Both works in their own way give the reader a feel of fragmentation yet at the same time a sense of the whole in the sum of the parts. I'm kind of torn between just reading them and trying to piece together a sense from what I see at face value and chasing after each individual reference that contributed to their complilation. For the Ashbery I think it's more towards the latter not only because the format it was presented in, but also that it purposefully resists any kind of traditional narrative (even if the term is to be applied rather loosely for poetry anyway). Interestingly, the poem both traditionally 'put together' and taken apart with the reference to the various sources seem to be a legitimate representation in their own right. It makes you either try to interpret something into the whole or into each separate fragment, that - taken out of the context of it's original work - acquires a new meaning as well. What I really can't get over is the title, it just boggles the mind...
Concerning the wasteland, I find that the fragmentation enhances the narrative (in the sense that it is an emotional, rather than a traditional one) the voice is splintered, taken apart and put together with rough edges and mis-matched bursts of speech. It represents the very pillars of culture from the antique period through to the present, but perceived through a cracked magnifying glass that veils them in the unfamiliar, the uncanny in the purest sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment