In Wimsatt and Beardsley's "intentional fallacy" the intentional is the confusion of the poem with its origins while in the "affective fallacy," the affective is the confusion of the poem and its results. The authors occupy themselves with what is to happen once a poem is read. What are we to do with a poem?
On pg. 1388, they talk about separating the emotive from "referential meaning" in the poem. They seem to look unfavorably toward an emotive response to a poem because, I think, they believe an emotion may not be tied to the meaning of the poem. An emotion can be wrong for a poem. A reader could be bringing his or her own emotions to a poem that doesn't intend to evoke those emotions. They quote I.A. Richardson from his work Practical Criticism when he said that we project our emotions and feelings at objects innocent of feelings. They further quote him in his work from Science and Poetry when he claims that science is a statement and poetry is the "psuedo-statement" that plays an important role in making us feel better about things than statements would. It seems to me that the authors are taking quotes from men who critique our society's response to poetry as subjective and psychologically remedial to back up their own arguments. I don't think you can lump all of society together into one way to interact with poetry. We don't all use it to alleviate the woes of our lives. Poetry isn't this pathetic, self-serving remedy for us all. Some do appreciate poetry for what it is. Some do clearly see the anguish or rage in poetry where we cannot put our own emotions. Poetry does speak to us. I don't believe we always speak to it, and that's what I feel like the authors were criticizing, then again, it was difficult to follow their logic at times.
They stated that they believe analysis of poetry to be a linguistic study, and that's exactly what they did on pgs. 1389-93. They meticulously wrote about how words intrinsically have meaning but they can suggest another, often this being a social or cultural product. They talked at length about emotive import and how it depends on descriptive meaning and also descriptive suggestion at times. They argued that what a word does to a person isn't necessarily what the word means, and all this time I'm reading this detailed, labored-over linguistic study of the affective quality of poetry, I'm thinking, "Does this matter?" I understood all their arguments and I agreed with them, for the most part, but I agreed with them in and of themselves. I thought to myself, "Yeah, so? Why do we need to apply this to poetic rules? Why so many rules?" What does it matter that the words used in poetry really signify their true meaning instead of just existing for a certain emotive response from the reader? Maybe a poet doesn't want his words to convey their true meanings. That's the beauty of poetry to me. Poetry is a play on words, a game, a manipulation of words with hidden meaning and emotion behind it all. What's all this talk about the Truth? All poetry must point back to the Truth!
Wimsatt and Beardsley seem to make all these assertions of how poetry must be treated-- all the other authors we've studied do the same thing-- and they assert that we all must get back to the Truth, but then they never give concrete evidence of what that is. That is why theory and philosophy frustrate me so. Where's the evidence? Wimsatt and Beardsley claim that people testify to what poetry does to others and what it does to themselves, so the question arises of the sincerity of the critic as well as the poet. They talk of sincerity like they talk of the Truth, but then they don't tell us how to measure these things. How are we to know if the critic is sincere or the poet for that matter? To what standard do we measure them against? Emerson never did find the Poet who would bring us the Truth. I don't think we ever will.
The authors write about the affective state on pg. 1397 and they say there is not much room for synaesthesis or for "the touchy little attitudes of which it is composed." I think this whole reading was just the touchy little attitudes of Wimsatt and Beardsley, but then again, I'm just bringing my false emotive response to the piece.
February 26, 2008
The Intentional Fallacy
The "intentional fallacy” claims that we as readers cannot use the author’s own intention for the work at hand to accurately and sufficiently judge it, but rather the poem's intended meaning should be like a public utterance that doesn’t depend on the one author for its meaning. The poem should stand alone. The authors claim that the meaning of the literary work is not equal to its effects, so however the reader wants to interpret the work is not equal to the work's intrinsic meaning. The authors proclaim that analysis should focus on the text only, and I see a little bit of romanticism in that belief. Wimsatt's and Beardsley's formalist analysis is part of New Criticism, and I think that they would align their thinking with Eliot more than Emerson, but I also see shades of romanticism in their worship of the text as almost sacred. They definitely don't exult the poet, but it seems they place that same degree of exultation on the poem, the glorious poem!
They claim that the critic's task is to examine the linguistic structure and aesthetic unity of the poem, not the poet's intended meaning for what the poem was supposed to be about. Now I agree when they argue on pg. 1383 that the reader could never fully know what Donne's intentions were for a particular poem he wrote, but then I think that part of the allure of analyzing and interacting with poetry is the interpretation part. What was the poet trying to say in this stanza and with this tone? In all my years of taking poetry classes, the teacher has always tossed that question at us, and it became ingrained in me to think that the art of studying poetry was to study and analyze the work at hand so as to make an educated inference about what the poet intended. I never learned about the exalted text which stands alone.
The authors seem to be reducing poetry to science (and, yes, i believe that is reducing! ha!). They want to study its structure, the linguistics of it, and that is a science. They seem to relate it to the study of a building or specific plant, simply desiring to comment on what is already there, right in front of them. I wondered about the substance of interpretation and what they would say about it in class, and I'm still wondering about it now. Wouldn't interpretation to them simply be observation? If they don't believe in self-discovery within the text or research on the biographical and historical info about the author, then how does one interpret a poem? I know the authors write on pg. 1372 that if any historical or biographical information is relevant to the poem itself, it will already be in the poem. This is a tricky thing to say because then it presupposes that every reader's epistemology in acquiring knowledge is relatively the same. We must all be able to understand a poem's intrinsic meaning without outside help if the poem is of any value, right? What if a handful of people don't understand the meaning of a poem? What if readers come up with different meanings? Does that make the poem trash? Well, if a poem's worth is truly measured by these standards, then all poetry is trash. All poetry is unable to be understood. I think it was Plato who said all written poetry is failure. Well, he must be right by Wimsatt's and Beardsley's standards. I think they set themselves up for this. We are all taught to find the poet's intended meaning. Our minds are trained to do this. And is it wrong?
They claim that the critic's task is to examine the linguistic structure and aesthetic unity of the poem, not the poet's intended meaning for what the poem was supposed to be about. Now I agree when they argue on pg. 1383 that the reader could never fully know what Donne's intentions were for a particular poem he wrote, but then I think that part of the allure of analyzing and interacting with poetry is the interpretation part. What was the poet trying to say in this stanza and with this tone? In all my years of taking poetry classes, the teacher has always tossed that question at us, and it became ingrained in me to think that the art of studying poetry was to study and analyze the work at hand so as to make an educated inference about what the poet intended. I never learned about the exalted text which stands alone.
The authors seem to be reducing poetry to science (and, yes, i believe that is reducing! ha!). They want to study its structure, the linguistics of it, and that is a science. They seem to relate it to the study of a building or specific plant, simply desiring to comment on what is already there, right in front of them. I wondered about the substance of interpretation and what they would say about it in class, and I'm still wondering about it now. Wouldn't interpretation to them simply be observation? If they don't believe in self-discovery within the text or research on the biographical and historical info about the author, then how does one interpret a poem? I know the authors write on pg. 1372 that if any historical or biographical information is relevant to the poem itself, it will already be in the poem. This is a tricky thing to say because then it presupposes that every reader's epistemology in acquiring knowledge is relatively the same. We must all be able to understand a poem's intrinsic meaning without outside help if the poem is of any value, right? What if a handful of people don't understand the meaning of a poem? What if readers come up with different meanings? Does that make the poem trash? Well, if a poem's worth is truly measured by these standards, then all poetry is trash. All poetry is unable to be understood. I think it was Plato who said all written poetry is failure. Well, he must be right by Wimsatt's and Beardsley's standards. I think they set themselves up for this. We are all taught to find the poet's intended meaning. Our minds are trained to do this. And is it wrong?
February 20, 2008
On Eliot
I have a feeling that I am going to be very fickle in this class. I wish this werent so, but I find thatI'm embracing both Emerson and Eliot, and I think they were in opposition of one another. Emerson embraced romanticism while Eliot rejected it for modernism, yet I do see both of them putting emphasis on the importance of the mind, and the mind's role in producing art. This is something I agreed with of Emerson's thinking in my last post. I just didnt agree with the emphasis he put on one poet being the voice of the masses, bringing true Beauty and Art to all, and I didnt agree with him that true art could be completely original and pure and divine and separate from influence of the past.
This is where I agree with Eliot. On pg. 1092 he writes that we should criticize our own minds within a work of criticism, and that we should articulate what passes through our minds when we read a book and what emotions it evokes. This seems to me to be a very grounded view of criticism, and it places much expectation on the author and his or her thought processes in criticizing poetry. He doesnt immortalize poetry as this glorious thing to be revered and worshipped. Rather, it is something to be studied and worked and analyzed and interpreted. I agree with this.
I also appreciate the attention he gives to tradition, though he does use it in an interesting way I would not have thought of. He writes on pg. 1093 that tradition must be laboured for. Just as we cannot ignore it, we cannot simply use it as immovable, historical fact. Eliot claims that literature of the past and the present contain simultaneous existence and order. This comment seems absurd at first, but then it makes sense to me. On pg. 1098, he writes that the poet must live in the present but he must also live in the present moment of the past; he must be conscious of what is already living. I get the sense that Eliot views the past as living because it influences the present. He says that the past and present are influenced by each other, not just the solidified past influencing the present. So the past cannot be a dead thing if it is influencing something, can it?
Eliot then goes on to explain how the present can influence the past. He says on pg. 1093 that the old is modified when the new is created. The ideal order of the past is modified with the new. I like this idea because I have never seen the past in this light, but I think it makes sense. Eliot is saying maybe that the present builds on the past so that works of the present become part of the past, just as the past influences those works of the present. Both periods of time are simultaneous; they are working together. For example, a present work about Gerard Manley Hopkins' poems will modify Gerard Manley Hopkins' actual poems because something is being added to those poems by this present work. Now, the poems will be seen a little differently in light of this new work. And then, of course, the new work was influenced by the actual poems. Past and Present work together.
I do have to say, though, I was unsure about Eliot's thoughts on the mind and its relationship to the man who inhibits it. He says on pg. 1095 that the mind of the poet and the man who experiences are separate things. The more separate they are, the more perfectly the mind will digest and transmute the passions which are its material. Now I know he doesnt see the mind like the romantics do, but I cant help but think he is being a bit transcendental. Does Eliot believe that emotions and feelings are separate abstractions from the man? On pg. 1098 he says that significant emotion is emotion which has its life in the poem not the history of the poet. He also says that the emotion of art is impersonal. So are we dealing with just abstractions? I know he compares these thoughts to a scientific chemical reaction, saying that "the mind is a receptacle for seizing and storing up numberless feelings, phrases, and images which remain there until all the particles which can unite to form a new compound are present together" (1096) so then I think he discounts the role of the man. I mean, I understand that the past and present work together, but what about the role of the man in the equation? Isnt the man the one who has these emotions and feelings to work into the poem?
Now I think I understand his distinction between the mature poet and the immature poet in how they use their emotions in the poems they write. Eliot writes that the mature poet can comprehend all the different combinations that can be used in the poem with his emotions, so he uses them effectively and expertly, while the immature poet just gets his emotions out in a flush without closely thinking about how to mold them into art. I just dont understand why the emotions cannot be the poet's own, but rather are compared to combustible elements outside the poet's or artist's own being.
This is where I agree with Eliot. On pg. 1092 he writes that we should criticize our own minds within a work of criticism, and that we should articulate what passes through our minds when we read a book and what emotions it evokes. This seems to me to be a very grounded view of criticism, and it places much expectation on the author and his or her thought processes in criticizing poetry. He doesnt immortalize poetry as this glorious thing to be revered and worshipped. Rather, it is something to be studied and worked and analyzed and interpreted. I agree with this.
I also appreciate the attention he gives to tradition, though he does use it in an interesting way I would not have thought of. He writes on pg. 1093 that tradition must be laboured for. Just as we cannot ignore it, we cannot simply use it as immovable, historical fact. Eliot claims that literature of the past and the present contain simultaneous existence and order. This comment seems absurd at first, but then it makes sense to me. On pg. 1098, he writes that the poet must live in the present but he must also live in the present moment of the past; he must be conscious of what is already living. I get the sense that Eliot views the past as living because it influences the present. He says that the past and present are influenced by each other, not just the solidified past influencing the present. So the past cannot be a dead thing if it is influencing something, can it?
Eliot then goes on to explain how the present can influence the past. He says on pg. 1093 that the old is modified when the new is created. The ideal order of the past is modified with the new. I like this idea because I have never seen the past in this light, but I think it makes sense. Eliot is saying maybe that the present builds on the past so that works of the present become part of the past, just as the past influences those works of the present. Both periods of time are simultaneous; they are working together. For example, a present work about Gerard Manley Hopkins' poems will modify Gerard Manley Hopkins' actual poems because something is being added to those poems by this present work. Now, the poems will be seen a little differently in light of this new work. And then, of course, the new work was influenced by the actual poems. Past and Present work together.
I do have to say, though, I was unsure about Eliot's thoughts on the mind and its relationship to the man who inhibits it. He says on pg. 1095 that the mind of the poet and the man who experiences are separate things. The more separate they are, the more perfectly the mind will digest and transmute the passions which are its material. Now I know he doesnt see the mind like the romantics do, but I cant help but think he is being a bit transcendental. Does Eliot believe that emotions and feelings are separate abstractions from the man? On pg. 1098 he says that significant emotion is emotion which has its life in the poem not the history of the poet. He also says that the emotion of art is impersonal. So are we dealing with just abstractions? I know he compares these thoughts to a scientific chemical reaction, saying that "the mind is a receptacle for seizing and storing up numberless feelings, phrases, and images which remain there until all the particles which can unite to form a new compound are present together" (1096) so then I think he discounts the role of the man. I mean, I understand that the past and present work together, but what about the role of the man in the equation? Isnt the man the one who has these emotions and feelings to work into the poem?
Now I think I understand his distinction between the mature poet and the immature poet in how they use their emotions in the poems they write. Eliot writes that the mature poet can comprehend all the different combinations that can be used in the poem with his emotions, so he uses them effectively and expertly, while the immature poet just gets his emotions out in a flush without closely thinking about how to mold them into art. I just dont understand why the emotions cannot be the poet's own, but rather are compared to combustible elements outside the poet's or artist's own being.
More on the Scholar
Sometimes I will be sitting in this literary criticism class, listening to all the discussion that is going on around me about how poetry can improve society and how some poet, some true poet will be able to express to the world what true Beauty and Art truly are, and I want to get out of my seat and proclaim, "What are we really talking about here? Why is this so important? What really is this Poetry (with a capital P) we are tossing around so effortlessly? What is Beauty (with a captial B)?" I want to scream these things, because I want to know them. I get the feeling that we discuss these essays to critique the authors' arguments and style, but I tend to want to know the philosophy behind the concepts. I want to understand the the Transcendentalists were trying to understand. I want to try to comprehend their thoughts.
So I tried to do this with this particular Emerson essay. I think he was much more clear and practical and easy to understand in this essay than in "The Poet." Emerson tries to describe his philosophy when he writes:
"The astronomer discovers that geometry, a pure abstraction of the human mind, is the measure of planetary motion...The ambitious soul sits down before each refractory fact; one after another, reduces all strange constitutions, all new powers, to their class and their law, and goes on for ever to animate the last fibre of organization, the outskirts of nature, by insight."
I think I understand that he is saying we can conceive of abstractions by understanding that the concrete, testable, tangible examples of such abstractions are, in fact, examples of them. If we can separate the two, then we can say that our minds--and our minds only-- can conceive of abstractions. Then Emerson goes on to say that the school-boy, the scholar can then preceive Nature and realize that "he and it proceed from one root; one is leaf and one is flower; relation, sympathy, stirring in every vein. And what is that Root? Is not that the soul of his soul? -- A thought too bold, -- a dream too wild."
I love that Emerson knows his thoughts are "too bold" and "too wild" but he proposes them anyway because, well, what if...? In my preceptions of his explanations, I think he is saying that the abstract stuff binds us together with Nature. The stuff that makes a flower a flower and a human a human are only examples of the abstract, and maybe that abstract is Beauty or respiration or knowledge or just life, and then that, in turn, is the soul. The Root is the soul, and the soul connects everything. (I swear I'm not taking drugs as I write this...)
Then Emerson writes that this realization is "the beauty of [the scholar's] own mind. Its laws are the laws of his own mind. Nature then becomes to him the measure of his attainments. So much of nature as he is ignorant of, so much of his own mind does he not yet possess. And, in fine, the ancient precept, 'Know thyself,' and the modern precept, 'Study nature,' become at last one maxim." Emerson is saying that if we do not know Nature, then we do not know ourselves. at first, I find this argument absurd because nature and humankind seem to be two completely separate things, but if we truly are connected in our most organic form, in how were bound by the abstractions of ourselves, then maybe this makes sense.
I know, Transcendentalism is completely egotistical if we really believe that we can be completely enlightened and understand the infinite wisdom of the universe soley through our minds, but isnt that how it goes? How else are we going to understand our purpose in this thing called "Life"? Is God going to reveal His mysteries to us? Well if He does, then how does He do it? Through our minds, of course! We are "Man Thinking." We are naturally thinking individuals. This is how we survive and thrive. This is what sets us apart from animals and nature, yet, it is also what brings us back to them. How else are we going to understand our situation? We think, therefore we are. We think so much that we start to understand abstractions of this world, and then we realize it is those abstractions that bind all of creation together. Particularly, it is The Abstraction that binds all of creation together. God.
So I tried to do this with this particular Emerson essay. I think he was much more clear and practical and easy to understand in this essay than in "The Poet." Emerson tries to describe his philosophy when he writes:
"The astronomer discovers that geometry, a pure abstraction of the human mind, is the measure of planetary motion...The ambitious soul sits down before each refractory fact; one after another, reduces all strange constitutions, all new powers, to their class and their law, and goes on for ever to animate the last fibre of organization, the outskirts of nature, by insight."
I think I understand that he is saying we can conceive of abstractions by understanding that the concrete, testable, tangible examples of such abstractions are, in fact, examples of them. If we can separate the two, then we can say that our minds--and our minds only-- can conceive of abstractions. Then Emerson goes on to say that the school-boy, the scholar can then preceive Nature and realize that "he and it proceed from one root; one is leaf and one is flower; relation, sympathy, stirring in every vein. And what is that Root? Is not that the soul of his soul? -- A thought too bold, -- a dream too wild."
I love that Emerson knows his thoughts are "too bold" and "too wild" but he proposes them anyway because, well, what if...? In my preceptions of his explanations, I think he is saying that the abstract stuff binds us together with Nature. The stuff that makes a flower a flower and a human a human are only examples of the abstract, and maybe that abstract is Beauty or respiration or knowledge or just life, and then that, in turn, is the soul. The Root is the soul, and the soul connects everything. (I swear I'm not taking drugs as I write this...)
Then Emerson writes that this realization is "the beauty of [the scholar's] own mind. Its laws are the laws of his own mind. Nature then becomes to him the measure of his attainments. So much of nature as he is ignorant of, so much of his own mind does he not yet possess. And, in fine, the ancient precept, 'Know thyself,' and the modern precept, 'Study nature,' become at last one maxim." Emerson is saying that if we do not know Nature, then we do not know ourselves. at first, I find this argument absurd because nature and humankind seem to be two completely separate things, but if we truly are connected in our most organic form, in how were bound by the abstractions of ourselves, then maybe this makes sense.
I know, Transcendentalism is completely egotistical if we really believe that we can be completely enlightened and understand the infinite wisdom of the universe soley through our minds, but isnt that how it goes? How else are we going to understand our purpose in this thing called "Life"? Is God going to reveal His mysteries to us? Well if He does, then how does He do it? Through our minds, of course! We are "Man Thinking." We are naturally thinking individuals. This is how we survive and thrive. This is what sets us apart from animals and nature, yet, it is also what brings us back to them. How else are we going to understand our situation? We think, therefore we are. We think so much that we start to understand abstractions of this world, and then we realize it is those abstractions that bind all of creation together. Particularly, it is The Abstraction that binds all of creation together. God.
February 18, 2008
American Scholar
I have to say I really enjoyed this essay by Emerson, maybe this is even Emerson at his best, though I am not an Emerson scholar. He presented his thoughts clearly and cleverly and they really resonated with my own thinking. I'm sure this was Emerson's point all along, to help me uncover my own enlightenment through his, though I don't think he would consider himself the true Scholar or Poet. Anyways, I have many thoughts about this essay, so I think I might post a few times on this one.
Emerson brings up the issue that we were to ruminate on for class, namely whether or not poetry can save the world. He writes, "Who can doubt, that poetry will revive and lead in a new age, as the star in the constellation Harp, which now flames in our zenith, astronomers announce, shall one day be the pole-star for a thousand years?" This is a huge, multi-layered issue to tackle. It seems easy to jump to a conclusion of "yes" or "no" with arguments that, of course, poetry has endured through the centuries and it is beautiful, or that poetry is too idealistic and just a bunch of lines on paper. How could it possibly save the world?! But then I think "poetry" is deeper than these two opposites. If this poetry that Emerson talks about is a way of thinking, a way of searching for the Truth through processed art or whatever you want to call it, then that means poetry might be significant to everyone, not just the pretentious English scholars sitting in a isolated classroom talking elevated talk, and that people may try to attain it, and in doing so, make the world better. Are you buying this?
I'd like to think like Emerson, but I can't do it. I keep reading his work with all these different lenses that make me me, and the one I think about now is my Christian lense. I want to say that poetry can't save the world because the world is unsaveable, at least until the Second Coming. We will never see peace and unified enlightenment because all humans are sinners. We are flawed by nature. Where Emerson writes that "out of an unknown antiquity" conveys an "unlooked-for wisdom, that the gods, in the beginning, divided Man into men," I see only one God shaking His head in disappointment when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge. We are flawed because it is in our nature, our inherent being. Emerson hints that there is an innate scholar in all of us, that we can all comprehend the mysteries of the universe, but you know, I'm not sure how that all pans out.
I like Emerson's description of the unity of Man. He writes that for a man to "possess himself," he "must sometimes return from his own labor to embrace all the other laborers." Truly, we are all human and there has to be something that connects us all, but then Emerson so eloquently points out the problem with this unity when he writes, "the state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk, and strut about so many walking monsters, -- a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man." Oh, I do love his descriptions. But what he says holds true. He talks of the mechanic only being likened to a machine and the sailor to a rope on the ship. Though I believe in Original Sin and the fact that we are all natural sinners, I also believe we were meant for more and we can try to attain that "more" in our lives. I agree with Emerson when he says that we are spiritual beings as well as earthly ones. It is the spiritual, or the divine, that we must seek in our lives because that is the aspect that is not so apparent or easy to come by in our day-to-day living. Yet we know that we do, in fact, have a spiritual side to ourselves and that when we engage it, we will be fulfilled to some degree, more of life will be revealed to us.
Emerson calls this possession of the self "Man Thinking." But he says this possession has become a "victim of society." The Man Thinking "tends to become a mere thinker, or, still worse, the parrot of other men's thinking." Man Thinking is a person who is active. He is not a philosopher pondering the intricacies of life in a cave or someone who cannot think his own thoughts. He is intentional about living. That is the key word, I think. Intentional.
I hesitate to use Emerson's words about his society for our society because I feel like he wouldnt want that and I dont think he intended for his work to be timeless, but hey, I'll do it anyways. How can I not? So I think maybe our society in general is not intentional about thinking in this way that Emerson describes. We are too caught up in the material, in this world, in our day-to-day lives, though Emerson later writes in his essay that he is able to find beauty in the ordinary and plain. Maybe my thoughts are far-fetched, but I really don't think that we are Man Thinking and Woman Thinking. If we truly personified this to the point of enlightenment, thenwe surely would have had a Poet or Scholar by now to help us uncover our own truth and beauty and then we would be unified as one and the world would be sunshine and rainbows, right?
No, I think thinking and ruminating and meditating are the stuff of idealized Platos and Buddhist monks. I mean, do we really have time to find enlightenment when we are so in this world. Like, I'm thinking about things at this moment but it is for a class assignment. I am not truly free in this thinking. And then when I'm not thinking like this (which is basically the rest of my day) I'm doing trivial things like thinking about what I'm going to have for lunch or searching profiles on Facebook. Awww, will I ever be able to grasp the infinite mysteries of life? Will any of us? What does that mean anyways?
Emerson brings up the issue that we were to ruminate on for class, namely whether or not poetry can save the world. He writes, "Who can doubt, that poetry will revive and lead in a new age, as the star in the constellation Harp, which now flames in our zenith, astronomers announce, shall one day be the pole-star for a thousand years?" This is a huge, multi-layered issue to tackle. It seems easy to jump to a conclusion of "yes" or "no" with arguments that, of course, poetry has endured through the centuries and it is beautiful, or that poetry is too idealistic and just a bunch of lines on paper. How could it possibly save the world?! But then I think "poetry" is deeper than these two opposites. If this poetry that Emerson talks about is a way of thinking, a way of searching for the Truth through processed art or whatever you want to call it, then that means poetry might be significant to everyone, not just the pretentious English scholars sitting in a isolated classroom talking elevated talk, and that people may try to attain it, and in doing so, make the world better. Are you buying this?
I'd like to think like Emerson, but I can't do it. I keep reading his work with all these different lenses that make me me, and the one I think about now is my Christian lense. I want to say that poetry can't save the world because the world is unsaveable, at least until the Second Coming. We will never see peace and unified enlightenment because all humans are sinners. We are flawed by nature. Where Emerson writes that "out of an unknown antiquity" conveys an "unlooked-for wisdom, that the gods, in the beginning, divided Man into men," I see only one God shaking His head in disappointment when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge. We are flawed because it is in our nature, our inherent being. Emerson hints that there is an innate scholar in all of us, that we can all comprehend the mysteries of the universe, but you know, I'm not sure how that all pans out.
I like Emerson's description of the unity of Man. He writes that for a man to "possess himself," he "must sometimes return from his own labor to embrace all the other laborers." Truly, we are all human and there has to be something that connects us all, but then Emerson so eloquently points out the problem with this unity when he writes, "the state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk, and strut about so many walking monsters, -- a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man." Oh, I do love his descriptions. But what he says holds true. He talks of the mechanic only being likened to a machine and the sailor to a rope on the ship. Though I believe in Original Sin and the fact that we are all natural sinners, I also believe we were meant for more and we can try to attain that "more" in our lives. I agree with Emerson when he says that we are spiritual beings as well as earthly ones. It is the spiritual, or the divine, that we must seek in our lives because that is the aspect that is not so apparent or easy to come by in our day-to-day living. Yet we know that we do, in fact, have a spiritual side to ourselves and that when we engage it, we will be fulfilled to some degree, more of life will be revealed to us.
Emerson calls this possession of the self "Man Thinking." But he says this possession has become a "victim of society." The Man Thinking "tends to become a mere thinker, or, still worse, the parrot of other men's thinking." Man Thinking is a person who is active. He is not a philosopher pondering the intricacies of life in a cave or someone who cannot think his own thoughts. He is intentional about living. That is the key word, I think. Intentional.
I hesitate to use Emerson's words about his society for our society because I feel like he wouldnt want that and I dont think he intended for his work to be timeless, but hey, I'll do it anyways. How can I not? So I think maybe our society in general is not intentional about thinking in this way that Emerson describes. We are too caught up in the material, in this world, in our day-to-day lives, though Emerson later writes in his essay that he is able to find beauty in the ordinary and plain. Maybe my thoughts are far-fetched, but I really don't think that we are Man Thinking and Woman Thinking. If we truly personified this to the point of enlightenment, thenwe surely would have had a Poet or Scholar by now to help us uncover our own truth and beauty and then we would be unified as one and the world would be sunshine and rainbows, right?
No, I think thinking and ruminating and meditating are the stuff of idealized Platos and Buddhist monks. I mean, do we really have time to find enlightenment when we are so in this world. Like, I'm thinking about things at this moment but it is for a class assignment. I am not truly free in this thinking. And then when I'm not thinking like this (which is basically the rest of my day) I'm doing trivial things like thinking about what I'm going to have for lunch or searching profiles on Facebook. Awww, will I ever be able to grasp the infinite mysteries of life? Will any of us? What does that mean anyways?
February 13, 2008
The Convolution of Shelley
I have to say that I do not like Shelley as much as I like Emerson in the way of style and content. I would have to agree with modernist poets like T.S. Eliot and Allen Tate when they claimed he was too dreamy and self-absorbed. I also think he is even more long-winded than Emerson and his allusions, though intelligent, lose me in their density. I was able to see the similarities in his thought to the romanticism of Emerson, but Shelley also presented a different view of poetry and beauty as well.
Shelley also believed that poetry was divine. Does every poet think this? And is that because they are certainly biased, being poets themselves? How would these essays turn out differently if, say, Emerson was a merchant or Shelley was a shoemaker? Would these essays exist at all? I keep trying to convince myself that these men werent just stuffy old intellectuals sitting around in their houses, smoking cigars, completely cut off from the "common folk." They seem to have a lot to say about society and what is right or moral or purposeful living, so I hope a wide variety of people have been touched by their writing if they are, in fact, meaningful writers. I want to know if only college students, professors, and other intellectuals are the only ones reading this stuff, or if it could reach people on the streets of innercity Harrisburg or maybe the ex-cons I work with at a halfway house. Does this stuff really matter to society at large, or only the intellectuals of the world, whoever they may be.
But anyway, I digress. So Shelley believes that poetry is divine like the other poets, but he seems to be different from Emerson in that he doesnt place so much emphasis on one sole poet figure-- though he does talk about a poet or group of poets in the end of his essay. His emphasis seems to be on the political and social moral good or everyone, a utilitarian kind of approach. He says that poetry kindles the imagination to the degree that we can "locate ourselves in the place of another." This then unites individuals by breaking down the differences among them. He writes on pg. 700 that "poetry strengthens the moral nature of man" so it seems that poetry serves as an equalizing, practical medium for change.
But then Shelley goes back to the figures of the set-apart poets and says on pg. 714 that "poetry is the record of the best and happiest moments of the happiest and best minds." This statement stuck out to me as a fluffy, simplistic assertion. I dont know why, but I just think Shelley's use of the word "happy" is so trivial when he could have used "joy" or "signficant" or "rich." It's like, Who cares that the poets are happy? Why does that matter?
Another thing....I'm confused by Shelley's emphasis on Drama. Is he talking about performed plays and how they exhibit poetry in the most authentic way. He writes at length about drama, particularly Athenian drama, and I wondered why drama would be a better representation of poetry than real life. I mean, maybe acting stimulates the imagination more than living day-to-day, but what about writing in other forms? Why drama?
Also, I tried to understand Shelley's view of religion, taking into account his biography as an atheist and non-conformist to societal institutions like marriage. I get the impression that he believes Christian doctrines have become evil through human manipulation in the form of "despotism and superstition" pg. 707 but he still believes in the "sacred and moral truths" as preached through Jesus Christ. I think he believes poetry can be found in religion, yet he ties social issues like personal slavery and freedom of women to that religion. His emphasis seems to be on social and moral good as the purpose of poetry, not the praise of the God he always rejected.
Shelley also believed that poetry was divine. Does every poet think this? And is that because they are certainly biased, being poets themselves? How would these essays turn out differently if, say, Emerson was a merchant or Shelley was a shoemaker? Would these essays exist at all? I keep trying to convince myself that these men werent just stuffy old intellectuals sitting around in their houses, smoking cigars, completely cut off from the "common folk." They seem to have a lot to say about society and what is right or moral or purposeful living, so I hope a wide variety of people have been touched by their writing if they are, in fact, meaningful writers. I want to know if only college students, professors, and other intellectuals are the only ones reading this stuff, or if it could reach people on the streets of innercity Harrisburg or maybe the ex-cons I work with at a halfway house. Does this stuff really matter to society at large, or only the intellectuals of the world, whoever they may be.
But anyway, I digress. So Shelley believes that poetry is divine like the other poets, but he seems to be different from Emerson in that he doesnt place so much emphasis on one sole poet figure-- though he does talk about a poet or group of poets in the end of his essay. His emphasis seems to be on the political and social moral good or everyone, a utilitarian kind of approach. He says that poetry kindles the imagination to the degree that we can "locate ourselves in the place of another." This then unites individuals by breaking down the differences among them. He writes on pg. 700 that "poetry strengthens the moral nature of man" so it seems that poetry serves as an equalizing, practical medium for change.
But then Shelley goes back to the figures of the set-apart poets and says on pg. 714 that "poetry is the record of the best and happiest moments of the happiest and best minds." This statement stuck out to me as a fluffy, simplistic assertion. I dont know why, but I just think Shelley's use of the word "happy" is so trivial when he could have used "joy" or "signficant" or "rich." It's like, Who cares that the poets are happy? Why does that matter?
Another thing....I'm confused by Shelley's emphasis on Drama. Is he talking about performed plays and how they exhibit poetry in the most authentic way. He writes at length about drama, particularly Athenian drama, and I wondered why drama would be a better representation of poetry than real life. I mean, maybe acting stimulates the imagination more than living day-to-day, but what about writing in other forms? Why drama?
Also, I tried to understand Shelley's view of religion, taking into account his biography as an atheist and non-conformist to societal institutions like marriage. I get the impression that he believes Christian doctrines have become evil through human manipulation in the form of "despotism and superstition" pg. 707 but he still believes in the "sacred and moral truths" as preached through Jesus Christ. I think he believes poetry can be found in religion, yet he ties social issues like personal slavery and freedom of women to that religion. His emphasis seems to be on social and moral good as the purpose of poetry, not the praise of the God he always rejected.
More Thoughts on Emerson
I had written down so much to say about this essay that, now, I dont think 1000 words is all that much for one week, though I may be eating those very words soon. Anyways, I have moved onto Thoreau's Walden and Civil Disobedience in my other class. I can see how he, also, resembles a writer of the Romantic period with his attention to individuality and rejection of knowledge of the past. He goes on at length in the beginning of Walden about rejection the knowledge his forefathers try to pass down to him. He boldly asserts, "Old deeds for old people, and new deeds for new." He is a firm advocate for doing while he is leery of reading, that is, reading someone else's ideas and thoughts.
Similarly, I see how Emerson warns against reading. He sees merit in reading for its "transcendental and extraordinary" purpose. He will read a man's papers if that man is so "inflamed and carried away by his own thought, to that degree that he forgets the authors and the public." But he will not read if it has no transitive value for himself. He rejects the "arguments, histories, and criticisms" in reading probably because they are just someone else's work from the past, they do nothing for him. I think Thoreau would feel the same about this quote.
What is interesting is that both authors quote past philosophers and authors numerous times within their work, and thats not to say they criticize them or put down their work. Rather, they praise their work and use it to back up their own. Thoreau quotes Confucius, Hypocrites, and Evelyn while Emerson quotes Plato, Pythagoras, and the actions of the Greek god Pan, to name a few. I don't know if this makes both authors hypocritical in such a way as to discount their work or if it was fairly common to contradict one's self when they were alive and writing these things. Should we view these kinds of writers as credible voices from the past? Are they all we have to gage what are history is like through the medium of literature?
Similarly, I see how Emerson warns against reading. He sees merit in reading for its "transcendental and extraordinary" purpose. He will read a man's papers if that man is so "inflamed and carried away by his own thought, to that degree that he forgets the authors and the public." But he will not read if it has no transitive value for himself. He rejects the "arguments, histories, and criticisms" in reading probably because they are just someone else's work from the past, they do nothing for him. I think Thoreau would feel the same about this quote.
What is interesting is that both authors quote past philosophers and authors numerous times within their work, and thats not to say they criticize them or put down their work. Rather, they praise their work and use it to back up their own. Thoreau quotes Confucius, Hypocrites, and Evelyn while Emerson quotes Plato, Pythagoras, and the actions of the Greek god Pan, to name a few. I don't know if this makes both authors hypocritical in such a way as to discount their work or if it was fairly common to contradict one's self when they were alive and writing these things. Should we view these kinds of writers as credible voices from the past? Are they all we have to gage what are history is like through the medium of literature?
Emerson's "The Poet"
I approached this Literary Criticism class in which I am reading Emerson's work with much trepidation and nervousness, much to Dr. Powers delight, I'm sure. But then after reading Emerson's extremely eloquent and also long-winded essay on Art and Beauty as our first assignment, I realize that this class may not be so bad. I've found out, through this reading, that I am in fact a very critical person. Let's hope I do flourish in this class.
Seeing that I am a tride and true procrastinationist, I feel it may be excessive to write about what we have already discussed in class on Tuesday, so I'll start with my thoughts on Emerson as relating to William Bartram. Emerson writes that there is some "phlegm in our constitution" which prevents us from articulating the beauty of nature. He writes, "Too feeble fall the impressions of nature on us to make us artists. Every touch should thrill. Every man should be so much an artist that he could report in conversation what had befallen him." He goes on to claim that men do not have the speech to report such beauty. Now when I read the part about how every touch should thrill, I immediately thought of Bartram's extensive and precise catalogue of his travels through America in Travels of William Bartram. Each page is coated with praises of specific vegetation, each delicately crafted sentence is puncuated by an exclamation mark to the point of excessiveness. Can the man really not grow tired of the grammatical mark? Yet as I read Bartram's piece, I have to appreciate how much he knows of nature and I do have to appreciate his grandiose, lofty style in writing of it. The man really loves nature. Now I know-- at least, I think Emerson and Bartram were contemporaries, so I wonder what Emerson thought of Bartram. I gather from "The Poet" that Emerson still believes there is no suitable Poet for the time period in which he writes, but did he think Bartram was close to accurately and successfully writing of nature and beauty for the masses? Truly, Bartram wasnt writing for himself when he wrote his extended piece. He was writing for everyone back in England who would come to this foreign land called America. He was basically the man everyone relied on to tell them what America looked like, if it had a history, what the Indians were like, and if they could thrive and prosper there apart from their mother country. It seems Bartram was kind of the voice for the masses like the Poet is supposed to be. I know Bartram was just as much influenced by romanticism as Emerson was, with a strict belief in the importance and beauty in nature, but maybe Emerson wouldnt believe Bartram could be the Poet because Bartram's writing wasnt divine.
Emerson suggests in numerous places in his text that writing about art and beauty is something divine. On page 726, he claims that all poetry was written before time and that actual words and deeds-- supposedly the words and deeds of the poet-- are "indifferent modes of the divine energy. On page 738, Emerson says again that speech and song are "ejaculated as Logos or Word." To me, this seems to suggest that the words of the Poet are God-breathed. They are not own's one. They could essentially be regarded as holy and suitable for some kind of poetry bible. But then I wonder, how are we going to know our words arent our own. How will the Poet know? How does the Poet know he is the Poet? What if the Poet is female? Who's going to decide? I think this essay is very much a piece of its time and quite clearly and obviously, an Emersonian piece. Can we read this essay today and take it to heart for our own present time period? Surely, Emerson was wondering who this Poet could be for his time period only, not really for all of time in the present and future. He guesses that a poet could have arose in the past, but he says that "Milton was too literary, and Homer too literal." Emerson is then looking for a poet who is male, a romantic, an intellectual, and one who is knowledgeable of the social and political issues of that current time. He is looking for a poet who speaks and writes as he does, with such lofty sentence structure and diction. As I read the essay, I kept wondering if every contemporary of Emerson's really thought and spoke like him. Did anyone agree with his argument or was he some sappy recluse alone with his thoughts? If Emerson lived today, would we revere (sp?) him and agree with his thoughts, or is he just a product of his time? How then, I wonder, should I really read this essay and then apply what Ive read?
Seeing that I am a tride and true procrastinationist, I feel it may be excessive to write about what we have already discussed in class on Tuesday, so I'll start with my thoughts on Emerson as relating to William Bartram. Emerson writes that there is some "phlegm in our constitution" which prevents us from articulating the beauty of nature. He writes, "Too feeble fall the impressions of nature on us to make us artists. Every touch should thrill. Every man should be so much an artist that he could report in conversation what had befallen him." He goes on to claim that men do not have the speech to report such beauty. Now when I read the part about how every touch should thrill, I immediately thought of Bartram's extensive and precise catalogue of his travels through America in Travels of William Bartram. Each page is coated with praises of specific vegetation, each delicately crafted sentence is puncuated by an exclamation mark to the point of excessiveness. Can the man really not grow tired of the grammatical mark? Yet as I read Bartram's piece, I have to appreciate how much he knows of nature and I do have to appreciate his grandiose, lofty style in writing of it. The man really loves nature. Now I know-- at least, I think Emerson and Bartram were contemporaries, so I wonder what Emerson thought of Bartram. I gather from "The Poet" that Emerson still believes there is no suitable Poet for the time period in which he writes, but did he think Bartram was close to accurately and successfully writing of nature and beauty for the masses? Truly, Bartram wasnt writing for himself when he wrote his extended piece. He was writing for everyone back in England who would come to this foreign land called America. He was basically the man everyone relied on to tell them what America looked like, if it had a history, what the Indians were like, and if they could thrive and prosper there apart from their mother country. It seems Bartram was kind of the voice for the masses like the Poet is supposed to be. I know Bartram was just as much influenced by romanticism as Emerson was, with a strict belief in the importance and beauty in nature, but maybe Emerson wouldnt believe Bartram could be the Poet because Bartram's writing wasnt divine.
Emerson suggests in numerous places in his text that writing about art and beauty is something divine. On page 726, he claims that all poetry was written before time and that actual words and deeds-- supposedly the words and deeds of the poet-- are "indifferent modes of the divine energy. On page 738, Emerson says again that speech and song are "ejaculated as Logos or Word." To me, this seems to suggest that the words of the Poet are God-breathed. They are not own's one. They could essentially be regarded as holy and suitable for some kind of poetry bible. But then I wonder, how are we going to know our words arent our own. How will the Poet know? How does the Poet know he is the Poet? What if the Poet is female? Who's going to decide? I think this essay is very much a piece of its time and quite clearly and obviously, an Emersonian piece. Can we read this essay today and take it to heart for our own present time period? Surely, Emerson was wondering who this Poet could be for his time period only, not really for all of time in the present and future. He guesses that a poet could have arose in the past, but he says that "Milton was too literary, and Homer too literal." Emerson is then looking for a poet who is male, a romantic, an intellectual, and one who is knowledgeable of the social and political issues of that current time. He is looking for a poet who speaks and writes as he does, with such lofty sentence structure and diction. As I read the essay, I kept wondering if every contemporary of Emerson's really thought and spoke like him. Did anyone agree with his argument or was he some sappy recluse alone with his thoughts? If Emerson lived today, would we revere (sp?) him and agree with his thoughts, or is he just a product of his time? How then, I wonder, should I really read this essay and then apply what Ive read?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
