[lit-ideas] Re: Geary's Ars Poetica
- From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 15:41:27 -0600
Out of place, out of time, and out of mind. Must hurry scurry but will
return soon to pick up on JL's observations and to preach poetics to
Lawrence.
Have missed being here over the passed year or so.
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> I thought about the "startle" criterion for poetry but couldn't get past*
> The Thing,* the 1951 movie with James Arness as the "thing." I was in
> High School when this movie came out and like everyone in the audience
> was startled when a door was flung open and the Thing stood there. Several
> girls screamed and everyone jumped -- although being a High School boy I
> tried to deny doing that myself. The "thing" is that when I watched the
> movie a few years ago I didn't jump. I wasn't startled. So if “startle”
> is a requirement for reading poetry, can one read a poem more than once?
>
> I don't recall using the word "startle" but imagine the closest I can came
> to that effect in my own poetry-reading was when I read Sylvia Plath's*
> Ariel* for the first time*.* Poem after poem seemed written in white-hot
> heat. No wonder she burned herself out and committed suicide. My
> estimation of Plath’s poetry soared. But now when I read her poetry I don’t
> have the same reaction.
>
> I don’t suppose Geary has “startle” as a preconceived standard but has
> observed over the years that the poems he enjoys best have that effect on
> him. I don’t recall drawing any such conclusion about my own reading. *
> Ariel* had that sort of effect on me but I didn’t apply an* Ariel*
> generalization.
>
>
> In the last 10 or 20 years I probably reread Stevens most often. Some
> place recently I read that Stevens opposed the Confessional style of
> writing. I just received the Library of America edition of Elizabeth
> Bishops’ poetry, letters, etc. She apparently didn’t write all that much
> but what she did write is standing up well in a lot of people’s
> opinions. I had only read the odd poem here and there and wasn’t terribly
> impressed but have been taking a more serious look at them. She hasn’t
> been “confessional” in anything I’ve read thus far – and she and Robert
> Lowell appreciated each other’s poetry. Of course Lowell, the supposed
> founder of the Confessional School, didn’t like the term “confessional.”
>
> Lawrence
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [
> mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
> On Behalf Of Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 4:13 AM
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Geary's Ars Poetica
>
> In a message dated 11/30/2014 6:28:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> JLS' post then went on not to mention a little known Oxford philosopher
> who went to America and talked of "implicature". It also went on not to
> mention "implicature" (unless this was mentioned by "implicature" and I
> missed it). Clearly not just poetry can startle.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> For the record, I note that perhaps the subject line should read
>
>
>
> _ars_ poetica.
>
>
>
> As in Horace's "Ars Poetica".
>
>
>
> "Art poetica" may be a different animal!
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Speranza
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Horace's "Ars poetica" is best referred to as "My letter to the Piso" --
> the Piso being a noble family in Rome. For some reason, later editors found
> "Letter to the Piso" confusing, and "Ars poetica" used instead. It is
> supposed to provide a basis for what 'artists' of the 'letter' do.
>
>
>
> Geary's ars poetica is not poet-based but poet-addressee's based. In fact,
> Geary claims to 'care a hoot' (not his expression, but one of his
>
> amanuenses's) as to there _is_ a poet. It's _poetry_ that matters, not
> poet.
>
>
>
> Geary writes:
>
>
>
> "I like best poetry that startles me."
>
>
>
> Cfr. "I LOVE poetry that startles me".
>
>
>
> "Poetry startles me".
>
>
>
> "This poem startles me".
>
>
>
> "This poem STARTLED me."
>
>
>
> Geary goes on:
>
> "The poet -- his or her life, values, morality, philosophy, intelligence,
> history, ranking as a poet (by anyone) -- is of very little concern to me."
>
>
>
> They are of _some_ concern, but not big or huge concern.
>
>
>
> The no big concern include then seven categories:
>
>
>
> Shakespeare's life
>
> Shakespeare's values
>
> Shakespeare's morality
>
> Shakespeare's philosophy
>
> Shakespeare's intelligence
>
> Shakespeare's history
>
> Shakespeare's ranking
>
>
>
> (cfr. McEvoy, "He thought Shakespeare was a sculptor", elsewhere --
> rephrased).
>
>
>
> Geary then turns from Shakespeare (that he omits to mention) to Adolf
> Hitler.
>
>
>
> "What if Hitler had been a poet, could I be so cavalier about the
> poet-as-person as I claim to be?"
>
>
>
> This involves a counter-factual, of some special type. Cfr.
>
>
>
> "What if I _find_ that Hitler's "Collected Poems" are collected and given
> critical reception by Harold Bloom in his well-known series?"
>
>
>
> Geary's use of 'cavalier' is contrasted to 'roundhead'. The cavaliers
> fought the roundheads in the Civil War in England, and the terms have
> attained a transferred meaning.
>
>
>
> Strictly, a cavalier owns a horse.
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Geary goes on to answer his question which does becomes NON-RHETORICAL
> ("Why would I ask a rhetorical question, in the first place?").
>
>
>
> "I don't know."
>
>
>
> In connection with this alleged counterfactual we may distinguish:
>
>
>
> -- what if Hitler had been a poet (Geary's wording)
>
> -- what if Hitler had been a poet whose poems startled me.
>
>
>
> It may be argued that the second, stronger reading, may be preferred.
>
>
>
> For the Gearyian 'ars poetica''s strong point seems to be that the
> ability to startle Geary 'defines' a "poet" or proper poet or real poet or
> true poet.
>
>
>
> Geary expands on the criterion of his addressee-based ars poetica:
>
>
>
> "All I ask from a poet is startle."
>
> It may not be the poet's _intention_ to startle. The poem has to startle.
>
>
>
> Geary enumerates -- there are four categories, not necessarily
> overlapping:
>
>
>
> "-- startle at the use of language, startle at an awareness, startle at
> horror -- startle at just being alive."
>
>
>
> i. the use of language -- i.e. the application of some abstract notion,
> "Language", to this or that piece of poetry. E.g. Sir Edmund Spenser's
> "Faerie Queene"? Does Spenser's use of Elizabethan English _startle_ (or
> as I prefer, even _start_ to startle (ouch)?).
>
>
>
> ii. an awareness. I.e. the piece of poetry having Geary _aware_ of
> something ('p'). Is there an intended awareness in "The Faerie Queene"?
>
>
>
> iii. horror. (Cfr. "This poem is horrific").
>
>
>
> iv. the poet is alive. (cfr. Shakespeare).
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Geary's ars poetica has a negative side to it. It provides criterion of bad
>
> poetry:
>
>
>
> "Pretty words don't impress me unless they're so damn pretty they startle
> me."
>
>
>
> I.e. when it falls under category (i) above: the use of language. Note
> that 'damn pretty' may not be 'pretty':
>
>
>
> ---- INTERLUDE: "Pretty words" --
>
>
>
> pretty (adj.)
>
> Old English prættig (West Saxon), pretti (Kentish), *prettig (Mercian)
>
>
>
> Originally, 'pretty' meant: "cunning, skillful, artful, wily, astute".
>
>
>
> Fom prætt, *prett "a trick, wile, craft," from Proto-Germanic *pratt-.
>
>
>
> Cognates include: Old Norse prettr "a trick," prettugr "tricky;" Frisian
> pret, Middle Dutch perte, Dutch pret "trick, joke," Dutch prettig
> "sportive, funny," Flemish pertig "brisk, clever"), of unknown origin.
>
>
>
> ("Oddly, there's no cognate in Danish -- my brother should be relieved
> that my ars poetica does not contradict his.").
>
>
>
> Connection between Old English and Middle English words is uncertain, but
> if they are the same, meaning had shifted by c.1400 to
>
>
>
> "manly, gallant," and later moved via
>
>
>
> "attractive, skillfully made," to "fine," to
>
>
>
> "beautiful in a slight way" (mid-15c.).
>
>
>
> Ironical use from 1530s.
>
>
>
> For sense evolution, compare nice, silly. Also used of bees (c.1400).
>
>
>
> After the OE. period the word "pretty" is unknown till the 15th c., when
> it becomes all at once frequent in various senses, none identical with the
> OE., though derivable from it.
>
>
>
> The meaning "not a few, considerable" -- "There were some pretty cows" --
> is from late 15c.
>
>
>
> With a sense of "moderately," qualifying adjectives and adverbs, since
> 1560s. -- "The cake was prettily tasty" --.
>
>
>
> "Pretty please" as an emphatic plea is attested from 1902.
>
>
>
> A "pretty penny", meaning "lot of money" is first recorded 1768.
>
>
>
> ----- END OF INTERLUDE on 'pretty words'
>
>
>
> Geary concludes this fragment of his 'ars poetica' (a reply to L. Helm,
> originally). The emphasis is on category (ii) awareness.
>
>
>
> "I've never found anything that I didn't want to read about -- no matter
> how personal or confessional as long as it startles me into an awareness
> that wasn't there a moment ago. That's all I look for."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> <http://www.avast.com/>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
>
>
Other related posts:
