TextSpace

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.

While all the articles for this week were interesting in their own ways, I, like many others in the class, definitely liked Han Magnus Enzensberger’s article the most. I’m not that big into linguistics or Saussure which probably helps to account for the fact that I liked Enzensberger over Kristeva or Genette.

I really liked the readings for this week. Hughes and Rich are two of my favorite poets, but I haven't read much of their prose, so it was interesting to read their articles. I liked many things about the Hughes article, but especially how he connects poetry to other art forms. Within the article he weaves in music (and all kinds of music: jazz, blues, folk, and spiritual), theater, painting, and dance. I really like how he fits poetry into the African-American artistic culture in general.

I found McGann’s article to be really interesting. It got to be very long, but there were parts that I really enjoyed. I especially liked the first part of the essay which traces the revolutionary changes in the printing and book-making industry. My parents owned a printing company for a number of years and I often worked there, so it was neat to read about the changes that were happening then and compare them to some of the big changes that are happening now with the technology of presses.

I was also interested in the part about publication and how different authors went about publishing in different ways. Stein’s history of publication was really fascinating, especially in relation to Pound or Yeat’s publication histories. Stein’s work was so different in comparison to theirs, that it makes sense that there were differences in publication as well. Stein had to publish much of her work herself, or pay for its publication, and I suppose this publishing isolation reinforced her cultural isolation.

I was intrigued also by how different poets (and different poetry) navigated the publication world and how that affected them historically. It was also neat to read how changes in printing led to changes in poetry, especially with the incorporation of artwork and drawings alongside poetry in books and in the book’s design in general. The examples of Emily Dickinson and her work were also effective, and it was helpful to have the copies of her manuscripts to refer to. For me, they really helped to reinforce the point that, though she didn’t publish her work, she did take an interest in the visual aspects of her poems.

I second Marlena’s comments about the Bernstein article. I also found the format somewhat annoying after a while. It was interesting and unique at first, but then it got old, and the article got long. He makes his points well and he definitely has some interesting things to say, but I found the format distracting on some level, though I also appreciated what he was trying to do.

I really enjoyed Baraka’s piece. He writes in a different, unique style. It’s as though he has a million thoughts in his head and he’s just getting them out as fast as he can. He crams a lot of stuff into a few short pages: artifacts, Western academics, art, music, process vs. product, etc. I especially liked the last little section on the black artists and their role. I thought that this is where the readers can really see Baraka’s passion. I really enjoyed the poetic and fervent style of this last section

Olson echoed some of Baraka’s points about focusing on process, not product, in poetry as well. He also helped me to think about the great significance of syllables and lines in poetry. In some ways Olson was speaking to readers like myself because I have to admit that I don’t often give much thought to syllables and lines, and I’d much rather pay attention to images and symbols which, quite frankly, interests me more. Also, I really liked the first part about kinetics and energy in relation to poetry because it definitely added something different from the typical articles that we’ve read.

All of the readings were interesting in their own ways, but I especially liked Jarrell’s article. Tsur’s article lost me once it started getting into the very technical aspects of language acquisition, acoustic coding, etc. I have had so little experience studying these elements of language, and the scientific aspects of it lose me. However, I thought most of the sections on vowels (light and dark) and consonants were very interesting.

Jarrell’s article made the most sense to me, though. Of course, language and poetry are tied to other cultural and societal changes, and I like how Jarrell situates poetry historically. One thing I found particularly interesting were his remarks on French poetry and how it influenced poetry in English through Americans who were “particularly accessible and susceptible” and how they, in addition, “imported modernism into English” (271). I think I liked this tie-in of French poetry because, so often, what we read and study about poetry focuses mainly on American poetry and British poetry. It makes sense that other poetic traditions influenced American poetry, and it is not just tied to British poetry, considering especially the American writers who spent time in France.

I also appreciated Jarrell’s list of modern poetry’s characteristics. It seemed to really further his argument on the “resemblances” of modern and romantic poetry, since there are some definite connections between the list and what one would consider typical romantic poetry characteristics. I’m interested also in how Jarrell would have commented on today’s poetry. I wonder how he would trace the evolution and influences from the poetry when this article was written (1942) to today’s poetry.

I particularly liked the readings for this week. McLaughlin and Forrest-Thomson both add on to subjects that we’ve already been discussing in class. McLaughlin’s was very interesting to read, and I like his take on figurative language. Using one main poem, Blake’s “The Lamb,” to develop his analysis of figurative language definitely worked to his advantage. I’ve often disliked it when books or articles give snippets from many different poems to talk about aspects such as personification, metaphor, etc, but they never really hone in on an entire poem and show how the poetic aspects work throughout it. I liked his sharp focus as well. Usually, when I’m reading a poem myself, I more or less gloss over some of the figurative language elements, which, perhaps, is unfortunate. I think the only times I’ve focused on all aspects of figurative language in a poem was when I used to teach it.

I thought Forrest-Thomson’s article was intriguing as well. At first, I wasn’t really sure where she was going with her claims, but it all came together in the end. She writes, “The power of poetry depends on its ability to maintain continuity while achieving discontinuity, but it is difficult to show precisely how this is done in particular case” (459). At this point, I understood her argument but I still wasn’t sure exactly what she talking about and how it would “look” or translate into practice. However, she uses the example of the article and the two sets of poems she draws from it to further her argument. I though it was especially interesting how the two poem differed from each other. Some spacing and the additions of quotation marks and capitalization showed how irony in the poem can be increased while the original language remained in tact. She used this example to show how all of these seemingly small elements work with the words to modify meaning. Another thing that I noticed about Forrest-Thomson’s articles is something that we’ve been seeing a lot in our other readings as well. In a way, it’s interdisciplinary. She brings in references to philosophy, linguistics, and even psychology. She covers her argument from other angles, which also helps to strengthen it with added depth.

.

When I started reading Easthope's chapter 4, I didn’t think I was going to like it at all. I think I’ve already stated how I hate the mathematical elements of meter. I hate counting syllables and giving poems a metrical label. I hate meter in general. I did, however, find Easthope’s chapter 4 very interesting.

Easthope helped to show me that meter is far more complicated than just counting syllables. I never really made the connection between a poem’s meter and how one reads it or, especially, how one pronounces words. I also found it very interesting how Easthope combines iambic pentameter with historical, cultural, and even political background. The idea that one might reject a certain meter as a form of rejecting a political tradition or class structure is very intriguing (53). I think it shows how important literature, and especially poetry, can be. I think poetry is often dismissed by many and viewed as lacking any “practical” value, especially in our modern day society. Easthope seems to really favor the notion that poetry can be a form of revolution. In addition, not only can the poetic words or message invoke a form of rebellion, but the meter can as well.

I also appreciated how Easthope brings meter, speaker, and voice together, the concept of iambic pentameter as a “historical invention” (54), and his infusion of linguistic discussions. Perhaps I sound think twice about my aversion to meter…

I found both Easthope and Lowell’s readings very interesting. Both of them provided some context (mainly historical) to their articles that helped me to identify with them and understand them more clearly. In Easthope’s piece, the first thing that stuck out to me was the very first line: “In modern society we are surrounded by poetry more than we realize” (3). One of the things that I commented on in my blog for last week was the first line of Levin’s article: “Poetry matters little to the modern world” (193). Both authors make a comment about poetry in the modern world for their opening lines, though they seem to have different approaches.

For me, one thing that made Easthope’s argument so interesting was that it was very well situated. He takes the time to really present his argument with cultural and historical references. I think his argument is a sound one. He appreciates and gives his readers a view of poetry from all of its angles. I also liked the sections regarding linguistics. I have studied linguistics very, very little, so it was interesting to get some information from that field.

I like Lowell’s article. It was thought provoking and gave me some new ideas regarding poetry and spoken art (or poetry as spoken art). Her comments about modern poetry were especially interesting. While I’ve definitely considered the audible qualities of modern poetry, I don’t believe I’ve ever thought of modern poetry mainly in those terms, though it makes sense the way she presents it.

I enjoyed the readings for class this week. Levin’s article gave me a good understanding of some of the criticism of Victorian poetry, and I think he does a great a job of presenting his arguments and criticism. I like how he references 19th century poetry as being disconnected from the world, as mainly having to create their own dream-worlds. I don’t think this was novel only to 18th/19th century poetry, but perhaps Levin is right in that the disconnections from society in poetry during this time were more prevalent and more problematic? I wasn’t sure about his opening line though: “Poetry matters little to the modern world” (193). Do you agree? I think the rational part of me does agree, though the more optimistic part of me can’t. What do others think about this?

About the rest of The Well Wrought Urn, I thought it was very interesting the references Brooks makes to Greek philosophy in chapter ten. While it was interesting, it also left me a little confused. However, the same was true for some of the parts we read for class last week. I am finding though that the class presentations are very helpful. Everyone did a great job last week, and the presentations tend to organize some of my thoughts and help me make connections to other readings and parts of the class. I look forward to more class presentations.

First of all, I have to say that I'm sorry for the late post. I had some technical difficulties posting on the blog...

I found Cook’s reading to be very interesting. I learned a lot about the history of poetry, poets, and the changes that poetry has undergone through the years. I particularly liked the fact that Cook uses the word “revolution” to describe the differences between “modern poetry and what precedes it” (1). The “revolution” impacted more than the poetry, but also the poet, the critics, and the readers. This looks like a well thought-out anthology. Having read and studied many different poetry anthologies, I’m excited to start this one.

About Hollander’s book-wow! There’s a lot of information in that little book! I didn’t expect for it to be so thorough. Some of the terms were review, and some of them I had never heard of before. I particularly liked his section on verse systems and meter. I really hate studying meter in poetry. It seems to add an almost mathematical element to poetry, which I hate. However, I thought Hollander did a great job of describing it clearly. Plus, the book will be a great reference in the future, especially for teaching poetry.