There are several components to Waldrop’s thesis two in her essay “Alarums and Excursions.” In this thesis not only does she defend her view on poetry, she speaks on behalf of all poems ever written. Therefore, I believe it is important to first examine her boldest statement, that “poetry has social relevance” (215).
Now, as we explore the idea of “social relevance”, the crux of the entire thesis, we must first define these terms. “Social”, in my opinion, simply means of or relating to society. This holds true in Waldrop’s assertion because as she states “everything we do has some social effect simply because we are members of a society” (215). So when a poet submits a form of poetry (“relevant” or not), they have committed a social act. Where her statement becomes bold is the assertion that poetry is and will always be relevant. Relevant, I believe, means that contextually the event or art in question has meaning.
In this way, upon first examination, Waldrop’s assertion that poetry has social relevance does not hold true when we defined the terms. A poem that has been written by a “moody” poet sadness one day may have no social relevance after the fact. Moreover, one could interpret a poem completely different than the intended meaning. My point is this: who is to say what is relevant? Since there can be no defined meaning (especially in the arts) then there is no way to determine what is relevant and what is not. Yet, Waldrop’s thesis has an answer for this.
Her second part of the thesis states that poetry’s relevance to society is not just reflective (as in a poem is sad or happy) but “It can make the culture aware of itself” (215). Again, we may define terms. “It” in this part of the thesis is referring to poetry in general. “Culture”, the other important term, can be defined as a belief system or in this case, how emotions are perceived. Almost as difficult to define meaning in a poem or another work of art, is to define what an emotion is or feels like. Going back to my first example of the “moody” poet, one cannot define “sad”, and yet when this word is spoken unanimously people can relate. So this poet who was feeling “sad” and expressed this through their poem has now created something which will forever hold this “social relevance” we have been seeking. In the “culture” that the hypothetical poem was written, they now have something to base “sad” off of.
This hypothetical poem I have been speaking about to aid my exploration and definitions of thesis two can now have clear “social relevance”. “Social”, because the poet is a member of society, “relevant” because it has meaning, it unveils “sad”, “culture” is explored because the “hidden structure” of sadness is perceived. Waldrop is asserting in thesis two that all poetry can create social awareness and therefore contain “social relevance” (215).
Work Cited
Waldrop, Rosmarie. “Alarums and Excrursions”. 1990.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Responding to Waldrop - Sam
I chose to discuss and respond to Rosmarie Waldrop’s Thesis 10, “The poem will not work through its content, through a message which in any case would speak only to the already converted, but through its form”. Is it the form or the content that is more effective at pulling in the reader? This is a question that has caused much debate and controversy in the world of poetry. Form is a technical term that describes the look, shape, sound, and patterns of the language that poets employ. They can deliver their message through the forms of alliteration, rhyme, enjambment, repetition, onomatopoeia, etc. While form refers to the organization of words, content refers to the meaning of the words. Poets very carefully combine words to form phrases that are meant to create multiple layers of meaning. Every word has its literal meaning, the denotation, but often times words also have a connotation. The connotation is the “associated meaning” that hints at the message lying beneath those multiple layers.
Waldrop argues that in many cases the content of the work is the same, and it is the form that sets them apart from one another. Brecht, one of Waldrop’s sources, states that “The presentation has to be unusual to get the reader out of the shelter of his habits”. This concept applies to most things in general. Either an unusual or a well organized presentation is what will attract the people. The actual content of the piece may not be very intriguing, but depending how it’s presented, it can be very pleasurable to read. Forms such as rhyme, rhythm, and alliteration allow the words to flow while capturing and holding the attention of the reader. While I completely agree with Waldrop and her sources that the form is absolutely crucial for the effectiveness of a poem, I disagree with how little value they place on content. The content and its connotations are what form a bond between the reader and the poem. They make the readers think beyond a superficial level, and interpret the meaning of the words, or maybe even apply them to their own lives. The form, on the other hand, does function on a superficial level to pull in the readers and then set them up to explore the deeper meaning of the piece.
However, some poets do prefer to let the form do the work. Another one of Waldrop’s sources, German poet Helmut Heissenbuttel, demonstrates this through his poetry. He omits words such as nouns and lets the “unstated words assume the aura”. His wording is not flowery or over complex, but the form in which it takes on is what leaves the readers thinking about the deeper meaning. The debate of form versus content could go on forever, and while Waldrop make take one side of the argument, I find myself in the middle. I believe that it could be presented in the most unusual and catchy form, but if the content is not engaging or moving, then the reader will lose interest.
Waldrop argues that in many cases the content of the work is the same, and it is the form that sets them apart from one another. Brecht, one of Waldrop’s sources, states that “The presentation has to be unusual to get the reader out of the shelter of his habits”. This concept applies to most things in general. Either an unusual or a well organized presentation is what will attract the people. The actual content of the piece may not be very intriguing, but depending how it’s presented, it can be very pleasurable to read. Forms such as rhyme, rhythm, and alliteration allow the words to flow while capturing and holding the attention of the reader. While I completely agree with Waldrop and her sources that the form is absolutely crucial for the effectiveness of a poem, I disagree with how little value they place on content. The content and its connotations are what form a bond between the reader and the poem. They make the readers think beyond a superficial level, and interpret the meaning of the words, or maybe even apply them to their own lives. The form, on the other hand, does function on a superficial level to pull in the readers and then set them up to explore the deeper meaning of the piece.
However, some poets do prefer to let the form do the work. Another one of Waldrop’s sources, German poet Helmut Heissenbuttel, demonstrates this through his poetry. He omits words such as nouns and lets the “unstated words assume the aura”. His wording is not flowery or over complex, but the form in which it takes on is what leaves the readers thinking about the deeper meaning. The debate of form versus content could go on forever, and while Waldrop make take one side of the argument, I find myself in the middle. I believe that it could be presented in the most unusual and catchy form, but if the content is not engaging or moving, then the reader will lose interest.
Responding to Waldrop - Zach
Each member of my group will be focusing on one thesis and respond to it. I chose thesis 3 which is ‘The Function of poetry is to waste excess energy.’ Her thesis is based on George Bataille’s main tenet of ‘general economy’ that any kind of art form is a glorious way to waste excess energy.
The principle is that living organisms receive more energy than they need to maintain life. This leaves excess energy which can be used for growth (whether this be the growth of the organisms itself or its surroundings). There can be multiple ways of wasting excess energy which include death, wars and unemployment. But wasting energy by creating art form is considered to be the most glorious way.
Waldrop herself has doubts about this social function, as she does not feel like or even consider Bataille’s ideals when she writes. She thinks she’s much too close to the actual event to notice something that is on a grander scale.
I personally agree and disagree with Waldrop’s thesis. I think there are 2 types of poets; one of them uses poetry as an outlet and the other one as a mean to express themselves. The first kind of poets use poetry as a method to waste excess energy and the second type uses it to ‘find themselves’.
Waldrop’s thesis uses Bataille’s generalization that all art form is a glorious way to waste excess energy. By simple deduction, as poetry is a form of art, so it is also a glorious way to waste energy. There are different levels of art form in my opinion, there are physically challenging and mentally challenging. Waldrop gave examples like pyramids and cathedrals as other evidences but these projects are much more strenuous than writing a poem. By generalizing art form as one object, Bataille forgot that poetry only requires one’s mind to be formed.
Some could argue that mentally creating something could be counted as using energy. This is true, however, energy can never fully disappears, it just transforms into another form of energy. In poetry’s case, the excess energy from the poets is now embedded in the poems and would pass on to the readers by changing their emotions.
Waldrop had the correct idea when she proposed both sides of the argument. Poetry is an art form which some would use as an outlet for their excess energy/emotion. However, this is not always true, the word waste seems to imply that the product, which is poetry, has no use or purpose in reality. This takes away from the real function of poetry, which is to transfer the poet’s emotions to the readers through the powerful use of words. In conclusion, Waldrop’s thesis ‘The function of poetry is to waste excess energy” have no certain answers as both sides of the arguments make complete sense.
The principle is that living organisms receive more energy than they need to maintain life. This leaves excess energy which can be used for growth (whether this be the growth of the organisms itself or its surroundings). There can be multiple ways of wasting excess energy which include death, wars and unemployment. But wasting energy by creating art form is considered to be the most glorious way.
Waldrop herself has doubts about this social function, as she does not feel like or even consider Bataille’s ideals when she writes. She thinks she’s much too close to the actual event to notice something that is on a grander scale.
I personally agree and disagree with Waldrop’s thesis. I think there are 2 types of poets; one of them uses poetry as an outlet and the other one as a mean to express themselves. The first kind of poets use poetry as a method to waste excess energy and the second type uses it to ‘find themselves’.
Waldrop’s thesis uses Bataille’s generalization that all art form is a glorious way to waste excess energy. By simple deduction, as poetry is a form of art, so it is also a glorious way to waste energy. There are different levels of art form in my opinion, there are physically challenging and mentally challenging. Waldrop gave examples like pyramids and cathedrals as other evidences but these projects are much more strenuous than writing a poem. By generalizing art form as one object, Bataille forgot that poetry only requires one’s mind to be formed.
Some could argue that mentally creating something could be counted as using energy. This is true, however, energy can never fully disappears, it just transforms into another form of energy. In poetry’s case, the excess energy from the poets is now embedded in the poems and would pass on to the readers by changing their emotions.
Waldrop had the correct idea when she proposed both sides of the argument. Poetry is an art form which some would use as an outlet for their excess energy/emotion. However, this is not always true, the word waste seems to imply that the product, which is poetry, has no use or purpose in reality. This takes away from the real function of poetry, which is to transfer the poet’s emotions to the readers through the powerful use of words. In conclusion, Waldrop’s thesis ‘The function of poetry is to waste excess energy” have no certain answers as both sides of the arguments make complete sense.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Waldrop “Alarms and Excursions” - Betsy
Thesis #9:
"A poem is primarily an explosion of language. This view is shared by
linguistics like Roman Jakobson and Paul Valery."
To define a theme can be very challenging, especially in non-fiction work because it can be the writers own personal thoughts on life and who’s to tell them they can’t think in a certain way. One can argue and say that their “theme on life” is better but ultimately, one has to decide for them selves what they want to believe. But in the case of Waldrop in “Alarms and Excursions” Thesis 9, I agree with Waldrop’s theme and excursions. She states that “A poem is primarily and explosion of language” which, in definition, makes sense because if it wasn’t an “explosion” then it would just be classified as just an essay or novel not entirely poetry. The word “explosion” really catches my eye and makes me think. When I think of explosions, I think of big catastrophic events with objects flying everywhere and complete chaos. So when Waldrop refers to poetry as “an explosion of language” I immediately think of chaos on paper or just a jumble of words that somehow connects to the same point or topic. This is an aspect that I have liked in poetry before but not all the time. With poems that I really have to concentrate on to try and find out the meaning, I don’t enjoy because generally after reading it I still don’t know what the poem was suppose to be about. But if it has a predictable name, adjectives filling up the whole poem, and it seems like a jumble, I enjoy because I know what all the adjectives are suppose to relate to. Waldrop’s “explosion of language” also can be defined in “Shitty First Drafts” by Anne Lamott. The theme in that essay is that everybody, no matter who you are, you could be an author or a professional poet but everyone writes shitty first drafts. Lamott goes on to say that, “a first draft is a child’s draft, where you let it all pour out and let it romp all over the place”. This can be compared to an “explosion of language”, where it is just exploded or poured all over the paper and the writer formed verses and stanzas and called it a masterpiece. Waldrop goes on to say in her first excursion, “it also does not mean that there is no reference. It only means reference is secondary not foregrounded”. This is what I was referring to when I said that poems
without a sense of meaning or ones I cannot figure out the meaning to, I don’t enjoy. So what Waldrop is saying is that there is an explosion of language or words on the paper but they all connect to something. There isn’t just a random explosion of nonsense. If the writer is really passionate about he subject he/she is writing about, you should know the meaning of the poem. In conclusion, Waldrop’s “Alarms and
Excursions” Thesis 9 is defined as; poetry is chaos on paper that can all relate and connect to the same topic.
"A poem is primarily an explosion of language. This view is shared by
linguistics like Roman Jakobson and Paul Valery."
To define a theme can be very challenging, especially in non-fiction work because it can be the writers own personal thoughts on life and who’s to tell them they can’t think in a certain way. One can argue and say that their “theme on life” is better but ultimately, one has to decide for them selves what they want to believe. But in the case of Waldrop in “Alarms and Excursions” Thesis 9, I agree with Waldrop’s theme and excursions. She states that “A poem is primarily and explosion of language” which, in definition, makes sense because if it wasn’t an “explosion” then it would just be classified as just an essay or novel not entirely poetry. The word “explosion” really catches my eye and makes me think. When I think of explosions, I think of big catastrophic events with objects flying everywhere and complete chaos. So when Waldrop refers to poetry as “an explosion of language” I immediately think of chaos on paper or just a jumble of words that somehow connects to the same point or topic. This is an aspect that I have liked in poetry before but not all the time. With poems that I really have to concentrate on to try and find out the meaning, I don’t enjoy because generally after reading it I still don’t know what the poem was suppose to be about. But if it has a predictable name, adjectives filling up the whole poem, and it seems like a jumble, I enjoy because I know what all the adjectives are suppose to relate to. Waldrop’s “explosion of language” also can be defined in “Shitty First Drafts” by Anne Lamott. The theme in that essay is that everybody, no matter who you are, you could be an author or a professional poet but everyone writes shitty first drafts. Lamott goes on to say that, “a first draft is a child’s draft, where you let it all pour out and let it romp all over the place”. This can be compared to an “explosion of language”, where it is just exploded or poured all over the paper and the writer formed verses and stanzas and called it a masterpiece. Waldrop goes on to say in her first excursion, “it also does not mean that there is no reference. It only means reference is secondary not foregrounded”. This is what I was referring to when I said that poems
without a sense of meaning or ones I cannot figure out the meaning to, I don’t enjoy. So what Waldrop is saying is that there is an explosion of language or words on the paper but they all connect to something. There isn’t just a random explosion of nonsense. If the writer is really passionate about he subject he/she is writing about, you should know the meaning of the poem. In conclusion, Waldrop’s “Alarms and
Excursions” Thesis 9 is defined as; poetry is chaos on paper that can all relate and connect to the same topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)