TextSpace

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.

Julia Kristeva’s article was hard for me to grasp at times so it might be the case that my interpretation is not completely correct. It appears that she presents readers with a dichotomy in poetic language which consists of symbolic and the semiotic, where the semiotic is repressed by the symbolic. Therefore, readers must interpret the use of poetic devices to uncover the latent content of a poem. I understood the symbolic to refer to the rules of such institutions as grammar and such while the semiotic to refer to language before it is influenced by rules, judgments, etc. Kristeva shows us how deeply imbedded political activity is in poetic discourse, and she feels that the ethics of such discourse is something we should be aware of.

I liked this week’s reading better than any of the critical articles we have read thus far, and I think this is because both Hughes’ and Rich’s essay called for a social and cultural quality to be present in poetry. Hughes wanted to make poetry that exhibited and was true to the culture of black Americans, and so his poems do talk of many aspects of black culture. Hughes does not like the fact that young blacks are being taught to be ashamed of who they are and do not see themselves as having value. Therefore, he calls for black Americans to stand up and be individuals in the face of standardization and uses his work as an example.

I liked the fact that Apollinaire does not suggest eradicating certain poetic conventions. He sees the importance of the written word too and what it can do for a poem. However, he seems to feel that the poet should be free to move beyond these conventions. Technological advancements creates so many new possibilities in poetry. It also advances the freedom of subject matter a poet has to work with. He doesn’t want to attack any approach or school. I think that this eclectic approach creates better poetry because poets can use what is good from a variety of poetry. This approach opens up new avenues and directions for poetry.

Maurice Blanchot’s text gave me a great deal to think about. I did not find it to be particularly difficult, but it gave me so much to wrap my mind around that I am still not sure I understand it all. He appears to say that language is nothing, it is only evoked and never really a being. Language is thought and we can’t hear thought. I can really see the meaningless of language when I consider how words have died out over time or how they have changed to mean different things over time. The representation of an object with a word is arbitrary. Therefore, if we decided a tree would now be called a cow then it makes no difference. I’m not sure that is what he is saying or not. I still have a lot to work through with this article.

It might be possible to consider this essay about poetry a piece of prose poetry in itself. The structure of the poem as well as its contents point me in this direction. He personifies a line a poetry by describing it as something that breathes. His sentences contain interjections and start in the middle of an idea at time, which is very different from conventional prose. Capitalization is sometimes forgotten, word are italicized for emphasis, poetic pieces are included within the essay. While “proper” essay may use such techniques occasionally, it appears that this essay is meant to be read as a kind of poem. Since I was reading this essay for information, I found it difficult at times to follow what kind of argument Olsen was presenting. I found his writing style in this essay to be distracting and confusing at certain points.

Baraka’s article stresses the importance of knowing the process by which the final artistic product is forged. I can see that importance for both readers and writers to pay attention to the process of making a poem. Although, it is difficult for me to undo my mindset of focusing on the final product. I liked the example she gave of the academician and the aesthete as worshiping things, which makes them seem like Gods to themselves. This is a very Western way of thinking about art. However, I agree with the comment that someone made in their blog (I think Jay) which was a disagreement with Baraka’s claim that the imitator is pitiful. Imitation can be good and bad. It just depends on how the imitation is done and for what purposes.

Tsur brought up many interesting points in his article about the role sound patterns play in poetry. The relationship between sound and meaning is very complex. This article made me look at the expressive sound patterns in a poem and how they can add meaning to a poem. An individual phonological unit can evoke certain themes and moods in the poem. This is in part may be related to what kind of phonological units the consonants are. For example, /m/ and /n/, which are nasals, create a negative sound in many poems. Nasal consonants tend to rake across the ears, which results in these sounds to be viewed in a negative manner. Of course, the meaning of a word as a whole can affect a person’s perception as well. Looking at the phonemes can also help explain how and why the sound device of onomatopoeia works. For example, /p/ and /t/ are stops while /r/ and /l/ are liquids. I think that since /p/ and /t/ sounds make the air flow stop when pronounced they perfectly illustrate why onomatopoeia words such as “drop” and “hit” works so well. The individual sound of the consonants mimic the action of dropping and hitting since in both instances stops are involved. Another example would be the word “roll” since the liquid /r/ and /l/ flows along because of the tongues position when it is pronounced which creates a sense of rolling. I'm not if that makes sense or not.

Before this article I had never heard of sounds having color such as front vowels being bright while back vowels are considered to be dark. At first this seems a little far fetched, but I think that there is truth to this claim when I think about it. Do we pick up more from individual sounds than we realize? If so, I guess that would mean that we repress those things. What would be a Freudian explanation of why we would repress those things? Do people always associate the same color with vowels and how could such a difference be problematic? I suppose I have more questions than anything from this article.

Figures of speech are often so common that we understand them in an “intuitive flash” since we interpret them unconsciously. They can complicate poetry by twisting the meanings of words so that a poem may seem to mean one thing on the surface but a closer look reveals complicated systems and meanings at work in the poem. Looking deeper at how figures of speech are employed in poetry opens up a deeper, fuller reading of a poem. It provides many new insights that a surface reading would not call to attention. I thought that the example given of Blake’s poem effectively illustrated how figurative language works in this way. By exploring the figurative language in the poem McLaughlin shows us that the child’s use of such language discloses that “the category [the child] shares with the lamb is one that [the child] has created.” This is an excellent example of how closely observing figurative language change the whole meaning of a poem.

I think that is useful for not only readers, but writers of poetry as well to be aware of how the “proper” meaning of words can be twisted. Figurative language can often make poetry a very intricate piece of work, even more so than the author intends at times. For example, the text states that Blake might have intended for his God to be seen as innocent but an examination of the figurative language in the poem divulges a God that is powerful and not so innocent. Playing with figures in language can help writers create more complicated and more unique, creative poems. Of course, just throwing a bunch of figurative language together would not be good poetry. However, if done properly and at the right place and time, figurative language can greatly enhance the quality of poetry. Without delving into the figurative language of Blake’s poem, it might appear to be simple and boring.

McLaughlin’s discussion of personification was also interesting. I have always found this topic to be fascinating. I like how poetry can utilize this technique to bring about a new reading for me. In the Blake poem personification gives readers insight into the child’s feelings that his world is “a harmonious and peaceful natural world.“ This article was a good review of the different kinds of figurative language such as metaphor, apostrophe, simile, etc. I knew the meanings and uses of these types of language, but it was nice to see clear examples of how they are used in poetry. It was also a good reminder to keep a lookout for these figures when I read. Sometimes we can glance over figures of language and not realize their importance to the poem.

For my response I will deal mostly with Easthope’s chapter 6. I’m not sure I understand him completely, but I will try to respond the best I can. I found his discussion of iconicity to be intriguing. Easthope mentions several ways in which readers can recognize iconicity such as looking at a word’s phonetic properties, intonation, etc. Iconicity seems like a slippery word to me in the sense that it appears to be subjective. For example, I am not sure I understand his explanation of why he considers the iconicity of Sonnet 73 lies in the way the words resemble the speaking of an individual voice. Who is to say that the speaker presents a coherent representation that is vivid and substantial? It may be the case that some readers do not feel that the poem achieves such a representation and therefore lack iconicity. There is probably more to his argument that I am not getting.

Easthope’s talk of music and the use of natural sounds made me think of our discussion of Langston Hughes’ poem “The Weary Blues.” The suffering of the blues singer is expressed through not only the words of the poem but the sound of those words as well. Sound imitates the subject matter and emotions of the speaker. For example, when I read the poem out loud I can hear the sadness of the blues. The poem contains the long “o” sounds and makes use of onomatopoeia. I think that this is a great poetic technique that many poets have abandoned. Music and sound are an important aspect to poetry and if used properly can greatly enhance poetry.

I found Amy Lowell’s argument in Poetry as a Spoken Art to be very insightful. It made me seriously consider the way I approach poetry. I always knew that sound was an important aspect to poetry, but I hardly ever think to read a poem out loud. I always make the mistake of thinking of poetry in terms of printed words on a page. While the visual aspect of poetry is important and can give readers an legitimate understanding of the poem, sound is just as, if not more, important. It is true that readers miss out on so much if they do not take into consideration the audible aspect of poetry. I am now making myself read poetry out loud and it really does bring something different and new to the poem.

I agree with the author that rhythm is essential to poetry. I do not always recognize the specific rhyme patterns, meter, etc that are being used in a poem, but most of the time I am able to realize that there is some kind of musical quality, rhythmic patterns at work in the poem. I cannot think of a poem that does not have some kind of rhythm. However, I sometimes have a hard time understanding how those rhythmic patterns play into the overall meaning of the poem.

Lowell seems to feel that part of the problem with reading poetry out loud is that it is often does incorrectly. I felt that she was saying that readings of poetry should be natural and that readings should not be forced or acted out. For the most part, I agree with this notion. I think that it does an injustice to the poem and the author when someone reads in a manner that is overdramatic or in a manner that seeks to shock audiences when the poem doesn’t call for such a reading. On the other hand, I think that a performative aspect can be worked into the reading of a poem. This should be given a lot of consideration by the reader so that the poem is not overshadowed by the performance because I think the goal of the performance should be to enhance the poem, not take away from it.

Leavis seems to be saying that 19th century poetry often cut itself off from what was happening in the real world. 19th century poetry exemplified an unrealistic approach by dealing with dream worlds, an idealistic natural world, etc. Such poetry did not take into consideration the complexity of social and political issues of their culture. It sounds like Leavis considered 19th century poetry to be more fluff than substance. He feels that it is essential that poets show that they are “fully alive in our time” and “be adequate to modern life.” Leavis argues that T.S. Eliot is a good example of what good poetry should be because he is able to be a critic and a poet in his works. Eliot uses wit and irony to make social comments yet he does not ignore poetic elements such as metrical devices and a sense of tradition.

I think that there is a place for both modern and 19th century techniques in good poetry. Although, I personally prefer poems that are more on the realistic side. There is a time and place for the dream world and the real world. I think that people can identify more easily with modern poetry because of its subject matter. Poetry can have many functions and one is not necessarily more important than another. Readers can gain a great deal of understanding from them all if the poet is able to create a good poem.

I agree with Brooks that poems should not be reduced to just one meaning. Poetry can have multiple meanings depending on who is reading the poem, the time period, etc. I think it is beneficial to look at poem as a poem. However, I do not feel that this means contextual information should be ignored. Neither approach should be abandoned. Each brings different perspectives and new insights. Each brings a new experience since as Brooks states the poem itself is an experience. I think that Brooks is excluding some very important considerations a reader must take on in order to truly appreciate poetry.

It is important for a poet to know their literary past according to T.S. Elliot. I feel that Elliot has a valid argument because knowing one’s past often results in writers being more aware of their own time. The past can give writers guidance and direction, which will result in better works. Knowing past literature can benefit writers in the sense that they can learn to improve upon and expand upon their predecessors so that new, creative, fresh poetry will emerge. I do not feel that it is essential to a great deal about past poets, but I do feel that some knowledge will lead to better writing.

I had some trouble with The Ister Hymn by Martin Heidegger. It seems that this article is arguing that the binaries of sensuous and spiritual meanings are not sufficient enough for modern poetry which blurs and crisscrosses these categories. I found the statement that language is the shaper of man, not man the shaper of language to be interesting. You have to have something (language) to respond to, so there first must be language. Overall, I am pretty confused by this article.

Brooks brings up an approach to viewing poetry that I thought to be important. It is important to look at a work of poetry as piece unto itself. For example, readers often take into consideration Wordsworth’s biography when trying to understand his poetry. While this type of reading certainly has its place, but the poem should be able to speak for itself as well. Reading a poem in both ways could bring readers various aware nesses and viewpoints concerning the meaning of a poem that only one approach may have overlooked. When I read a poem I want to get as much as possible from it, and I feel these different approaches would only enhance my understanding.

In his introduction to Poetry in Theory, Jon Cook talks of the difference between modern poetry and the poetry that came before it. He gives readers insight into the sometimes complicated debates and discussions surrounding this difference. I like the fact that he address many diverse views. Before reading this text I also assumed that Modern poetry consisted of poems written in the 20th century. Modern poetry is not limited to certain time periods, instead it is concerned with questioning and challenging what a poem is suppose to be. There is no “single” modern poem. This kind of poetry can break away from traditional meter, it can use traditional elements such as Greek allusions and have a consciousness of the past, and it can use elevated or common language. I think the beauty and greatness of modern poetry lies in the fact that a poet’s creativity is given complete freedom. Poets are not locked into a particular style, which can limit their work.

I also found Cook’s discussion of the role of the poet and the reader interesting. This introduction states that sometimes poets can be viewed as heroes and the poem as a heroic action. To some degree I believe that this is true. I think that the poets of a society have an obligation to bear witness to what is happening in their world and to be the catalysts for change. Poets and other artists tend to be the freest people in society, and so I think it is important for them to give society a different way of seeing things. They are such a vital part of society. One of the roles of reader mentioned by Cook included the role of reader as critic. This raises many questions for me. Should someone who does not write poetry be able to criticize and understand the poem? Or does it even matter? I don’t think that readers can completely ignore the author’s intent and at the same time I think that readers can bring their own interpretations and insights to the poem as well.