TextSpace

The term poetic language is a re-occuring subject in this course, as well as defining the the term, and identifying its functions and differences in the structure of language. In all of the readings for today, there is a push to keep poetic language free from the constructs of everyday language restrictions.

I find it interesting to discover a debate on feminism, racism, and anti-Semitism is somehow included in trying to define poetry as well. I guess I can recognize that all of these issues are outside of the 'normal tradition' and are therefore, counter-culture, or against the norm as issues or definitions.

Both of these readings are talking about language in the way that it serves many meanings. The “proper” or “ordinary language”, different terms applied by McLaughlin and Forrest-Thomson, refer to language in the everyday context- accepted definitions and meanings of words as they occur in reality. Poetry plays with these meanings, rather than creating new ones, and also uses associations that are attached with words, to change the context of the word into a metaphor, or another meaning of the word. However, both authors seem to agree that language would not exist in a context if it were not based on experience.
Language can be seen as a way to re-imagine, or re-create these experiences beyond the realm of experience in the outside world. McLaughlin refers to language as a ‘system of values’, admitting as Thomson does, that language is a cultural context that is always changing as a culture changes and develops. Both authors seem to agree on this, but they do not take this theory further and explain then how poetry can be seen as universal. If verse and poetic structure do not translate well between languages, and language is a culturally rooted system, then poetry really is not universal at all but dependent on these systems, even if only to distort or add to current systems. McLaughlin adds that language and culture, figures and systems, are inevitable in any use of language. We cannot remove ourselves from the reality with which we live in.
Both authors identify language as only existing when there is some sort of battle going on- when the meaning has an antecedent to compare it to. Figurative contrasts with Proper language, discontinuity cannot exist without continuity- these are the aspects that make poetry the language of paradox. It is this constant battle in language that keeps it open to new meanings for words. Language is based on experience and cultural associations that have developed with words.
McLaughlin defines the tools that poets use to add figurative meanings to words- i.e. metaphor, simile, personification and metonymy. Forrest-Thomson argues for us to look at the silent tools in poetry- the capitalizations, punctuations, and rhythm. Free verse, she argues, is a challenge of these non-verbalized conventions as well. There is no rhythm that is comfortable to the ear when reading free verse, and the rhythm would only be comfortable in that it is based on cultural conventions.
I think these essays bring up a very fundamental question of the limits of language, in questioning how culturally rooted language and definitions of words are. Although they do not discuss this, I think that is what makes poetry so difficult to translate as well- these quiet tools of rhythm and syntax do not translate across languages or cultures.

I think the most difficult point of understanding this reading is keeping all of the terms that the author uses organized, and also to keep track of all of the different theories that he introduces and builds on by using these terms.
From what I can tell, the most important aspect of poetry that makes it different from other discourses is the way that it is abstract. Its meaning is defined through the signifiers and not the signified, and is constantly changing each time poetry is being read by an audience and time period that changes. I believe that this is what Easthope refers to as the machine- the idea that poetry is continuously being read and changing its meaning. (I could be way off here). The ghost refers to Eliot’s theory of Tradition, in which all poetry is in some way related to, or based on previous works of poetry. The ghost is the pre-existing works of poetry from which the author cannot escapes its influence.
I’m not sure that I can easily grasp Easthope’s idea of a machine. If the author chose to use his own terms and keep these terms constant throughout the argument, this text would be a lot easier to comprehend. I tried to keep a list between Signified and Signifier, listing all of the attributes and functions the text identifies for both terms. But when it comes to understanding the Signifier, it can only be defined in abstract terms and cannot exist without the signifier, but yet is still to be considered independent in its meaning. This very definition of dependency and independence of the signified is contradictory.
The author focuses so much of his argument on defending that discourse, and language is not transparent; it is not a straightforward transfer of words between the addresser and the addressee. I’m not sure in the English language, with how many words that do have duplicitous meanings, that his fervent defense is necessary. Of course, his argument is much more linguistically structured and complex than I am representing here. I have to admit with this type of reading that when you are in the act of reading, the text seems to be clear and make sense. However, when you try to summarize the theories, it is difficult not to get muddled in the difficult terminology.

I liked this reading for the fact that it discusses the meaning of a poem- what can be understood as within the poem itself, and what meanings are extrapolated or interpreted from the poem. While I get the feeling that form and structure of poetry are still important for this author, he warns against understanding a poem by its structure alone. Where last week the author claims that “Poetry is the language of Paradox”, in this particular section he identifies irony as the primary tool of correctly understanding the poem’s meaning. “And therefore, if we persist in approaching the poem as primarily a rational statement, we ought not to be surprised if the statements seems to be presented to us always in the ironic mode” (211). Just as paradox pairs ideas in conflict with one another, so does irony present something one way, when it is meant to be the understood in context of the opposite. In a lengthy discussion of form and content, what can be understood from the poem, and the mistakes that can be made in attempting to paraphrase, or summarize the poems’ most obvious meanings, Brook’s forces the everyday student to question everything in the poem before making hasty conclusions about the poems’ meaning. I liked this reading in that it questions the commonly accepted modes for studying poetry in the classroom setting. And at the same time he is supporting the necessity of form in poetry, Brooks also digresses from allowing the form to dictate the meaning of a poem.
Brooks also discusses the role of the author in poetry, claiming that “The perils of biographical bias”(183) can taint a readers’ understanding. In other words, by trying to find biographical facts of the author in the characters, voice, or symbolism within the poem, the reader becomes distracted and off-course in trying to understand the poem. “In the total activity, one can separate the actor from the action only by an act of abstraction” (185). Clearly, Brooks associates abstraction as a necessary tool, just as paradox and irony are, to understanding a poem. Abstraction, in this sense is meant to remove the language and meaning of poetry from everyday associations, biographical bias, and a reliance of form and structure to give definition to a poem. I think i'm still working with all of the compact information Brooks included in this reading, amidst the several examples and ambiguous language he uses himself.

Brook's section on The Language of Paradox was interesting to me. I am returning to my previous entry of questioning the author's role in writing poetry, and what the author includes that is intentional and what is not. Brooks uses Wordsworth as an example. After pages of examples that Wordsworth probably did not intend to be paradoxes in his writings, Brooks identifies the real way Wordsworth intentionally uses paradoxes in his writings: "Wordsworth...was consciously attempting to show his audience that the common was really uncommon, the prosaic was really poetic" (Brooks 7). By trying to find beauty in the common everyday, Wordsworth relied heavily on natural imagery in his poems.
While I do agree that paradoxes can be seen in a lot of poetry, I am not sure that I agree that it is the language of poetry. Just as metaphors, alliteration, rhyme and meter are poetic tools or devices, so are paradoxes another poetic tool. However, seeing how Brooks is able to find so many underlying paradoxes in Wordsworths' writings that were not intentional, it is probable that paradoxes occur, either blatantly or underlying, in every type and form of poetry.
My question has always been in literature that if we cannot identify the authorial intent, but can support our theories in literature with supportive quotations, then is a new theory applied to a piece of literature relevant? I think yes, but that there is a threshold. How far can a person extrapolate from the text before they are completely removed from it, and in their own mode of thought independent from the work itself. I experienced this questioning during a course I took on William Blake/Percy Shelley. After reading Songs of Experience/Innocence, the professor brought up philosophical theories from Plato to Nietzsche, and how they related to this poetry. Although I could tell my professor had read many scholarly interpretations of this work, I still feel that there was too much extrapolating going on to actually attach meaning to the work of art itself. As much as the authors up to this point in the course have fought against free verse, I do see a relevance and freedom of being able to write and create art outside of the confines of structured poetry. It is the meaning behind poetry, not the structure, that is paramount to defining the value and significance of poetry.

John Hollander's Rhyme's Reason attempts to combine the explanation of the poetic form within the example of its unique structure and verse. In looking at this text as an instructional tool, I do not feel that it adequately provides a clear, readable explanation. The book, however, is an excellent collection of examples, lacking in clear definition. The Princeton Handbook of Poetic Terms seems to be a more coherent research tool for understanding and defining the different poetic forms and verse.

I enjoyed Cook's introduction in Poetry In Theory and the complex relationship of author, poem, and reader, and understanding their individual identities. The very question of how poetry exists, beyond the representation of something else, as an object with its own value, is still difficult to define. Assigning concrete value to poetry can take consoltation in the overall argument of defending art, beyond the imitation or representation of an object (I'm remembering reading something about this by Kant).

Just wanted to see if I could successfuly post a Blog.