This poem by Robert Hass is interesting. The argument he is trying to make is that poetry is taking normal actions and trying to say what is going on in a new way. His example is the difference between a leaf fluttering and the motion of the heat of august protecting cells from drying out. Essentially these are saying the same thing but the poetic one sounds nicer. As Hass says it "disenchant"s us.
"Dance with me, dancer. Oh, I will." I think Hass is very confused. Now that I read this again and have heard the discussion I know he is trying to say that words just can't do it. This really doesn't resonate with me though because I feel like the rest of his poem is doing it. The aspen glittering in the wind is very enchanting. It takes our mind to another place. I feel like the italics section is him trying to give an example to the reader of what his point is. I don't feel like this is effective though. I feel like the italics section is very enchanting and takes the mind to another place through this interesting use of language.
Thank you for the intelligent, thoughtful post. Your first paragraph is really interesting. Yes, poetry does present the ordinary in an unorthodox way, but I did not initially make that connection in this poem. HEY! Have you thought about the possibility that this poem is only trying to successfully describe trees. The reason I ask this is because I would consider that, yes the aspen glittering in the wind is enchanting, but does that fully envelop what the tree is? You might want to consider the possibility of the effectiveness of visual argument. Perhaps you could further argue why you don't see the effectiveness of the visual representation.
ReplyDelete