What’s in the Water? An Exploration of Mick Jenkins and T.S. Eliot by Screv6 Lyrics
My brain allows one half-formed thought to pass: what’s the difference between The Waste Land and The Water[s]? More importantly, what are the similarities?
The strongest connecting thread is, of course, the theme of water in both works. Revered modernist poet T.S. Eliot writes of a civilization deprived entirely of water; new-wave Chicago rapper Mick Jenkins raps of one which has turned its back on the liquid. The worlds both artists live in provide direct inspiration for these ideas: Eliot’s Waste Land was conceived in a global landscape reeling from the first World War and a personal landscape rocked by a recent mental collapse, and Jenkins’ Water[s] in one of the most violent cities “at peace” in American history
It goes without saying that these works are quite different. One is a groundbreaking poem that pervades modern literature, the other a mixtape from a little-known rapper yet to have a lasting impact. One explores meter and fragmentation and their relation and relevance to contemporary society, the other seeks to solidify a newcomer into the hip-hop scene. More tersely: one is high-brow, the other is low-brow. This doesn't limit either work, though
In fact, such characterizations are telling and even necessary. Eliot's intellectualism allowed him a voice that reached many in the early 20th century; Jenkins’s accessibility likewise allows him a voice that reaches far in the early 21st century. On the reverse, a Mick Jenkins would have a much smaller reach in Eliot’s context and the same could be said for Eliot in Jenkins’s shoes
But we need not consider a role reversal to explore The Water[s] and The Waste Land. As mentioned above, the foremost similarity is the importance both artists place on water - or, more specifically, the importance they place on the fact that people are not using enough water. Going a step further and assessing why each depicted society isn't getting water reveals one of the most basic differences here: Eliot describes a Europe where there simply is no water, while Jenkins describes an America where people choose not to drink enough water. This difference speaks to the dominant outlook of each: Eliot shows little hope for his world, while Jenkins sees a better future as merely one decision away. Perhaps this is because Eliot sees the problem as cultural whereas Jenkins sees it as individual. That difference does not, however, mean that their opinions of complicity differ. Eliot's Waste Land is cultural, but every individual contributed to its decay. Likewise, Jenkins's dehydration is individual, but it is a problem so commonplace as to affect the entire culture. In short, the problem in both is created by individuals, but spreads to the whole culture
General comparisons aside, it is more interesting to discuss the imagery employed by each artist; specifically, the images of water and the effect they have on the interpersonal relations of each work. The interpersonal relations in The Water[s] are decidedly more passionate than those in The Waste Land. The Water[s] depicts rape and it depicts love; it includes both family death and salvation. None of these experiences, which evoke the extremities of human emotion, are present in The Waste Land. There is a sex scene, but it is impersonal and emotionless. There is a death scene, but it is detached and unsentimental. This is central to Eliot’s message: the deprivation of culture has limited the range of human experience and emotion. For Jenkins, this is not true, as the deprivation doesn’t spread to the entire culture in his work as it does in Eliot’s
And that’s where the water comes in. Each artists’ depiction of water runs parallel to these ideas of passion and apathy. Jenkins uses water in a wide and varied way, with images ranging from the healing powers of water to its destructive powers. This allows his characters the full range of experiences mentioned above, and gives them emotional depth. There is a definite correlation: the images full with water carry a message that is hopeful and empowering; in the ones where there is a lack of water the message is much more somber and lamentable. In Eliot’s world, on the other hand, the image of water is constant: there is none. The only times water actually appears in the poem is when it signifies death or the longings of characters. Despite such divergent views on the problems of their respective cultures, each artist suggests similar solutions. First and foremost, both believe art - or themselves - to be potential saviors of the culture. This idea is, of course, communicated through the imagery of them bearing water. Both artists also find final solace in spirituality, again displayed through the presence of water.
The Waste Land has stood the test of time. Nearly one hundred years of readers have found Eliot's barren culture useful and relevant. The Water[s]s is much less likely to endure. However, just as Eliot showed us that modernism was here to stay, Jenkins has proven that rap music isn't going anywhere - and its new home is Chicago
The strongest connecting thread is, of course, the theme of water in both works. Revered modernist poet T.S. Eliot writes of a civilization deprived entirely of water; new-wave Chicago rapper Mick Jenkins raps of one which has turned its back on the liquid. The worlds both artists live in provide direct inspiration for these ideas: Eliot’s Waste Land was conceived in a global landscape reeling from the first World War and a personal landscape rocked by a recent mental collapse, and Jenkins’ Water[s] in one of the most violent cities “at peace” in American history
It goes without saying that these works are quite different. One is a groundbreaking poem that pervades modern literature, the other a mixtape from a little-known rapper yet to have a lasting impact. One explores meter and fragmentation and their relation and relevance to contemporary society, the other seeks to solidify a newcomer into the hip-hop scene. More tersely: one is high-brow, the other is low-brow. This doesn't limit either work, though
In fact, such characterizations are telling and even necessary. Eliot's intellectualism allowed him a voice that reached many in the early 20th century; Jenkins’s accessibility likewise allows him a voice that reaches far in the early 21st century. On the reverse, a Mick Jenkins would have a much smaller reach in Eliot’s context and the same could be said for Eliot in Jenkins’s shoes
But we need not consider a role reversal to explore The Water[s] and The Waste Land. As mentioned above, the foremost similarity is the importance both artists place on water - or, more specifically, the importance they place on the fact that people are not using enough water. Going a step further and assessing why each depicted society isn't getting water reveals one of the most basic differences here: Eliot describes a Europe where there simply is no water, while Jenkins describes an America where people choose not to drink enough water. This difference speaks to the dominant outlook of each: Eliot shows little hope for his world, while Jenkins sees a better future as merely one decision away. Perhaps this is because Eliot sees the problem as cultural whereas Jenkins sees it as individual. That difference does not, however, mean that their opinions of complicity differ. Eliot's Waste Land is cultural, but every individual contributed to its decay. Likewise, Jenkins's dehydration is individual, but it is a problem so commonplace as to affect the entire culture. In short, the problem in both is created by individuals, but spreads to the whole culture
General comparisons aside, it is more interesting to discuss the imagery employed by each artist; specifically, the images of water and the effect they have on the interpersonal relations of each work. The interpersonal relations in The Water[s] are decidedly more passionate than those in The Waste Land. The Water[s] depicts rape and it depicts love; it includes both family death and salvation. None of these experiences, which evoke the extremities of human emotion, are present in The Waste Land. There is a sex scene, but it is impersonal and emotionless. There is a death scene, but it is detached and unsentimental. This is central to Eliot’s message: the deprivation of culture has limited the range of human experience and emotion. For Jenkins, this is not true, as the deprivation doesn’t spread to the entire culture in his work as it does in Eliot’s
And that’s where the water comes in. Each artists’ depiction of water runs parallel to these ideas of passion and apathy. Jenkins uses water in a wide and varied way, with images ranging from the healing powers of water to its destructive powers. This allows his characters the full range of experiences mentioned above, and gives them emotional depth. There is a definite correlation: the images full with water carry a message that is hopeful and empowering; in the ones where there is a lack of water the message is much more somber and lamentable. In Eliot’s world, on the other hand, the image of water is constant: there is none. The only times water actually appears in the poem is when it signifies death or the longings of characters. Despite such divergent views on the problems of their respective cultures, each artist suggests similar solutions. First and foremost, both believe art - or themselves - to be potential saviors of the culture. This idea is, of course, communicated through the imagery of them bearing water. Both artists also find final solace in spirituality, again displayed through the presence of water.
The Waste Land has stood the test of time. Nearly one hundred years of readers have found Eliot's barren culture useful and relevant. The Water[s]s is much less likely to endure. However, just as Eliot showed us that modernism was here to stay, Jenkins has proven that rap music isn't going anywhere - and its new home is Chicago