For this post I looked at "The Death of a Soldier." I especially like the phrase "life contracts" (1). Stevens doesn't say when the soldier's life begins to contract. Does he mean that the soldier is part of an intense battle and it has become clear that he is likely to die, or is he making a political statement and implying that once the soldier signed up for the military he destined himself to be killed? Stevens goes on to talk about the lack of a funeral and "pomp" for the soldier. Is he criticizing the way soldiers die one after another without being properly honored?
I think the big difference between reading poetry, specifically this poem, and philosophy is that philosophy exists in both, but it is implied much more in poetry. We are used to Emerson who tells us in detail his beliefs and ideas. Stevens gives us hints in each line, but we must go the extra step to figure them out for ourselves. Not to mention that there is much less material to work with. I'm not sure which I prefer. Honestly, I find both forms hard to wrap my head around, but I would say Stevens' poetry is more fun to read.
I don't know that Steven's is criticizing the lack of "pomp" or recognition for the soldier, I think he's simply acknowledge it. In talking about death in this poem, Steven's seems to note that death doesn't create pomp and ceremony-- we create that. Death doesn't care. Soldier after soldier could fall and death would take no notice. It's only those left behind that pay attention.
ReplyDelete