TextSpace

Perloff’s text made me consider several new issues concerning poetry that I had not thought about before. The issue that grabbed my attention the most made me question whether or not some forms of prose can be considered poetry. It is true that in prose we notice grammatical issues and spaces much more and consider them to be out of place and incorrect, while if these things are being used as poetic techniques in verse form we think that they help to create good poem. This is a very subjective issue that has no clear answer for me. I do think that prose can have characteristics of a poem, but does that make it a poem? Poetry does not necessary depend on format alone, but it is a good indicator. It is hard for me to consider prose to be poetry, but I sometimes think that this is my own perception of poetry that has been ingrained in me. It is hard to break away from that. I’m still debating this issue.

I have made the comment found in Jarrell’s piece, The End of the Line, which is “I like poetry- but not modern poetry.” What I consider to be poetry is very traditional and conventional. This is why I prefer Robert Frost’s poetry with its meter and rhyme rather than Gertrude Stein’s poem about Picasso. I do not think modern poets have to disregard tradition in order to produce good poetry. I think that it is okay to use a natural sounding language is describing nature or something similar because it fits in with what the poem is talking about and so would a poem with specific rhythmic pattern since nature can be very mathematical. I just don’t like poets that to try to be different for differences sake. If the poet strays away from tradition the poem should call for that and not the poet.

Black Alice Laments

by Wanda Coleman

one midnight flight to Xanadu
i got lost in the sky
the cloud i rode had quite a load
that dwindle bye-and-bye
it made me late, a fact i hate
but i’ve not learned to lie

by the time i got to Xanadu
my night had turned to day
all the gold had turned to gilt
and all the crystal, clay
the partyers were snoring bores
the goodies stashed away

by the time i arrived in Xanadu
sweet mama proved a crone
cracks and crannies sported dust
and brambles maned the stone
and everything i thot was steel
had crumbled as if bone

as i made me descent on Xanadu
my bowels were in my throat
my hair was gray my hands were red
and i couldn’t sing a note
and as i warbled at the swans
my last glass slipper broke

by the time i stormed dear Xanadu
all the stories had been told
the mirth was spent, i hadn’t a cent
my courage was going cold
and when i touched the hand of God
it simpered into mold

by the time i found lost Xanadu
my rose had lost his bloom
the music men had packed and fled
the dance floor was a tomb
and all the thrills that might’ve been
were shrieking in the gloom

one midnight flight to Xanadu
my heart fell from the sky
the cloud i rode had quite a load
that dwindled bye-and-bye
which made me blue, but ever true
for i’ve not learned to lie

At first the Forrest – Thomson article really confused me. I wasn't sure where she was going with her argument. But then I think I got a feel for it. I do agree with her that writing prose in poetry format does create a new work and definitely influences the meaning of what we're reading. I read a poem recently by a holocaust writer who had taken a journal account of the Holocaust and put it almost verbatim (one sentence was removed) and put it in poetry form. The effect of the words was changed. It was for several reasons that Forrest-Thomson points out. We as a culture expect the genre of poetry to convey universals. The symbolic meaning of a word becomes important. Line breaks influence importance. On all these points I thoroughly agree with F-T. I did question her assumption that free verse “was developed in the first place: to make us aware of the poetry in our prose, of the imaginative alternatives that exist even in ordinary language. I agree that free verse accomplishes these things most of the time, however, I don’t know if I agree that that is why it evolved. With our reading from last week, and the amount of influence society had on the popularity of iambic pentameter, my guess is that this is an over simplification on the part of this critic.

Also I found it interesting to compare the views of F-T and McLaughlin. While they had similar views on many of their points their opinions on where poetic/figurative language is used seemed to diverge. I agree that language is more figurative in poetry, however, I don't know if the distinction that F-T made that made the difference between the language of poetry and the language of the everyday is as cut and dry as it would appear. The e reading for tonight would seem to disagree. I think it's interesting that he found poetry in advertising, or not necessarily poetry but a similar use of language.

I liked McLaughlin’s article as it was nice to have a review of the basics in the reading (personification, metaphor, simile etc.) This article really would be really helpful in learning how to do a close reading of a poem. His argument regarding "The Lamb" was very comprehensive and would be a great model for how to analyze a work.

In response to Kamal's post: I don't think I can get my head around Forrest-Thomson's BBC letter poem example either. I agree with her definition of continuity: "Our reading must work through the level of meaning into the external world and then, via the non-semantic levels of Artiface, back into the poem, enriched by the exernal contexts of reference in which it is found momentarily merged." That is to say, I think continuity exists when we read anything, and that it is an especially relavent in the context of poetry. I would also agree that the line between poetry and prose can get rather blurry, in certain impressionist or modernist novels, for example. But I can't really accept that textual layout is the only thing differentiating poetry from normal prose any more than Kamal can. I agree that our reading of poetry can be based on convention, but a different textual layout is only one such convention (or set of conventions). Also, I think her statement, "the differences between prose and verse passage are the result of a change in conventional expectations, modes of attention, and interpretive strategies, rather than the result of any alteration of the linguistic material itself," somewhat ignores the differences in material practice of the two different sets of authors in question, journalists and poets. In some ways the two are similar, journalism emphasizes saying as much as possible in as little space as possible, so journalists often have to think about the words they use more carefully than those writing business memos or class essays, for example, though perhaps not as carefull as poets. But their aims in using language are totally different, and even if language isn't as controlable or refferential as "communications" models of writing assert it is, I don't know that the intent of the author is irrelavent either. That isn't to say we should judge art by what we think it says, ultimately by its "comment on life," but can't we take it for that, at least to an extent and on a personal level?

Attempting to read a poem without influence on external contexts is not possible, but it is precisely this ability to be applicable to new external contexts which enables a poem to exist with a dynamic state. This is one of the beauties of poetry in that, unlike fiction which has more elements which may stamp it into a certain period, poetry has the ability, in some respects, to transcend relevancy to a specific period and become pertinent to an entirely new era, situation, or people with a renewed existence. The renewed meaning which the poem then encompasses has left the realm of authorial influence, which allows the poem to be a much more powerful entity; an entity which is self sufficient without the author, his or her influence, and the context of that period.
This is exactly the situation discussed in class which was used by Churchill which allowed the poem an entirely new meaning while not being written under that idea or purpose. This is a facet which in prose fiction is available to a lesser degree than poetry, in that we can apply external contexts to texts, but the multitude of meanings is limited by various structures which make up the text. Whereas portions of a story, such as characters, may be viewed as metaphors for something else, we are limited in our ability to extrapolate meanings via external contexts due to the confines of the prose structure. In other words, the poem is limited in that in is composed of a certain number of characters, actions, settings, and other specifics which may be altered in a limited manner. The same can be said for drama as it is read, and our limits are further reinforced in a drama as it is performed; for example, “Waiting for Godot” can have no more that five characters as read, but as read, we may envision these characters to the specificity of our mind, yet as performed, these decisions have been made for us.
We may apply, in a drama, novel, or poem, external relevance which may be a result of contexts which exist as time has the ability to change our understanding of the world, however we must be aware that this is a conscious effect upon the work of art and may produce a fallacy rather than an understanding. For example, a Marxist theory may be applicable to a literary piece from a time before Marx, yet we can be assured that this was not the concept within the mind of the writer, yet this knowledge may nevertheless provide an insight. We must be extremely weary of using external context out of context in relation to literature due to misunderstandings which could potentially be present and produce such a fallacy. This may seem to undermine all that has been said above, but we cannot use external context to extract infinite meanings. Poetry has the ability to be least infringed by this, however, in that the understanding which we have of the poem is not limited to our striving to understand the meaning which was inscribed by the poet, rather, we are treating the poem as its own entity, one which may live on to evolve even after the poet does not.

Forrest-Thomson hits upon an interesting idea in her chapter about the limits of language and the limits of perceiving the world through language. Initially, I have difficulty grappling with this idea, not because I disagree with it, but because I just don't like to think of my perceptions of the world being limited by words that have come to symboize ideas and conceptions of things we observe. But then, this kind of limit does show itself readily whenone thinks about Plato's concept of perfect forms. Each of us has our own ideal image of words like "water," "car," and "frisbee." So, what is perfect in our minds will lose degrees of perfection when we try to communicate these images, so Wittgenstein seems to be correct in what she says, that our world, or our perception of the world, is related to our language, but I would make the addendum that this fact is related to our own images we put with words.

The above is very important to poetry, because poems often deal with visions or settings (think about "Ferry" and "Nothing Gold can Stay." Even though we will all get a very different vision from Zukofsky's "Ferry," we still make the images the words convey "perfect" in our own minds, and thus will each have a different "perfect," compound vision of the scene in the poem. If the poet is skilled, the visions, even though subject to modifications specific to every reader, will have some kind of atmosphere, or, and I hate to use the word, meaning.

I enjoyed both readings for this week. As well as being accessible and easy to digest, they point out some important concepts about language in general and poetry in particular.

McLaughlin stated that "Figures of speech twist the meaning of a word ... but they are so common in everyday language that the process of interpreting them occurs almost unconsciously, like any frequently repeated skill" (81). This brought to mind something that has been discussed quite frequently in two of my other courses, George Lakoff's ideas about how our language is so completely chock full of metaphors that we don't even realize it, but that our communication and ways of looking at the world would be completely different without them. Some examples: Life is a journey, business is war, bigger is better, all the sports references we make all day "you scored a homerun on that test" etc etc etc. Taken with F-T article, this use of everyday imbedded metaphors stregthens her view of the continuity poetic language must have with ordinary language.

McLaughlin also makes a good point in the last paragraph where he states that "If figures tell us anything, it's that meaning is up for grabs, that the world can be shaped in an endless variety of forms" (90). I think this is partly what poetry does, it shapes and reshapes our views of the world. I think today, however, with our access to other languages and cultures being so easy and frequent, that our native languages don't have to neccessarily limit what we know, as F-T touches on in her article. It might be more difficult for us to completely grasp the world-view of another language, but it's far from impossible, and poetry is one road of access (there's that life is a journey metaphor again).

What I also liked in F-T article was her reworking of the BBC paragraph. It's a great example of how the parts of poetry we don't really notice, like punctuation, capitalization, line breaks do make a big difference. While rhythm and "poetry" might be inherent in prose, it needs these poetic devices to bring it out.

After reading Veronica Forrest Thomson and McLaughlin, I started questioning myself, “Can I comprehend the 20th century poetry for I use my ear instead of eye to under stand poetry and can not see “punctuation and typographical design” which according to Forrest- Thomson “have a decisive role in composing our sense of what a poem is about.”

I have no problem in agreeing with her ideas of ‘continuity’, ‘discontinuity’, or “the way in which poetry retains its contact with the world articulated by ordinary language while distancing itself from these customary modes of articulation.” I don’t have any problem in following her argument of language based on Wittgenstein's remark, 'the limits of my language mean the limits of my world.'

One of the interpretations of ‘know’ is ‘mastery’ of a technique and her suggestion, “The knowledge of both the poet and the reader of poetry is a kind of mastery, an ability to see how a use of language filters external contexts into the poem and subjects them to new distancing and articulation. To see what is involved in the achievement of continuity and discontinuity, to see how poetry modifies and distances itself from the external contexts it assimilates,” reminds me of Wordsworthian and Colridgian concept of ‘Imagination’.

However, one idea that I cannot digest is the idea that a piece of prose can be transformed into poetry by changing ‘typographical design’. No doubt, twentieth century poetry “has evolved a whole new set of conventions for showing which words are dominant on any scale” but how only the change in typographical design can change a piece of prose into poetry is beyond my understanding.

What about the poetic diction and figurative language, which McLaughlin has discussed in detail in his essay and other requirements of poetry, are they only the complementary to what is termed as “semantically non-meaningful devices”. After reading Forrest-Thomson, I feel that poetic diction, rhyme, meter and other elements of poetry could not convey the reader the totality of the meaning of a poem if he or she does not take into consideration the physical appearance of the poem under study. However, the change in typographical design can produce specific meaning as she has pointed out in her example of Sir Michael Swann’s order of appointment as the head of BBC.

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.

.

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.

Figuratively Speaking

I have to admit that I really enjoyed McLaughlin’s article on figurative language and it opened my eyes to a lot of things. I have studied figurative language before, obviously, as I am now in the doctorate program but it seemed to bring to light a lot of new information or rather ways that I hadn’t looked at things before reading this article. I found it interesting to think of the language as shaping the poem, which come to think of it was something I had known all along but hadn’t placed it in those terms. I always used to tell people that my brother would draw pictures and I created them with words. McLauglin notes this idea again on page 82.

I also had never thought of figurative language being used in everyday speech but that is because as McLauglin noted, that figures occur so frequently that the process of interpreting them is an unconscious working (81). My question was, “where does that place the use of exaggeration?” Would it be considered a use of figurative language? I was kind of on the fence on this one, on one hand I could say yes but on the other hand no because it really is just an overstatement, not really a use of metaphor, etc.

I appreciated McLauglin taking us down the line and stating and providing the definition for some of the terms in figurative language, which helped me to understand each of them a little better, rather then reading them in a poetic language book.

Another idea that helped me, really, to understand Free Verse a little better, was the idea that within the poem, the literal is used to describe or explain the use of the figurative, or rather the creation of the figurative (84). Also, the fact that a word has its own figurative history, which helps tremendously when trying to interpret or read a poem, which I suppose also has a lot to do with the readers own individual understanding of a term. I might understand one meaning of a word because that is all I knew of but you might have another understanding of a word, which would cause each of us to interpret the poem differently based on our understandings of the language used.

Finally, I thought that McLauglin was poetic in his own right when he discussed our use of language as a way of both shaping and seeing the world, along with the fact that our meanings of language have nothing to do with naming different things but comes from an agreement with other speakers of the language, which basically means that we look at a chair and we agree that it is something to sit on, so that is what a chair means. This is the best part about figurative language is that it leaves language open to play with, there are no set definitions, nothing concrete, which is the beauty of poetry, its openness to interpretation.

One last thing, in Forrest-Thompson’s essay, she notes that free verse makes us aware of the poetry in our prose as we are aware of the continuity and discontinuity in poetry (460). This essay basically complimented what McLaughlin was commenting on, only used language differently to express it. This was another poetic way of looking at language in more ways than one. Basically saying that poetry is evident in all language if you no where to look and how to look at it.

I found the McLaughlin reading on figurative language to be very informative and easy to follow. I liked the explanation of the different kinds of figures such as metaphor, metonymy, etc; useful for my slowly expanding knowledge about poetry. But even more interesting to me was the discussion of primal figures and figurative history, which is "part of its meaning and is therefore appropriate to a poetic interpretation whether or not the poet was aware or intended it" (85). Therefore, the meaning of a poem is made possible by the language system from which it is constructed.

This brought to my mind the idea of linguistic relativity, aka the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. The hypothesis was set forth to explain that a person's world is determined by the structure of the native language. The classic example is the Eskimos' 40 words for snow. The hypothesis now exists in two forms: strong and weak. The original is now known as the strong hypothesis, and has basically been slammed by linguists for being too strong. The weak form says that a person's knowledge of the world is influenced by but not necessarily structured by the native language. The original hypothesis basically said that if the concept did not exist in the native language it could not be learned. The weak form, which is the most acceptable today, says that a concept can be learned whether existent in the native language or not.

This rambling of mine about the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is, I believe, related to ideas in both the McLaughlin and the Forrest-Thompson readings. Both authors seem to be saying that poetry can only take shape through the language. Forrest-Thompson even goes so far as to refer to Whorf at the end of her article. My feeling, like many linguists, is that the belief that the language determines understanding is too strong. That's like saying I cannot understand the concept of the word "ajumma" in Korean just because I don't speak the language natively. However, I do understand the concept, through interaction with the language and the people.

So to end this crazy rant, I don't feel that the authors need to be what I feel is so absolutist regarding their thoughts on language and meaning. I feel that meaning is constructed of more than just language...adding things like context, experience and perception.

1. At certain points with “discontinuity” in poetry, does she essentially mean space and allusion (“assimilation of external contexts”)? Could we characterize continuity in ordinary language as no-space and reference (vs. allusion)? Maybe we could discuss discontinuity and continuity in both ordinary language and poetic language (including how she defines “language”).

2. Do you agree that prose has dormant rhythm? In the BBC example, do you think rhythm was found or created?

3. Other than the use of line-spacing, are the other techniques (used in the BBC example) unique to poetry?

4. If we have time: F-T states, “If poetry cannot control the meanings and feelings generated by the words it uses, its worth is reduced.” Can poetry have this control?

See you all in class,
Tino

So far we have experienced the performability of sound poetry. I recognize sound devises of poetry prevail in our daily languages. The sentences we utter may by chance rhyme or fit into the sound pattern of iambic pentameter. However, what makes poetry poetry? I don’t think that poetry can distinguish itself simply because most of the language used in poetry is socially constructed. I would not understand English poetry a bit, if I had not learned English. Haven’t acquainted myself with cultural scenes in America sometimes interferes my understanding of American poetry. These might be what Forrest-Thomson refers to “non-verbal context”: “a world of emotions, objects, and state of affairs” or “the external contexts of references in which it [a poem] found itself momentarily merged” (457-58). I think it is very difficult to engage our readings of poetry in “context” of these kinds. For readers (not even authors themselves, I suppose), how is it possible to stand in the river of the past twice and regain the momentary emotional intensity when the text was first created? But I don’t think that she advocates to objectify history or to find an “authentic” context for poetry reading. For one thing, she has this challenge in mind by criticizing Marxism as “the self-justifying ideological structures which produce a social class’s ‘objective reality’” (463). For another, her essay (even though it entitles “continuity in language”) might be not so much about the “continuity” but the “discontinuity” in poetic language.

“The knowledge of both the poet and the reader of poetry is a kind of mastery, an ability to see how a use of language filters external contexts into the poem and subjects them to new distancing and articulation” (459). What distinguishes poetic language from ordinary language might be the “actions” indicated in this passage. The verb, “filter,” addresses the process of selecting meanings from references or contexts. The phrase, “new distancing and articulation, suggests a goal of poetry is neither seeking for a conventional way of expression (“articulation”), nor treating socially constructed “reality” as a given without any transcendence or “meditation” (462). I favor this view that poetic discourse must contain forces of “subversion” and “reinvention” (463) but through the same "channel" as ordinary language.

I have to say that I liked a lot of the things that Forrest-Thomson says in her essay. One thing that I particularly liked was her insistence that readers, and I think poets as well, must remember that poems operate through many devices, like rhythm and sound, in order to create meaning. This is important to keep in mind because I think often people tend to disregard how a poem is structured and how it produces meaning, instead I feel that some people prefer to operate just on the very surface of poems, that is to say they only read the words, most likely silently.

Another thing that I liked about this essay was the idea that in order for a poem to really be a poem it must force a reader to look to or think about the external world outside of the poem and then take into consideration how those external facts contribute to the reading of a poem in order to get back to the poem and its potential meanings. Thus, poetry must be of the world of ordinary language and distinct from the world of ordinary language.

Finally, I liked how she discussed the idea that prose and poetry are essentially different to be a product of convention. I understood this to mean that it is society that dictates what is to be bland, nothing but the facts writing and what kind of writing is to be considered to be charged with meaning. In connection with this I liked her free play with the Times article.

It is interesting how simple, and yet deep in meaning Blake’s “The Lamb” poem is. It carries a moral lesson, but the study of theology might lead us to insanity, especially those who do not believe in God. It is a complicated relationship of the Creator and the creatures. But let’s not go deeper into that, so that we won’t be insane! It is amazing how figurative language can bring such thoughts in us. In “The Lamb”, we find the traditional image of Jesus as a child, and it points out the kindness and peace of true Christianity. The poem is a good example of the Christian beliefs, but why does it only have the good side? We cannot admit to the fact that there is only a good side to the universe and deny the presence of suffering and evil! I am not ignoring the main subject of McLaughlin’s article, but in a sense, the poem might be missing a balance of the idea of good and evil. It is a very symbolic poem, and we can see in its presentation of the child as Jesus a perfect example of innocence. Perhaps, Blake is trying to show his own belief in God through his poem; thus, it poses as an illustrative example of his (Blake’s) belief in God, for his writings about God shows his religious stance or perspective. Moreover, the language Blake uses in “The Lamb” is very simple and accessible, thereby perfectly matching the idea of innocence and purity.

I also like the distinction or differentiation McLaughlin makes between the “figurative” and the “proper” meaning of words. Further, I find his explanation of the latter as the idea which first comes to the mind, and how these two ideas can be brought together in one mental category really interesting and convincing. Here, I think that the invisible (allegorical) meanings give more depth to the poem itself. Likewise, figurative language plays a major, influential, and powerful role in presenting twisted meanings to the words in poetry.

Figures of speech formulate the poem in the way the poet desires. I believe the strongest figure of speech in Blake’s poem is apostrophe (my emphasis), and I like how it twists the acts of speech and controls its direction. It seems to me that the poet’s creativity lies in bringing many important figures of speech in one short and simple poem. Therefore, this poem motivates us to think in a figurative process by going beyond the scenes and “proper” sense. However, the fact that the child in the poem perceives the world as innocent reminds me of Plato’s argument about the world around us and that the fact that we perceive what we see through our senses. Thus, even God is perceived by us through our senses. In other words, God exists only in our thinking and perception. I admit here, however, that this connection to Plato’s assertions confuses me. Still, this article, “Figurative Language” is a valuable and precious source of how figurative language profoundly enhances/intensifies the meaning of the poem.

Had a minute before class so I typed up a few observations/ questions, more to come:

On page 89, towards the end of “Figurative Language” Thomas Mclaughlin poses the question many have for deconstructionists like himself: “But what would we do with that awareness [that “spectacular figures of speech can attune us to the almost invisible figures at work throughout language and culture, and thus to the power of language over perception”]. He eventually settles on the statement that “if figures tell us anything, it’s that meaning is up for grabs, that the world can be shaped in an endless variety of forms, that language is a battleground of value systems. The challenge of figures is to make sure we are aware of their presence in discourse and their effects on our thought—but also to engage in the production of figures ourselves, in service of our own values” (McLaughlin 90). But what, however, are those values? Where do they lie, are they not systems in themselves and if we formulate them figuratively aren’t we really conceding their unity, power, and applicability to specifics from the outset? Can we know something is a metaphor and still give it power? If binaries are usually privileged, should we always choose the underprivileged term?

I really enjoyed reading McLaughlin’s text on figurative language and found that he explained these aspects of poetry very clear for me. It was very helpful for me to see exactly how figures of speech such as metaphor and personification were at work in William Blake’s “The Lamb.” I feel that looking at McLaughlin’s examples will help me to recognize how other poems make use of figures of speech. Trying to understand how these elements of poetry are used is much more interesting to me than trying to figure out the meter of a poem. Plus, I think that dealing with these aspects of a poem provides readers with more meaning and depth than meter ever could. It seems to me that it would take more insight, work, effort, and creativity on the parts of both readers and writers to struggle with figurative language rather than meter.

While I thought McLaughlin did a good job of explaining and stressing the importance of figurative language to poetry, I also understand the dangers that can arise when trying to distinguish figurative language from language’s “proper” meaning. Readers can often misinterpret poems when they read too much into it. It did not occur to me before reading this article that this is also an issue for the fields of science and philosophy and not just literature. I had also thought of these areas as being factual and focused on the literal. I learned a great 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.

What is your favorite/the most memorable part of the poem (image, section, sound image, whatever)? I’m not looking for anything in depth here, just think about and maybe highlight what you like, for whatever reason or by any criteria you choose.

What sort of “portrait” is this? In what way is it “complete?” How might what you may know about Picasso contribute to an understanding of the title/ how this might be a “complete portrait.”

Is there a “tension” in the poem that you can define? What might Easthope or another New critic have to say about a poem like this?

From Composition as Explanation by Gertrude Stein:
“It is very likely that nearly every one has been very nearly certain that something that is interesting is interesting them. Can they and do they. It is very interesting that nothing inside in them, that is when you consider the very long history of how every one ever acted or has felt, it is very interesting that nothing inside in them in all of them makes it connectedly different. By this I mean this. The only thing that is different from one time to another is what is seen and what is seen depends upon how everybody is doing everything. This makes the thing we are looking at very different and this makes what those describe it make of it, it makes a composition, it confuses, it shows, it is, it looks, it likes it as it is, and this makes what is seen as it is seen.”
How is this statement, part of Stein’s definition aesthetic theory, related to Easthope’s definition of poetry as discursive? How does it affect your reading of the poem (how you read the poem, what you might “read into” the poem, how you would think about or approach interpreting the poem)?