Does the poem stand alone from the poet? - Page 5


Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: Does the poem stand alone from the poet?

  1. #41
    life imitates art far more than art imitates life...OW
    The only one who can heal you is you.




  2. #42
    Darkkin -- Elsewhere, if memory serves, you have disassociated your work and yourself from metaphor. I believe you have claimed not to 'understand' it. That said, would you please tell me what to call the trope you so elegantly employ to carry your compelling explanation of the relationship between poet and poem in your post #39?



    ________________________________________________

    "I believe in nothing but the holiness of the heart's affections and the Truth of the imagination". Keats, ​Letters

    "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main . . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls -- it tolls for thee. " John Donne, Meditation XVII

  3. #43
    Allegory in tongues...Readers fill in their own context, I just lent a few words. Work stands or falls by itself, but it does not negate an author's style or voice.


  4. #44
    Pelwrath -- I don't think Darkkin was arguing a strict correlation, at all, bur I'll leave that for her to tidy up if she wishes. Methinks, however, there might be a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Your logic is shaky. Arguing polarities, yes--if I can define "the good", then I must have a pretty clear sense of "the bad" to do so successfully. Plato's character Socrates uses this method of argument to chew up his interlocutors in The Republic. But you're trying to use a similar kind of syllogistic reasoning to arrive at acceptable conclusions, and it won't wash To illustrate:

    1. A good poem will stir my emotions
    2. this is a good poem
    Therefore this poem will stir my emotions

    That argument is VALID. It has too many variables built in, too many 'undefinables', to be "true", but it is structurally valid. You're doing something different. You are proposing

    1. A good poem will stir my emotions
    2. this poem stirs my emotions
    Therefor, this poem was written by a good poet

    OR

    1. good poets write good poems
    2. Joe is a good poet
    Therefore Joe's poems are good

    ....or something along those lines. The conclusions are non sequitur, given the premises. Granted, you framed the issues as enquiries, not affirmations, so you may have been more curious than anything else. For me, it's an argument of limited interest, because it really gets into razor-thin speculation about the poet's thoughts at this or that point in his/her life, what might have influenced them etc. Victorian literary criticism love that kind of musing, but the bottom line is always a revelation about the critic as much as the author or work. and I don't think Darkkin was going there.



    ________________________________________________

    "I believe in nothing but the holiness of the heart's affections and the Truth of the imagination". Keats, ​Letters

    "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main . . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls -- it tolls for thee. " John Donne, Meditation XVII

  5. #45
    Darkkin -- Some of the most skilful side-stepping I've seen in my 4 years on these boards!!



    ________________________________________________

    "I believe in nothing but the holiness of the heart's affections and the Truth of the imagination". Keats, ​Letters

    "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main . . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls -- it tolls for thee. " John Donne, Meditation XVII

  6. #46
    I'm not delving into the pedantic war of defining a good poem or poetry, (it is without purpose because as a creative medium filtered through the perceptions of a vast contigent of readers, there is little that is quantifiable as functional fact. Too subjective by half and more. Like the Pirate Code laid down by Morgan and Bartholomew, definitions of quality serve more like guidelines.)

    What does remain is the fact that recognizable writers are able to produced material that stands on its own merit, but because of their sytle and/or voice. Dylan Thomas and Do Not Go Gentle into that Goodnight and Plath's Mad Girl Love Song are instantly recognisable. Work (an individual animal) that is seperate from its writer, but is clearly a specific species. Like griaffes, a reader knows the animal, but some are able to identify the four unique subspecies because that first encounter with the giraffe sparked an interest. Readers with favourite authors learn to recognise writing patterns, turns of phrase, and argument styles often used by their source. These unconscious inclusions are a writers fingerprints, and fingerprints that are recognised are what make an author known. And until an author is firmly established their work will countinue to stand or fall on its own merit. Thus, work is seperate from its author, but still bears subtle hints of its origins.

    - D.


Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.