When I first read Shelley, I got the idea that Shelley's ideal poem would be like the tip of the iceberg, the "approximation of the beautiful," that is able to contain, to point out the meaning of the chunk of ice menacing below. The ability for a poem to fold meaning in upon its self seems to come from Shelley's understanding of experience and representation: "and language and gesture, together with plastic or pictorial imitation, become the image of the combined effect of those objects and of his apprehension of them... language, gesture, and the imitative arts, become at once the representation and the medium."
Shelley seems to qualify the success of a poem by its ability to encourage productive harmony (I guess the iceburg fails here. But it still sort of works because it does impinge). The poem should interact with, I would say even impinge upon, humanity in a manner that might spiral out of control, but bears the pleasure of discoveries which precipitate further discovery: "every inflexion of tone and every gesture will bear exact relation to a corresponding antitype in the pleasurable impressions which awakened it; it will be the reflected image of that impression... so the child seeks, by prolonging in its voice and motions the duration of the effect, to prolong also a consciousness of the cause." I think this is how the poet becomes a legislator. A successful poem will dictate a perspective which is in itself a sort of law. But if Shelley thought he and his contemporaries were "unacknowledged," it might be fair to say that popular culture is opposed to poet legislators that suggest alternative and even oppositional attitudes.
This is where the word elitist seems to always come up. I would propose that this isn't such a bad thing as long as the poet, while believing his ideas to be elite, does not impinge on individuals who do not share his understanding through forms of more direct violence. This "bad word" gets brought up and suddenly there is hesitation or even refusal to make judgments. I think this can be as detrimental as elitism itself. If poets are elitists, there is at least a discussion of the fact, which to me suggests and inclination towards humility and the sense that even if poets believe their ideas are elite, which they should, that these elite ideas are better.
Okay, that's starting to ramble.
3 comments:
If the mode of poetry is elitist and the mode and the manner are the idea-- the notion that its not all the same being at the heart of poetic discussiion, what's wrong with that elitism if it can remain benign? Atroceties are commited under the guise that would fashion itself opposite elitism. What's wrong with being honest?
Why are you commenting on your own post? Stop confusing me!
Seriously, this is excellent. Your "rambling" is very relevant, I'd say. I hope we get to talk more in class about the fissure (one that has widened yet further since Shelley's time) between the "elitist" ideas of the poet/intellectual and the sometimes militant philistinism of the public at large, and how poetry is equipped (if at all) to deal with this gap.
Really in a way, why is it so bad to be elitist? There is a very select few that engage in the reading and creation of poetry. Hence, creating a group which is pretty much a minority. A minority with pride. What's so wrong with being prideful to a small extent? Not to the point of sinful pride as in Dante.
Post a Comment