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.

It seems that, like myself, most of the class more or less enjoyed all of the readings this week. Though they certainly weren’t the most complicated essays we’ve read this semester, I think all three of the selections we read for tonight put forth seemingly sensible arguments that we could all get our heads around and which seemed reasonable enough. Not that I haven’t enjoyed most of the other selections we’ve read this semester, but this was welcome.

Something is not making sense. Mallarme’s assertion that if language were perfect, verse would not exist because all speech would be poetry (Genette 409) seems to me to be flawed. By his reasoning, could not all of us who talk and write very simply speak in verse and convey our thoughts in poems, and ultimately circumnavigate our languages’ innate imperfection? Also, if one says that a theoretical “perfect language” is spoken in verse, then that must, by logic, also mean that “verse is perfect language.” So something perfect (verse, poetry) can be seeded in a soil of our everyday languages that are corrupt, organic and imperfect. In that argument, alone, I do not see the logic.

I have to say after reading the other two readings for today I really appreciated readings the Enzensberger piece. I felt that in many ways it was similar to the Bernstein piece that Matt talked about in class a couple of weeks ago. I also liked how Enzenberger is playing with canonical texts like Swift's "Modest Proposal."

Following suit, I also liked the Enzensberger article best. I like linquistics, but Kristeva just went over my head this week. I think E made several good points in his article, and that satire is a great way of doing so. It's interesting that poetry is considered dangerous, but for two opposing reasons. "The apparent conflict which it manifests, displays in reality only the two sides of one and the same coin. Both choruses are agreed at any rate that poems, like other art practices, are something extremely dangerous, whether they disrupt the system or maintain it; hence their excited manner" (449). I don't know what they're getting so excited about, though, considering most people only read poetry when they have to and don't enjoy it anyway.

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 quite enjoyed the Enzensberger. That's what I'd like to comment on; it appears that many of my classmates did as well. I also appreciate the excerpts from Kristeva and Genette and their discussion of linguistics. However, I connected with the Enzensberger piece. I have often wondered about poetic interpretation, and grew to dislike reading poetry in school very much. While I wrote gobs of poetry while I was in school, I didn't enjoy the structured readings of the "good stuff" at all.

Of the articles which we read for class, I found the Enzensberger article to be the most interesting and the most engaging. The Saussurian influence on the other articles was quite palpable, but I found the Enzensberger article both hilarious at times, and chilling at others. The idea of dissembling the idea of an authorial or One interpretation from a poem was the portion in which I aligned myself most with and found the antidote about the butcher’s wife quite amusing.

I found Enzensberger’s piece to be entertaining, although I found myself confused at times because of some parts of the article that seemed to contradict itself. I liked the fact that Enzensberger played off of Swift’s Modest Proposal and thought that it was an interesting approach to his subject matter. I thought that he illustrated his point well, especially when he presented readers with his fictional letters from students and teachers of poetry. I have known teachers who were as cruel as those mentioned in the text. I just hope that I can do better than that.

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 found the discussion of the poetic language to be pretty interesting in Gerard Genette’s essay about the poetics of language. He discussed on page 409, “…if languages were perfect, verse would not exist, because all speech would be poetry and, therefore, there would be no poetry.” It is definitely an interesting image to consider everyone that you meet greeting you in verse. Oh, what a wonderful world that would be. At the same time to think of the world existing without poetry is very frightening because poetry is one of the things that brightens a dull and darkened world. I liked the fact that he comments that the poetic function is to motivate language because it seems that the poetic language is language at its most extreme.

Enzensberger’s essay reminded me of Plato’s Book X, and I quote some of his ideas on this matter: “Poetry corrupts even the best souls. It deceives us into sympathizing with those who grieve excessively, who lust inappropriately, who laugh at base things. It even goads us into feeling these base emotions vicariously. We think there is no shame in indulging these emotions because we are indulging them with respect to a fictional character and not with respect to our own lives. But the enjoyment we feel in indulging these emotions in other lives is transferred to our own life.” Enzensberger considers the dangers of poetry on the young people and suggests that these types of poetry be stopped by possible means such as censorship, court, exile … etc. This anachronism concerning the relationship between poetry in the past and poetry in the present is intriguing for one to think of and ponder about. I believe it is true that poetry can have such influence on the lives of the young people.

Just thought I would let everyone know what I have been working on for the final. I have been dealing with the idea of music and poetry, more specifically its influences in poetry readings and performance.

Hey guys, I just wanted to post a message here on the blog to let you know that a I am sorry but I won't be able to make it tonight. I'll drop an email as well. Sorry again, I feel bad about it. Hope all goes well. :-)

I just want to continue what we discussed in class about the “teachablility” and “accessibility” of poetry. Are “reader-friendly” poems which address universal themes always good for students who are capable of independent thinking?

Hi,

I'm very interested in the idea of whether it is possible to have a split identity as a poet. Does gender and race really matter? How does not knowing the gender/race affect a poem (such as in the case of anonymous authors or people writing under different names even). Does knowing the race/gender/religion/political standpoint/sexual preference/etc. change the meaning of a poem? Does it add to it or take away from it?

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.

I had a mixed response to the DuPlessis reading. After reading the first chapter, I really wanted to like it. Finally, I thought, someone not afraid to make something like a philogical argument despite (or thoughtfully considering) the pressures of and considerations presented by theory.

Reading Adrienne Rich’s “Blood, Bread, and Poetry: The Location of the Poet” subverts my previous, naïve understanding about poetry and literature. For this essay challenges and confronts ideologies that have been celebrated among romanists and idealists, such as “art for art’s sake,” “universality” and “transcendence.” I was so trapped in the notion that poetry was composed of themes that elevate the mind, and of rhythm and sound that pleases ears. Rich gives me an urgent wake-up call that poetry has its significant in cultural, political and social dimension; at least, a good poet would not fail to articulate what grounds her/his works and to build a “dialogue between art and politics” (507). Also, she is suggesting that the existence of poetry serves not only for sensory pleasure, but also for social justice: “a poet-one who was apparently certified-could actually write about political themes, could weave the names of into a poem” (507). In other words, a good poet takes a role of political and social activists. Writers, such as Wollstonecraft, challenge the male-dominance social order in the 18th century. I sense that Rich echoes what Forrest-Thomson articulates—poetry’s forces of “subversion” and “reinvention.”

Reading Langston Hughes and his desire for Black pride amongst African Americans of his time; to embrace the black culture rather than attempt to become “white”. I couldn’t help but wonder what Hughes would have to say about the young, white, suburbanite males and females that embrace and mimic contemporary black culture. The young white people who crip or false flag, trying to represent gangs of LA setup to promote black unity, what can make of them.