TextSpace

Given the change in our plan for the last class, I thought I should advise you on the collection of the portfolios. So please, sometime before 12/9, collect your contributions to this community blog space (and anything you added to the wiki), print and leave with me or in my LEO 110 mailbox. Think link with your name on this page should pull up all of your authored posts (but not comments).

Instead of printing the screens, which may result in a long think column that stretches a hundred pages, you may find it easiest to cut/paste from the blog into MSWord. It's often interesting when students include a cover-letter reflecting on their use of the blog; but I won't require it.

If you discover an easy way to list all the comments you've posted, please let us all know! I'm missing how to do it myself. Search doesn't work; this link may.

• James
  

• Imad
  

• Lucas
  

• Matt
  

• Allison
  

• Elizabeth
  

• Rachel
  

• Tino
  

• Whitney
  

• Dan
  

• Jay
  

• Marlena
  

• DJ
  

• Wan Li
  

• Betsy
  

• Lindsay
  

• Elizabeth K
  

Looking over the posts which I have made over the semester, I realized that in one of my posts, I really never responded at all and merely posted Wanda Coleman’s poem. Due to this, and in order not to do less work than my fellow classmates, I have decided to write an extra post.

I found it very interesting to read the progression of, not only poetry, but poetic theory as it evolved through the twentieth century. I found the terms that we discussed every week very helpful and was surprised at times by how complex they tended to be. Even though I have studied poetics for quite some time, I discovered quickly that although I may recognize a word and think I understand it, it is very difficult to formulate a fitting definition of such a term. I was also surprised that some terms existed with such a multitude of meanings. Irony, for instance.

I am conflicted in that I wish we would have read over more poetry, but, I would not have wanted to read any less theory. The workload may have been too much if more poetry were added, but the subject is so rich with the need for so much to go over it was necessary to be thin in some areas. Of all that was encountered, however, I would believe poems to be what most of the class had the greatest history of reading, therefore it is only fitting that this be the area to be left somewhat slim. By no means, however, do I feel that this area was lacking, which may sound opposed to what was just said, but if we would have had more time, I would have enjoyed more poetry.

The theory was probably what I enjoyed most. Some of the theorists were familiar, though I had not read that specific article. I liked Heidegger and Olson, probably two of my favorite. I wish we could have worked with a little theory dealing with aurality versus text, but realize that it really didn’t exist within the text. As we both know it takes at least a semester to cover that anyway.

“The characteristic style of ‘Modern’ poetry is an intimate tone of voice, the speech of one person addressing one person, not a large audience…its characteristic hero is neither the ‘Great Man’ nor the romantic rebel, both doers of extraordinary deeds, but the man or woman in any walk of life who, despite all the impersonal pressures of modern society, manages to acquire and preserve a face of his own” (382). Auden

Of all the reading this week, it was this quote that most caught my eye and a passage which I spent most time meditating on. Auden’s words here are significant because they encapsulate very well, not every aspect of what separates poetry of the last fifty years from poems of many years before, nor is it applicable to every poem written in the past fifty years, but it is one facet which holds very true to describing a difference between, as he states it “Modern” poetry, from poetry before hand. Many poems before this time were more of a declaration made by a Poet (a “Great Man”) rather than a poet, to a wide audience, pontificating about a grand idea. Such can be seen in may of the “Odes” which permeate poetry in the past few hundred years.

Many poets of today are more down to earth and have lowercased the “p”, becoming the ordinary folks rather than an other. Personally this is one reason why I am fonder of poetry of the last fifty years than that of centuries past. Poetry of this type is more engaging to a wider range of people, even if is still contains elements which are difficult to understand or ascertain a meaning from. The poetry speaks to the common man or woman and has the potential to present the ordinary in a manner not normally seen and may allow the audience to gain a greater understanding for this idea or object.

This may also be one of my hang-ups with Eliot. For him, the audience should understand a great deal of history in relation to poetry and bring this knowledge to his poetry in order to gain a greater understanding. Eliot would probably greatly dislike the manner in which poetry has evolved and how few pay close attention to poetry’s past. In closing, I enjoyed working with all of you through out this semester and took pleasure in expanding my knowledge in poetry and poetry in theory. I look forward to working with all of you in the future.

I missed responding last week, but I’ll respond to both here as I believe Enzensberger and Auden are related.

Enzensberger didn’t use the word, but I am always taken that literary theory often ‘interrogates’ a text, which is the concept he had me thinking throughout. And although he doesn’t offer any solutions to allowing students to choose their poetry versus academic measure (and after thinking about the class discussion), I don‘t expect any solutions.

In a personal context, an “extreme reader response” (Sherwood) is fine--people can agree to disagree (or fight it out) and walk away. But in an educational context, the relationship between teacher and student requires an assessment/grade, and I can’t think of a way around this necessary evil; interpreting poetry seems to be such a personal act which ideally should be above judgment.

This “freedom” to interpret can be brought through Auden as the freedom to express (I think the writing bug is more about expression than creation). Why writing? It’s typically is low tech (pencil, paper), copying is relatively cheap (to a point, if distributing is a goal), and one high tech step (computer and internet) gets around print copy and distribution entirely. On this last one, it is incredible the amount of writing that occurs online: the amount of time people spend contributing to blogs (us), personal websites, Amazon reviews, in-depth product reviews, Wikipedia entries, etc (and anything where an opinion is requested). Combine writing with poetry as perhaps the most personal form of expression (especially ambiguous works), along with it being elitist (or perceived as such, like appreciaters of classical music) and often subversive or at least challenging (a catch-22 may be that poetry as a more popular, lucrative field would destroy its power; and the ratio of co-opted poetry would be larger), and I can see why Auden would hold poets as relatively pure (and difficult to manage).

Also on Auden, I liked the connection between the illiterate peasant and the poet, and although they may have similar reservations about authority, the perspective may be different (not that Auden implies the following): suspicions may develop from not enough knowledge of a system, the other from too much knowledge of system (and the middle having just enough knowledge and apathy to participate successfully); regretfully, my immediate thought was that it would be the poet who would have too much knowledge (assuming here a keen eye), but a poet may be as naïve to a situation as the “peasant” is wise.

Theodore Adorno's criticism has interested me personally since I first encountered his and Max Horkheimer's media criticism as an undergraduate. As a dual magazine journalism and English major, his theories about advertising and the media (fun fact for anyone who's intereseted: Horkheimer and Adorno were German exhiles living and working in Hollywood) attracted me, and probably played some slight role in my decision not to become a journalist. I hadn't encountered his ideas about poetry before (though I knew something of his criticism of Enlightenment and Romantic thinking), but I find in it much of the same appeal I had for his other work, particularly in its discussion of the dialectic between the "I" and society. I think it is important to note, however, the difference in Adorno's definition of language from those held by many of the other poets and critics we've read this semester. Adorno notes this definition in his statement that "language mediates lyric poetry and society in their innermost core." The second direct object in the clause refers to this definition, that language "mediates" the individual's experience of the world and what society is on a broader level. This may seem closely alligned with Wittgenstein's propositon, that language is our experience of the world, but a world of difference lies between. For me, this distinction makes the idea of subjectivity constructed through language a much more real and sensible proposition. Adorno's thesis, "that the lyric work is always the subjective expression of a social antagonism," seems like a much more believable statement than some other theorists ideas of identity construction through subjectivity in language because of the place Adorno assigns language in his model. While he states that "language should not be absolutized as the voice of Being as opposed to the lyric subject," he does separate language from concepts and from society, though both use it and are connected by it. Language is "the medium of concepts," a substance for both making and conveying them, but the transmission is not a one-to-one send/recieve communication.

In this article, Auden discusses the impact of culture on literature in general and poetry in particular; his stance is, “modern culture's and how these restrict the poet's capacity.” After giving a brief but very effective description of conditions and status of literature at present and the attitude of people toward it, “This fascination is not due to the nature of art itself, but to the way in which an artist works…”, he gives four reasons for this state of affairs in literature in the twentieth century:
(1) “The loss of belief in the eternity of the physical universe.”:

(2) “The loss of belief in the significance and reality of sensory phenomena.”

(3) Present culture “has completely changed the meaning of the word tradition. It no longer means a way of working handed down from one generation to the next; a sense of tradition now means a consciousness of the whole of the past as present, yet at the same time as a structured, whole the parts of which are related in terms of before and after. Originality no longer means a slight modification in the style of one's immediate predecessors; it means a capacity to find in any work of any date or place a clue to finding one's authentic voice. The burden of choice and selection is put squarely upon the shoulders of each individual poet and it is a heavy one.” and (4) The disappearance of the Public Realm as the sphere of revelatory personal deeds.

If we look at the history of literature and study various phases closely, we find that literature of every age is shaped and restricted by the culture and criteria of that period. For example, Marlowe, Shakespeare, and other writers and poets of Elizabethan age created the literature of particular taste and form because the age and culture, and temperament of that time demanded that type of literature from them. It is branded ‘the Elizabethan Literature’ for its own idiosyncrasies. The Restoration and the Augustan writers had to produce the literature that their reading public required, and the restrictions of that culture demanded. The Augustan would and could not write the way the Elizabethans would because their reading public was different from that of the Elizabethan age and the mood of the age was different. The social, economic, and new philosophies of Newton and De Carte restrict them to write in a particular way. Lock and Shaftsbury made them see man in a particular light and goaded them to write satires that would meet the demand of the age. In the same way, Romantic poetry was framed by particular culture and sensibility.

I really got into the Adorno more than the other two readings for the week. Admittedly this may be less because it was intreging and more because I worked with the term "lyric" for this week and so ended up doing a lot of research on the subject. But more on that in class.

I really enjoyed Adorno's idea of the lyric poem and it's relation to society. I like the idea of the poem transcending meanings to represent that which is missing in a society. I especially liked how Adrono reminds the reader that the content of social protest must come from within the text and not from the author's personal ideals. I really didn't expect to connect with adorno in this way as my previous exposure to him was only that he said in response to the poem "Death Fugue" that "it was barbaric to write poetry after auschwitz." I was surprised that he would feel this way as he states that "lyric poetry is always the subjective work of social antagonism" and the usefulness of this type of poetry to represnt a discord between it and the occurances of society.

What a pleasure to see the flurry of posting even in the last leg of the marathon, and congratulations to W.H. for inspiring it. There's a few minutes until class and no one at my door, so I'll jot a few thoughts....

Is Auden serious or humorously provocative in throwing stones at would-be writers? Probably both ... to put in elitest context, he probably would also say that there are only 10 or 15 living poets of talent writing in the English language today. In that light, the fact that hundreds or thousands are employed in Creative Writing Programs, where thousands of students pay serious money to become writers, publish in a 1000 or more literary journals suggests to me he'd find the situation unchanged.

I took the more scathing point to be his observation of how little else in contemporary life has the potential to be fulfilling, as he contrasts craft from assembly-line work. The notion is that the "idea" of writing now has to serve the psychic/emotional needs that might have been met by many many ways of life "once upon a time."

It has the element of a fable to it, sure. But at a poetry slam, I sometimes ponder what doing writing or being a writer means to the participants. Few can reasonable hope, do aspire, or perhaps would even consider it goal worthy to approach the model of Auden. Some are not interested in reading other's poetry, perfecting "their art," not concerned with making something timeless or any of the other dimensions of what makes a writer a writer in Auden's eyes. And it's not primarily the space for social resistance of the powerless -- though slams do have a bit of the agonistic quality and social consciousness Cronyn sees in South Africa. For most, there seems a pleasure in the play and the authentic making of "my" poem. The pride and pleasure in an individual act.

Here for me Adorno comes in, as he suggests not the poet but a poem or poetry takes its value from its partial (and very complicated) distancing from the dominant value system in society. A poet whom we have not read but whom Bernstein quotes, Steve McCaffery, celebrates the power of poetry as representing a "wasteful" econmony ... where one devotes amazing energy into the creation or reception of a "product" that won't sell. There's an analogy with the gift-giving ritual of potlatch where a family gives away all its possessions, with no guarantee but an expectation of receiving reciprocation in the future.

Adorno’s essay on lyric poetry reveals interesting facts about the origin or the central kind of modern poetry. There is this relationship between a man or a poet being sensitive to the Muse and being able to talk about lyric poetry and society. Insensitivity to the lyric poetry might result in treating lyric works as objects to demonstrate sociological theses (Adorno 343). Adorno’s essay made me realize that it is important for the lyric poetry work itself to reflect the dimensions within it, in relation to the society around it.

The idea of the social interpretation of lyric poetry was another important point in the article. It makes sense that this social interpretation of lyric works should focus on discovering how the society itself is represented in the lyric work. I believe such works should be in direct relationship to the society surrounding it, and should reflect and represent its nature and values.

The language in the lyric poetry is a significant element in the lyric poetry. I agree with the idea that language should be the voice of the lyric work, and not far from it. I think language gives an identity to the lyric work and reflects the situations surrounding it.

Cronin's essay was an interesting one because it dealt with poetry in a similar way as the Rich article did, since Cronin is basically saying that oral poetry in South Africa is politically charged. This was a particularly interesting essay to read because it comes from a time when Cronin and other South African blacks were still suffering under the oppression of apartheid, which makes it emerge from different kinds of issues than some of the other essays in the Poetry in Theory book.

Since I seem to have written more in the margins of the Auden piece than any other, I suppose I should like to write about that one. I agree with Dj regarding the introduction and the funny notion of the glamourous world of writing.

Like many others in the class, I too was intrigued by W.H. Auden’s article. I found Auden’s article to be rather amusing and an interesting weaving of art, politics, and society.

Some have already commented on the article’s opening paragraph, but I thought I would as well. When I first read Auden’s comments about so many young people wanting to be writers, or specifically creative writers, my first instinct was to check and see when the article was written. Knowing that the article was written in 1962 definitely helps to give some context to Auden’s comments.

I can't believe we are at the last post of the semester. Where does the time go? I too have a few comments on Auden, including having a good, if astonished, laugh at the introduction. I'm quite sure that no one writes for money. That's why young people become rappers and clothing designers. To be a writer is a relatively obscure and low paying profession, and if anybody's falling back on something, it might be writers falling back on teaching, but that doesn't pay very well either. That's my essay for another class, though.

To Write

I, too, must admit that I really didn’t enjoy any of this weeks reading. However, if I have to choose to discuss them, I chose to discuss Auden’s essay. Like most I picked up on his descriptions of the young “would-be writers.” Personally, I took some offense to this because I am a “writer,” though I will admit that when I was young I wanted to be a lawyer. However, when thinking about law, I realized that there were too many criminals for me to take that path. Therefore, here I am writer, poet and doctoral student. 

First thing . . . I laughed so hard while reading the intro to Auden’s article that I almost passed out. I have come across some memorable quotes before in academic work, but Auden’s assertion about young people who say they want to be writers as follows, “Among these would-be writers, the majority have no marked literary gift” (379) is by far one of the most memorable things I have read, and those words will not leave me soon. I shudder to think how many dreams have been shattered upon those uncompromising rocks of his words.

I thought that “The Poet and the City” by W. H. Auden addressed some pertinent issues concerning the occupation of writing. He shows concern over the direction artists in today’s technologically advanced world have taken. He specifically spells out the difficulties artists face in modern society and gives readers what he considers to be the four aspects of this decline. These aspects really gave me a great deal to think about and for the most part I agree with Auden’s viewpoint.

W. H. Auden’s article presented some very interesting information. He claims that many young people in today’s society do not know what to do with their lives so they decide that they will writers even though they lack any literary gift. If someone is untalented they tend to fall back on the profession of writing. He feels that this may be the result of industrialization and its harmful effects. Industries replace independent artisans while mass production alienates labor so that individual contributions can no longer be recognized. Therefore, Auden argues that young people do not want to be just a number, and so they cling to writing because it one of the only professions left where “the artist remains personally responsible for what he makes.” Of course everyone wants to be in control of themselves and what they do.

I have to say this week's readings were not my favorites of the sememster. Kristeva was a little over my head. I found the article intersting, but I read it several times and I'm not quite sure I grasped the concept.

On Julia Kristeva’s “the Ethics of Linguistics”

I am always amazed by the fact that language seems to be the only means we have in order to support the optimistic claim that “no one is an island.” However, the very means we rely upon creates problems, such as representation and interpretation, from which language scholarships derive.