support for my argument concerning farce in Pynchon - I
think I am now coming to a closer understanding of this. I know that Terrance
has been arguing that Pynchon's works are basically Menippean Satires for quite
some time, but usually his posts just go far over my head, whereas this is
something my mind can really get a grip on (it seems necessary nowadays to add
that by saying this no implicit insult to neither of you is intended, the exact
opposite is the case).

But (cunningly) what about Heart of Darkness? Multiple styles? No. Plots laden
with theories and ideas? Not really. Fragmentary composition? No. Lavish
displays of learning? No. Outrageous or vivid characters? Hmmm, come to think of
it, yes. On the other hand: Powerful "emotional and elegiac moments". Yes,
certainly...

As for Pynchon, on the whole I agree with you. But does traditional Menippean
Satire tell us about or take into account historical atrocities the way Pynchon
does? Is there perhaps a significant difference between traditional MS and
modern MS?

Thomas