Saw this on Tumblr this morning... Thought it might be relevant to... you know. Collages and stuff!
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Not so bad
Crap! Forgot about this until now. Oops.
Anyway, I detract my prior remarks about “The Wasteland.” It
is far better than I remember, but I am also reading it in a much different
context with significantly less pressure. I actually enjoyed it and was able to
really pay close attention to the detail instead of constantly trying to wrap
my head around every little thing he was trying to say, or what I thought that
might have been. When I read it the
first time, too, I had been warned of how “difficult” it was, so that seeped
into my brain and made me gloss over.
The vividness struck me, and I especially liked part II. A Game of Chess, because it seemed to really be telling a story. It was a back and forth and it was interesting to see how Eliot played with that.
As a few people have already mentioned, the repetition was interesting to see, especially in the context of this week’s exercise. It broke up the lines of the poem and interrupted what was going on at the center, so it made me a little uneasy, but that’s what made me like it and made it work.
The vividness struck me, and I especially liked part II. A Game of Chess, because it seemed to really be telling a story. It was a back and forth and it was interesting to see how Eliot played with that.
As a few people have already mentioned, the repetition was interesting to see, especially in the context of this week’s exercise. It broke up the lines of the poem and interrupted what was going on at the center, so it made me a little uneasy, but that’s what made me like it and made it work.
Just as a side note with really little significance, I love the lines at the end of the first stanza in part V:
He who was living is now dead
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience
^Irrelevant.
How luminous does the word shine
"The Dong with the Luminous Nose"... I have to be frank, and admit that I could not keep my head out of the gutter on this one.
But I feel as though, perhaps, that was the intent. In many ways the poem seemed to resemble Jabberwocky, the famous piece by Lewis Caroll (who was a Logician, by the way). The absurdities of a piece like that are found in the somewhat flippant and absurd use of amusing sounding, rounded, blunted syllables. The language itself is meant to be sort of, robust, quirky in its mockery of the epic, or at least of all those poems that would like to take themselves seriously.
Yet its irony seems to be extended far further than Caroll's, by both playing off of that kind of thought process, and using language that could be thought of as somewhat... flamboyantly sexual, to do it. Then it tapers off, before again reminding you of the inherent innuendo, simply in the title.
But I feel as though, perhaps, that was the intent. In many ways the poem seemed to resemble Jabberwocky, the famous piece by Lewis Caroll (who was a Logician, by the way). The absurdities of a piece like that are found in the somewhat flippant and absurd use of amusing sounding, rounded, blunted syllables. The language itself is meant to be sort of, robust, quirky in its mockery of the epic, or at least of all those poems that would like to take themselves seriously.
Yet its irony seems to be extended far further than Caroll's, by both playing off of that kind of thought process, and using language that could be thought of as somewhat... flamboyantly sexual, to do it. Then it tapers off, before again reminding you of the inherent innuendo, simply in the title.
The Wasteland: Unpopular Opinion Time
Of course it's easy to see how The Wasteland is a collage. I felt like I couldn't read three lines without flipping back to the footnotes to understand what the author was trying to say. It's unfortunate that, as modern readers, we can't fully understand the context of the poem as we read it. I actually became kind of frustrated at having to flip back to the footnotes just to understand the German. (I'm sure this is exactly what makes the poem so popular and layered and "classic" but it got on my nerves... a lot.) I'm not trying to say that copying this is a bad thing, certainly not. But it shouldn't stand as a warning of sorts. Like when Koby presented his collage that had the philosophy formula. I didn't think explaining the formula was necessary--it's an interesting layer to the collage and leaves it open for multiple interpretations. Having a line in another language does not always help interpretation. It requires research and translation. So, it should be considered very heavily before being added to a collage. (Which I'm sure Eliot did and finally decided pro-adding it in.)
That being said, if I finally gave up understanding everything, I did enjoy the poem at times. The seeming dialogue in II. A Game of Chess was really interesting to me. For some reason, this section of the poem was really uncanny to me. It's a conversation with no end goal. Neither speaker is responding to the other. I also liked Death by Water. The simple gravity of the poem is a tone I'd like to replicate.
But there is no water
So, I really enjoyed listening to the recording of "The Waste Land." Actually hearing the words spoken aloud had a much stronger impact on me than if I had simply read the words on the page. I also thought it was interesting that there were three different readers--the various voices gave character to the different voices in the poem, often jarring against each other in a way that highlighted even more the pieced-together nature of the work.
Following along as I listened, I very much experienced the "bright splinter" effect that I mentioned in my previous post; there are so many broken, disjointed scenes, but they are each so powerful (even if most of the time you don't completely understand what's going on), you feel an emotional connection to the work. As Jessica mentioned, I think this has a lot to do with the repetition, and the uncanny of the "almost familiar." It also has this tendency to pull you in and nearly drown you, such as in the first few stanzas in section five: it is highly repetitious, and there is no punctuation to slow you down. You are caught on this mountain without water, tumbling headlong into rock after rock after rock, and there is no water, but that's all you can think about, because the longing for water is so strong, the imagining of the water is relentless...but there is no water.
Basically. I thought this was a great example of the ways in which we can use the splintered nature of collage to our advantage, through its ability to illicit a strong emotional response without consistent narrative or character.
Following along as I listened, I very much experienced the "bright splinter" effect that I mentioned in my previous post; there are so many broken, disjointed scenes, but they are each so powerful (even if most of the time you don't completely understand what's going on), you feel an emotional connection to the work. As Jessica mentioned, I think this has a lot to do with the repetition, and the uncanny of the "almost familiar." It also has this tendency to pull you in and nearly drown you, such as in the first few stanzas in section five: it is highly repetitious, and there is no punctuation to slow you down. You are caught on this mountain without water, tumbling headlong into rock after rock after rock, and there is no water, but that's all you can think about, because the longing for water is so strong, the imagining of the water is relentless...but there is no water.
Basically. I thought this was a great example of the ways in which we can use the splintered nature of collage to our advantage, through its ability to illicit a strong emotional response without consistent narrative or character.
Wasted Land
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.
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.
HURRY UP PLEASE ITS TIME
I loved the depth of the repetition in part 2, "A Game of Chess". While reading through it a second time, I felt myself becoming more and more engrossed in the middle section, right around the "those are pearls that were his eyes" line. And even though Eliot's notes were included with the poem, I didn't find it necessary to really worry about reading through all of them in order to find out what his sources of reference were. They are nice to have, of course, but I think the ambiguity of not knowing where the original 'ideas' came from is pretty compelling. I'm not sure why the repetition of HURRY UP PLEASE ITS TIME sticks with me so much... but then again, maybe I can find out why. I like the compulsion of repetition, and given the context of this section of the piece and how it ends (with Ophelia's repetition, no doubt) is really awesome in the sense that it makes me feel a sense of urgency and a rather uncanny feeling that something morbid is about to happen... or could happen. I almost wanted it to. I tend to think that if "A Game of Chess" were to be redistributed (and maybe it has been) outside of the whole of The Wasteland, it would make a perfect standalone work... but as it is included with all of the other sections I think it makes for a very awesome type of textual collage. I also particularly admired the way that Eliot pulled from so many varied classic sources to make a larger work of art that is obscure and so long-lasting. I think it's a good thing to have his 'sources' included, but the ambiguity of not knowing where everything came from at first and just guessing at some of the things I recognized from Shakespeare was intriguing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)