Bits and Bobs... flotsam of an hours thinking

As I left the Union energized by a couple of hours interesting discussion with friends on subjects that ranged from historical novels to spiritual warfare, Biblical hierarchies of authority, corporate corruption and beyond, and faced my blogging responsibility with dread, I couldn't help but attempting to analyze why i faced these opportunities for mental exercise and stimulus in two such completely different attitudes. I finally concluded that i had been going about this lit. crit. stuff in the wrong way, stifling what ought to be a simple exploration of my thoughts by imposing imagined requirements of tone, content and depth.

Browsing my classmates' blogs was a helpful step in arriving at this conclusion. Thank you. :]

So what did I read today? Wimsatt and Beardsley. I loved their direct, no-nonsense approach to correcting what they see as significant errors in approaches to literary criticism. And besides that, they make sense! It really does seem silly to blur the realms of meaning and effectiveness.

Some particularly lucid statements I enjoyed include:
"The poem is not the critic's own and not the author's (it is detached from the author at birth and goes about the world beyond his power to intend about it or control it)." p. 1376

While I am still significantly ignorant as to the majority of the Formalists opinions on interpretation and meaning, this statement would seem to be excellent evidence for my own tentative opinion that there is no single meaning to a work of literature, simply because of this very "independence" mentioned by W. & B.

A few lines down from the previous sentence is this statement: "[The poem] is embodied in language, the peculiar possession of the public, and it is about the human being, an object of public knowledge." A few pages later, another sentence struck me as intriguing concerning language: the "internal" meaning of a word "is discovered through the semantics and syntax of a poem, through our habitual knowledge of the language, through grammars, dictionaries, and all the literature which is the source of dictionaries, in general through all that makes a language and culture;"

Words and their etymologies have always been fascinating to me. I have been known to say that the thesaurus is my favorite book. Somehow, to find a "real" critic discussing the implications and realities of words as dynamic, with such realities affecting the meanings of poems is affirming of my own vague notions. Again, I return to the assertion that there cannot exist a single "right" meaning to a poem.

Finally, I was pretty tickled with W.'s & B.'s final line and shall pass on their "essay in a nutshell" to the bloggosphere: Critical inquiries are not settled by consulting the oracle. :D

I wonder what the fact that I am more fascinated by the world-views of Emerson and Shelley as revealed in their theorizing than in the actual theories says about me...perhaps that I'm in the wrong major? Too late to change so I suppose I shall just have to forcibly direct my attention to the concerns at hand: namely, this theory stuff, seeming, at the moment, to be an endless series of questions [thus the blog title].
However, personality and the bent unique to each mind play a huge part in the use of any theories... literary included. Because each individual will find that certain questions are of much more concern than others: the complier of an anthology certainly wants some guidelines on what to include, making questions such as "Who is classified as an 'author'?" and "What is 'literature'?" relevant; a university provost would like some specifics on why he should be paying people to talk about these books & poems & plays, "Why is it valuable?", a big question in his mind; a poet might be asking himself the questions that relate to value and inspiration; the academician might like to talk himself in circles on how to find meaning in a text.
Clearly, discussions of origins, roles, etc. must not allow themselves to vault off into the airy heights of intellectualism because there are some very practical uses to be made of possible conclusions. And besides, if a theorist really wants his ideas to make an impact, he sure as heck better make sure that a few more people than his thinking buddies will be able to understand.
I appreciate that Shelley makes the connections between poetry and imagination and ethics in his "Defense." And though his writing has been characterized as too full of itself or even of being significantly full of the airy theorizing which might put some readers off, this section of his essay has made quite an impact on me for it's clarity and meaningful statements.
So i have achieved anything here? have I made any of my observations clear and relevant to anyone else? I'm kind-of doubting it...but it's late and I'm sick, so until another moment... g'night.

Poetry or Poet... Who's at the Top???

Emerson discusses the Poet and Shelley defends Poetry, each raising his subject to heights of perfection and purity denied by the other. Both men seek to enumerate the absolute sublimity of their chosen aspect of the art of putting into words the Something Greater they sense. Faith cannot be denied as a major component and driving force behind either Shelley's "Defense of Poetry" or Emerson's "The Poet". But where Emerson has faith in the (perhaps rare) genuine genius Poet who is able to overcome the limitations of a flawed humanity, producing art that allows them to become more fully human, Shelley has the utmost regard for the power of poetry to act as both an indicator and reformer of the poet soul.
Can one be said to be more "optimistic" than the other in regards to the human race? On first glance, I would probably respond that Shelley seems the more positive of the two men; however, because the essays do not address the issue from the same standpoint, the evaluation is complicated. Eventually, I believe I have arrived at the conclusion that Emerson (despite noting that we constantly "mis-write the poem") would hold humanity in a more optimistic light, at least in reference to the writing of poetry.
For Emerson, the person of the Poet, the genius who is able to tap into the primordial realm of the creative, does indeed exist and exist with a frequency that might surprise us if his criteria for evaluating mental faculties and creative impulses were truly followed. The poet is looked for by other humans hungering for the fullness of their humanity to be expressed in his contemporary craft. And while the men that Emerson recognizes as "Poets" might be "intoxicated" by imagination more-so than other men, they are also "gods" who poses a "greater depth" of intelligence than your average man.
Shelley, in contrast, places his confidence not in the ability of the Man to make good Poetry, but in the ultimate ability of Poetry to improve Man.
Reflecting on this question from a Christian standpoint, I wonder what my "stance" ought to be... do I believe that since Man is created in the image of a perfect Creator and He is revealed in the natural world, that "Poetry" (yes, capital 'P' for Shelley) flows from being, in some small way, part of that perfection? Or, do I believe that "Poetry" is a gift from God (possibly using anyone as a conduit) which has the ability to "improve" us, bringing us closer to that perfect image we once reflected so accurately? Or, option C, do I believe that both are true in some co-mingled, entwined sort of way?
I don't know. I believe fiercely in the value of humans as creative beings, possessed of creative ability by means of our origins while I also believe that God works through many mediums (if I may use another 'art' term) to do Divine work.
I suppose it really comes down to the fact that I understand the purpose of any human life to be tied inextricably with the gifts and talents given to one by God, some of which might well be an extraordinary combination of insight and knack with words that results in what Emerson would call a "Poet." Alrighty then... I suppose (if I had to choose) between placing the Poet or the Poetry at the top of the poetry-chain-of-command, I'd have to side with Emerson: the Poet.

let's get moving...

Alrighty. So. Lit Crit has officially begun. My 2624 page Norton Anthology arrived in the post yesterday and the foray into the theories of great minds commenced. I'll be returning eventually with some thoughts on the thoughts.
G'night.