Jan 18, 2009
A lesson from Lewis on how to look at poetry.
Every poem can be considered in two ways—as what the poet has to say, and as a thing which he makes.
* * * * *
© 2012 Abuyo. All rights reserved.
Jan 18, 2009
Every poem can be considered in two ways—as what the poet has to say, and as a thing which he makes.
* * * * *
Flavors of yesterday’s post!
I practice and value this distinction, but don’t believe that I can/it’s good to think in wholly one category or the other. I’m a both/and kinda gal.
I always want to know the “who” behind a work. And especially if I like it, or it wields power in some way.
Maybe I have an “incarnational” approach to art?
:)
Or maybe it’s cause I’m an NF, not an NT…*cough*
That was 24 words ! (Or 25, depending on how you count the C. S.) This post is just too long for me to finish reading.
:)
Or
“Every poem can be considered in two ways- as what we may think the poet is saying and as word art.”
I like that! And Laurie’s alternative explanation, as well:)
I wonder, can this also be said of creation? As what God has to say and as a thing(s) which he makes…
I agree with Laurie. I think that in poetry, the reader is as important an element as the poet is.
I agree with Denny, this post was too long ;-)
I’ll admit that I lean towards trying to read what the author has to say (this is how I write poetry, myself). The form and craftsmanship is of course important, but to me it takes a back seat to content.
I think Lewis is saying here that we can consider what the poet has to say in his poem, and then we can see what the poem says about the poet after we have understood the poem.
That’s what I hear him saying anyway.
eh. I read the link after I hit “submit”. Apparently he was saying something else.
A good observation on Lewis’s part. I think poems must inevitably be both, for a poet can neither wholly remove oneself from the content, nor can one not make a poem when writing poetry.
I suppose that from a slightly different point of observation Lewis is noting that there must be an author and a product. My own poetics (young as they are) would note readers as well, and suggest that the difficulties and joys of reading poetry come from measuring the interstices: how far the reader from the content, and the content from the reader?
Hi Micah, your comment’s been provoking me (in an friendly way) all afternoon. You seem like a fellow who’s interested in thinking through your poetics, so may I pick at a couple of things, for you to muse on or respond to? Thanks!
I don’t think it’s inevitable that poems be both. Good poems, probably. I wonder if that’s one way to recognize that a poem’s good–the presence of something said / by a well-made thing. But it’s not inevitable. Cliche, for one thing, obscures all the poet’s self and ideas from a poem (and the poetry from it, too, for that matter). So do sentimentality, various other kinds of deceptions, and probably other stuff, too. A good poem is an act of personal and artistic integrity, and that’s not inevitable.
As to your second thought about readers, “measuring” the interstices sounds like critic’s work. A reader would pick a different word. You know, something like navigate, venture, enjoy, risk, thrill to, explore, fall asleep to, traverse, be changed by…
Amiably,
KP
Good thoughts, KP. It’ll take some time to let them simmer about my head.
Poets don’t really have anything to say. They can only hope to resonate. Something in the subconscious connects. Communicates. It is the critic’s job to tell us what is being said. Any artist who knows what he/she has to say is trying. (There’s a huge difference between trying and doing.) All the intentional work must be done inside, on your soul. Art can’t be done with the intent to say something. It must be subconsciously said and completely unselfconcsious. Vulnerable. Words you use in mundane, everyday ways can be a real problem.