To memorize a Shakespearean sonnet or a passage from Dante is to resist the erosion of memory, to store within oneself a treasury of language and meaning that no algorithm can retrieve on command.
Very good analysis. Indeed, poetry is subversive and always has been.
I think it’s especially so today because of how it works in contrast to the workings of modern life.
Today’s world is reductive and systematic. From job descriptions to daily routines, Pinterest inspos and productivity hacks, every aspect of our lives focuses on definitions, certainty, processes, and the illusion of control.
Poetry works differently at every level. It is a language of relationships, intuition, lived experience and emotional depth. And indeed there will always be a place for it because there are so many life situations for which definitions and analysis leave us wanting. Poetry integrates us with our experiences and with the world; today’s values separate, isolate, and throw our lives into abstraction through technology and digital experiences. In such an environment, the former kind of activity is inherently subversive.
" . . . the erosion of memory, the flattening of expression, the mechanization of language." That's quite a trio of windmills to be tilting at. Can't poets just go about their business without all this crusading? What is it William Carlos Williams said: "Morals are the memory of a success that no longer succeeds." And to think of poetry in terms of "subversion" is just plain silly. The proper response to "the flattening of expression": flatten it further, flatten it faster. The proper response to "the mechanization of language": mechanize it right out of existence. Yours is a thoroughly retrograde program.
Just picking up a pencil and writing a sentence is subversive these days. No moralizing or crusading necessary. It just is. Of course, there will always be people yelling from the sidelines that it’s all just silly. Sounds like that’s you.
I wasn't "yelling from the sidelines." I read your essay, which I found engaging, and commented on it. I disagreed with the point you were making and said so. Sorry, if I had known you were sensitive, I would've "flattened my expression." I'm an old guy, and should know by now that those who trumpet their "subversion" don't like having their notion of "subversion" questioned. You're a great writer--gonna order and read your books--I just don't agree with you about poetry.
Thank you. I found your point - and your argument- to be astute. The core of our civilization is language. The rhythms of poetry, speech, and prose are the rhythms of a well ordered brain. And, a society that has long sought the beauty of a life well ordered. From Dante to Shakespeare to Walt Whitman our civilization has yearned to elevate not only the hard beauty of human life but also our sense of creation. Art has been our answer. Thomas More and Erasmus were comrades in such a time, when darkness had been enveloping the West. ENCOMIUM MORIAE called for a rebirth, a renaissance, of the best that had been thought in the classical age. Perhaps your essay is only a praise of folly as well. Such folly is what we need now to replace the late depredations of language.
“ … language is the archives of history,” as Emerson writes it. It is a folly to destroy language; it is a folly of quite another sort to use both the precision of accurate language and imagination.
Very good analysis. Indeed, poetry is subversive and always has been.
I think it’s especially so today because of how it works in contrast to the workings of modern life.
Today’s world is reductive and systematic. From job descriptions to daily routines, Pinterest inspos and productivity hacks, every aspect of our lives focuses on definitions, certainty, processes, and the illusion of control.
Poetry works differently at every level. It is a language of relationships, intuition, lived experience and emotional depth. And indeed there will always be a place for it because there are so many life situations for which definitions and analysis leave us wanting. Poetry integrates us with our experiences and with the world; today’s values separate, isolate, and throw our lives into abstraction through technology and digital experiences. In such an environment, the former kind of activity is inherently subversive.
It is a rebellion against the automated. It is a defiance of the disposable...... AH YES !....
I breathe in your wisdom
like rich air in the countryside
Ah...and live revived
by the brilliant ode
to that dear noble cow
" . . . the erosion of memory, the flattening of expression, the mechanization of language." That's quite a trio of windmills to be tilting at. Can't poets just go about their business without all this crusading? What is it William Carlos Williams said: "Morals are the memory of a success that no longer succeeds." And to think of poetry in terms of "subversion" is just plain silly. The proper response to "the flattening of expression": flatten it further, flatten it faster. The proper response to "the mechanization of language": mechanize it right out of existence. Yours is a thoroughly retrograde program.
Just picking up a pencil and writing a sentence is subversive these days. No moralizing or crusading necessary. It just is. Of course, there will always be people yelling from the sidelines that it’s all just silly. Sounds like that’s you.
I wasn't "yelling from the sidelines." I read your essay, which I found engaging, and commented on it. I disagreed with the point you were making and said so. Sorry, if I had known you were sensitive, I would've "flattened my expression." I'm an old guy, and should know by now that those who trumpet their "subversion" don't like having their notion of "subversion" questioned. You're a great writer--gonna order and read your books--I just don't agree with you about poetry.
Can you tell me something about the painting?
This is a detail from Hans Holbein the Younger's painting "The Portrait of Erasmus" (1523) -- Erasmus of Rotterdam.
Thank you. I found your point - and your argument- to be astute. The core of our civilization is language. The rhythms of poetry, speech, and prose are the rhythms of a well ordered brain. And, a society that has long sought the beauty of a life well ordered. From Dante to Shakespeare to Walt Whitman our civilization has yearned to elevate not only the hard beauty of human life but also our sense of creation. Art has been our answer. Thomas More and Erasmus were comrades in such a time, when darkness had been enveloping the West. ENCOMIUM MORIAE called for a rebirth, a renaissance, of the best that had been thought in the classical age. Perhaps your essay is only a praise of folly as well. Such folly is what we need now to replace the late depredations of language.
we are fire (not folly)
as Emerson in "The Poet"
teaches us
“ … language is the archives of history,” as Emerson writes it. It is a folly to destroy language; it is a folly of quite another sort to use both the precision of accurate language and imagination.
Sorry … MORIAE ENCOMIUM.