Poetic form as understood from the outside, that is theoretically (using the sonnet as example):
The effect of Shakespeare's sonnet differs altogether from the effect of its content when stated in prose, because the meaning of the sonnet is rooted in a host of poetic subsidiaries* which are disregarded in the prose account of the sonnet's content. The sonnet as a work of art is not merely enriched and altogether recast by its poetic subsidiaries; these subsidiaries also serve to cut the sonnet off from the person of the poet.
—Michael Polanyi and Harry Prosch, Meaning, p. 83.
* By "subsidiaries" the authors mean poetic devices: image, metaphor, rhythm, sound patterns such as rhyme, consonance, assonance, etc.
Contrast the theoretical view with this view from the inside, that is from the viewpoint of the poet:
ARS POETICA
The poem is in me, evil, alien, evil
and hateful; with scorching fire it burns my nights,
it passes through me crowdlike, hoarse with shouting
like a torchlit procession in the streets.
The poem is evil, hateful, trying to burst
its form (how hard to shackle one who's free),
and though I drag it from my fiery innards,
its master I will never wholly be.
It twists, shouting and troubled, till it cries out;
becomes then alien, a friend who never was,
stands on the frozen, flaming threshold, created,
and joins the others in the evening frosts.
—White Magic and Other Poems (translated from the Polish by Bill Johnston)
We can see how theory can describe but not embody poetic experience. Therefore my core question: Why would any poet want to begin with theory?
because they want! they want "fame and fortune" and thirst fior the "perfect" poem...
ReplyDeleteno wonder so many "poets" commit suicide
some of them are The Walking/Writing Dead.
This may be reiterating sentiments from some of your earlier posts, but sometimes I think theory justifies the poem rather than the poetry justifying the poem. I'm not sure "poetry" is the best word, but it seems to encompass what I'm getting at.
ReplyDeleteHowdy, Anon—
ReplyDeleteSurely you're not saying that poets (sans quotation marks) never commit suicide...?
I guess "some of them" is my answer to that....
I've read that physicians, specifically white male ones, constitute the profession with the highest rate of self-murder....
Joel, do you think theory can "justify" a poem? It might explain or contextualize, but justify? Maybe you can give an example....
ReplyDeleteThe best example I can give is the visual poetry movement as presented in the November(or October?) issue of Poetry. If we look at poetry and the universal experience, I didn't have much experience pouring over those pieces. Maybe someone could justify that these are poems because of visual poetry theory (of which I am totally ignorant and uneducated). I think they are excellent pieces of visual art, but I can't seem to see them as poems, even though there are letters and words in them.
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe I'm creating my own slippery slope of judging what is or isn't "poetry," and maybe I'm being a simpleton in assuming that poetry and a poem are synonymous.
Maybe a better way to word it would be that people may justify their writing as poetic because of a theory. And now I'm tripping over my own thoughts and confusions. I'll keep thinking on it.
Joel, I think you do have to judge "what is or isn't 'poetry'"—not for anyone else but yourself, of course. There's no need to impose your views on others, but as an aspiring poet you need to develop a clear sense of what poetry is for you. Hence your confusion. Unless you want to become a critic, you're under no obligation to be "poetically correct."
ReplyDeleteNope, no critic for me. I'm fascinated by all these theories bouncing around, and understanding these theories expands my poetic universe. But, over time, theories come and go, but people and the human experience remain (up to this point anyways!). So I completely agree that starting with theory to describe rather than an experience to embody can result in weaker poetry. I'll draft a blog about it using examples. What use is pontification without citation, eh?
ReplyDeleteYeah, Joel—even the Pope cites sources when he issues his whatever-ya-callem....
ReplyDeleteJoe—
ReplyDeleteI really need help in understanding your “Outside and Inside the Poetic Experience.”
Maybe it’s part of an on-going rumination, but I didn’t understand the relevance of your “core” question: Why would any poet want to begin with theory?” Is it because the theory passage you quote doesn’t seem like a good place to begin for a poet? That’s probably true although of course it wasn’t meant as a help for a poet to begin writing poetry. But the Polyani and Prosch passage certainly seems accurate enough to me, stating that a poem can’t be reduced to its prose account, etc.
I also didn’t understand the contrast you implied between the view from outside and, in Ars Poetica, ‘from the viewpoint of the poet’. Certainly the imagery is ‘inside’ the poet, from “the poem is in me” to “I drag it from my fiery innards.” But I’m troubled by the fact that it seems a bad poem to me: melodramatic, repetitious, metaphor-mixed, and just embarrassing.
I really may have misunderstood all of this posting. I do find it peculiar that both pieces quoted come up with the same idea ultimately: the art of a poem serving ‘to cut the sonnet off from the person of the poet’ in the 1st case and the poem standing apart from the poet at the end, ‘alien, a friend who never was.’ Or was that your point—that both passages quoted ‘say’ the same thing?
I'm really perplexed.
Bob King
Sorry to perplex you, Bob! Yes, it's part of an ongoing conversation about the place of theory. Some of my argument with post-avant (or whatever you want to call it) writing—I'd cite Silliman, Hejinian and their circle as examples—is that it exists as an illustration of their theoretical stance toward language, meaning, "relevance," etc. You can find a bunch of these related posts here. Let me know if it's clear or just clear as mud!
ReplyDelete