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.