[lit-ideas] Re: Poetry x 2 = Sabbatical
- From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:46:37 +0100
Combining these observations, I
> see a familiar conversational pattern:
Is that because you misread my Observation? It's true
I didn't make my meaning clear, but how you got
>that Romantic poets, in
>particular, wanted very much, indeed, to attract attention to
>themselves and their personal stories.
escapes me. I didn't say it, the poem doesn't say it, the
readers
who respond to it don't say it. What the poem's saying seems to
me very clear. What I intended to say, and tried to say in my
second
post, is that I thought it was literary criticism that "murdered
to
dissect". I hope that's clear now.
As for the familiar conversational patterns it took you n years
of
anthropology to learn about, *note* this.
>Combining these observations,
*one of which you grossly misunderstood*
I
> see a familiar conversational pattern: A says X, B hears Y, A
> complains that B isn't listening properly.
Actually A (JE) realised she'd given the wrong impression so
before anyone replied, sent an Oops. B (Mike) is in a dreadful
hurry (that may be why he didn't see the Oops), didn't see
why the poem had been posted (because he hadn't seen the
Oops) and made an observation about the Romantics (q.v.)with
which I agree. (So I posted to say that.)
That Mike is in a hurry is contained within the conversation.
Your thing about the Romantics wanting people to know about
their personal lives is not.
> B replys that what B heard
> was Y. A and B talk past each other until they come to blows.
go off
> in a huff,
(If I'm A and Mike is B) that is of course incorrect.
I recommend books/articles by people who actually analyse
this stuff (i.e. conversation); e.g. Deborah Tannen, some of
whose work is
online. Not that I think, John, that your post is some kind
of typical example of male conversation.
Judy Evans, Cardiff
----- Original Message -----
From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 3:22 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Poetry x 2 = Sabbatical
> I have been following with delight the discussion of poetry.
Here are
> a few random thoughts, scattered along the way.
>
> 1. Mike makes a strong case, a la reader-response theory, that
a poem
> is what the reader makes of it, which may be very different,
indeed,
> from whatever the poet intended. Judith notes that Romantic
poets, in
> particular, wanted very much, indeed, to attract attention to
> themselves and their personal stories. Combining these
observations, I
> see a familiar conversational pattern: A says X, B hears Y, A
> complains that B isn't listening properly. B replys that what B
heard
> was Y. A and B talk past each other until they come to blows.
go off
> in a huff, or, like two Englishmen at a bar, give it up and buy
each
> other a beer.
>
> 2. I note, too, that all of the references so far are to
Western,
> largely English-speaking, poets. This reminds me to recommend
one of
> my favorite books,
>
> Traditional Chinese Poetry and Poetics' Omen of the World. By
STEPHEN
> OWEN. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985. vii, 303
pp.
>
> Owen's central point is that every art of poetry (and, yes,
there are
> many, depending on time and place) assumes a corresponding art
of
> readership. This explains, among other things, why readers who
bring
> an unanticipated art of reading to a poem may find it
unintelligible,
> or not very good at all in terms of what they expect from a
poem.
>
> To illustrate his point, Owen compares the English Romantics
with the
> great T'ang Dynastic lyric poet Du Fu. In translation, Du Fu
comes
> across as trite and banal, leaving Western readers to wonder
why many
> Chinese consider him China's greatest poet. The problem, says
Owen, is
> that Western readers do what they learn in school, follow the
> Romantics' example and look for a "deeper" message somewhere
"behind"
> the poem. What they lack is what Du Fu and other classical
Chinese
> poets assumed, that the meaning of the poem is right there on
the
> surface--to anyone, that is, whose education in the Chinese
classics
> allows them to recognize that, for example, that the mention of
a full
> moon seen from a certain place while sailing down the Yellow
River
> evokes a huge array of allusions to previous poems and
commentators.
>
> The Western reader sees only "Full moon rising over X [a place
name
> she doesn't recognize] and says, "How banal." A Chinese reader
steeped
> in the classics is instantly aware of the allusions the image
evokes
> and how they reinforce or conflict with those evoked by the
preceding
> or following image that may seem, by itself, equally banal to
the
> untutored. He will also know that when the poem was written Du
Fu was
> fleeing down the river from the sack of Chang-an, the T'ang
imperial
> capital, by An Lushan, a Turkish general in the service of the
T'ang,
> who had risen against the emperor following an infamous affair
with
> the emperor's favorite concubine. It is the incident and the
> complexity of Du Fu's response to it as revealed by his
allusions in
> which its intended reader finds the power of the poem.
>
> 3. I would also like to mention a book I am currently reading,
Eiko
> Ikegami's _Bonds of Civility: Aesthetic Networks and the
Political
> Origins of Japanese Culture_. One of her examples is _renga_
(linked
> poetry), which was produced at events where crowds of poets
would
> compete by adding verses to a collectively produced poem on a
set
> topic. Ikegami sees _renga_ as the prototype for what she calls
> "aesthetic publics" and writes,
>
> "The delights and satisfactions of participatioin in aesthetic
publics
> were summarized by one enthusiast's claim that 'nothing is more
fun
> than doing _renga_--a line that was given to the husband in a
> _kyougen_ comedy of the medieval period. In this play, the
feisty wife
> threatens to leave her husband because he attends too many
linked
> verse sessions and spends to much of their money doing so.
After a
> major quarrel, the wife declares her intention to move out. To
win her
> back, the husband recites a line of poetry-- to which the wife
wisely
> replies with a witty poem of her own. The couple is reconciled
when
> the husband proposes to enjoy _renga_ with his wife at home."
>
> On the one hand, _renga_ is a far cry from the poem seen as an
> effusion of individual genius in the Romantic tradition. On the
other,
> its role in this anecdote is also a far cry from the pleasure
of the
> solitary reader to which Mike appeals.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> --
> John McCreery
> The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
---
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation
on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
