ModPo 2013 #17 A Scene From The Far West: On Pound's "The Encounter"

Japanese paper fan image from memory.loc.gov.

Ezra Pound, "The Encounter"

All the while they were talking the new morality
Her eyes explored me.
And when I rose to go
Her fingers were like the tissue
Of a Japanese paper napkin.

------------------------------------------------------

What struck me most about the video discussion, more than the dislike of most of the participants of speaker's objectification of the woman in the poem, was the term "the far east." The far east is in the imagination of those in the far west. It is a matter of perspective. 

This made me reflect further on the imagist manifesto. There are never any "hard and clear" words or poetry, not when there is a perspective to be considered. All words are subject to the blurred and the indefinite due to history, due to perspective. Language is always in flux. 

I also look at this from my 2013, Philippine eyes. What new morality? Over here we are still stuck in the morality of the Catholic church, well the ninety percent anyway who are Catholic. So it makes me laugh to see new morality. The times are also a-changing in the Philippines with the introduction of the reproductive health bill, finally approved by the upper and lower houses only in 2013. And even then, the powerful Catholic bloc has managed to get it stuck in the department of justice. 

I also look at this from how a Japanese paper napkin might feel like. It is brittle, dry. Could the woman in the poem be an old woman...perhaps too old to be putting "the new morality" in practice? I can understand how the imagist form of the poem indeed objectifies the woman in the poem. 

Overall, I keep in mind that any work of art is coming from a perspective. Just like journalism, there is no real objectivity despite the attempt to ensure that all sides are represented. The artist leaves his hand in the work of art whether he wants to or not. It is up to the reader, later on, to engage. The result will always be from a certain perspective. 

ModPo 2013 #16 Pound's stunning brevity "In a Station of the Metro" and what makes a poem

Illustration by me.

In a Station of the Metro

BY EZRA POUND


The apparition    of these faces    in the crowd  :
Petals    on a wet, black       bough .

__________________________________

We took up Pound in College. Yes, I think we took up "In a Station of the Metro" in particular. It was in conjunction with the question: what is poetry? Could it be phrases read out of a catalog and arranged in "verses?"

Personally, I like "In a Station of the Metro" because it is stunning in its brevity. Like a haiku, the poem contrasts two different images: "these" people's faces in the crowd and petals on a wet, black bough. They do grip me and make me stay on the page. It is a beautiful image and it draws me into a window, a moment contemplating the ephemeral nature of a perfect moment. 

Recently, I've corresponded with some other poets and I asked them about their own ars poetica. I got a very varied response ranging from: "I don't like language poems" to "poems give glimpses of the truth." The answer that struck me the most was: poems are defined by their times. They are defined by the people who are in a position to define what poetry is, they are defined by the people who write the poetry, they are defined by the people who read poetry and they are defined by the people who choose what poetry will be published and taken up in schools (where poetry is learned). Like a painting or a piece of sculpture in a museum, a poem tells a story of the powers that were and the powers that are. 

Poetry, like any art (maybe, in their time, these pieces of "art" weren't even considered art and perhaps served a very mundane function) is a snapshot of the people, the culture, the world during its time. It contains the speaker, the chorus, the silent reader, the backdrop. In a way, it is an image of humanity. I love that. 

Note: I am currently taking a course on Coursera.org called Modern and Contemporary American Poetry taught by Al Filreis of the University of Pennsylvania. I will be posting my thoughts on the course discussions here.

ModPo 2013 #15 Glaucium Fimbrelligerum and new concepts of beauty: On Doolittle's Sea Poppies

Glaucium Fimbrillegerum image from biolib.de (creative commons). 

Sea Poppies

BY H. D.
Amber husk
fluted with gold,
fruit on the sand
marked with a rich grain,

treasure
spilled near the shrub-pines
to bleach on the boulders:

your stalk has caught root
among wet pebbles
and drift flung by the sea
and grated shells
and split conch-shells.

Beautiful, wide-spread,
fire upon leaf,
what meadow yields
so fragrant a leaf
as your bright leaf?

________________________

I was wondering why we were taking up two very similar poems (Sea Rose and Sea Poppies) and I was struck by the question in the video discussion about whether "Sea Poppies" is an instance in a movement working out a program, a formula of sorts? And was it possible to remove valuation/ interpretation from language?

"Language that is hard and clear" (from the imagist manifesto) goes against the nature of language. While specificity is needed in some language, language in itself is a powerful and living thing. It is a frame and it requires at least two participants for it to exist.

I think the imagist movement doesn't eliminate valuation or interpretation (while it attempts to) but it does succeeds in defining  new aesthetic. It points to new possibilities, new symbols of what could be beautiful and not what is conventionally beautiful. That in itself is a great breakthrough. But yes, I agree, it is overly ambitious to aspire for a transparent language (if there even is such a thing).

I go back to one of my favorite poems, "Ars Poetica", by Archibald MacLeish. "A poem should be equal to:/ Not true." While MacLeish is known to be a Modernist poet, his "manifesto" on poetry touches on the imagist "hard and clear, never blurred or indefinite." I don't think it means the same thing, though. MacLeish talks about presenting what is without confusing it with "truth" while the imagist manifesto of producing poetry that is "hard and clear" which could mean presenting "what is" using the most economic means and using "particulars exactly and not deal in vague generalities." "Equal to" doesn't demand the elimination of blurriness or the indefinite. It just deals with what is before the poet. It might be an image.

Ultimately, poetry is a conversation. I like the new avenues of conversation that the imagists bring but I am excited to explore how the conversation has evolved over time.

Note: I am currently taking a course on Coursera.org called Modern and Contemporary American Poetry taught by Al Filreis of the University of Pennsylvania. I will be posting my thoughts on the course discussions here.