Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Thirteen Ways of Looking at the Poem "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird"

I.
Among twenty complicated poems,
The only one I thought I understood
Was the one about the blackbird.

II.
I figured, there are at least three ways to read it--
Like a tree
In which sits perspectivism, transcendentalism, and biocentrism.

III.
The poem whirled into my head.
It nestled itself up against Emerson and James.

IV.
A poet and a poem
Are one.
A poet and a poem and a reader
Are not.

V.
I don't know whether to prefer
The straightforwardness of philosophy,
Or the convolution of poetry,
Comprehending a text,
Or just pretending to.

VI.
Notes fill the margins
With scribbled intensity.
The shadow of the poem
Overbears.
The mood, traced in the margins,
Grows increasingly frustrated.

VII.
O Wallace Stevens,
Why do you use such obscure images?
Do you not see how philosophy
Gets straight to the heart of things?

VIII.
I know italicized French,
And a few of your Latin words;
But I know, too,
That a dictionary is involved
In what I know.

IX.
When the poem fell out of my head,
It moved into the fringe
Of James' coordinate plane.

X.
At the sight of the poem again,
Sitting unchanged on the page,
Even the most confident students
Will cry out sharply.

XI.
She walked to the computer center
With an anthology in her hand.
Once, a fear pierced her,
In that she mistook
Its blank figures
For metaphors.

XII.
This stanza is short!
It must be easier to read? Alas...

XIII.
All night, I read.
I struggled,
And I was going to struggle.
Wallace Stevens lay
Comfortably in his grave.

7 comments:

  1. Noelle, your cleverness always impresses me in how you choose to write your DWP. I will argue just a bit in that you make philosophy sound like it is much easier to comprehend than poetry, and while this can be true in some cases, in others it is not so much. There have been multiple times with many of the philosophers that we have read that I know I at least have been confused and have had to struggle with their thoughts, just as some of the poems and poets that we read have been a bit of a struggle to get through. All in all, while I agree that the two types of writing are very different, I wouldn't say that one is easier than the other. If you did not mean that at all in your writing, then I have simply misunderstood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you've got it right. The difference that I see between poetry and philosophy is this: If I spend enough time with a philosophic text, it is only a matter of time before I can decode what it means. I know the line of thought I need to follow; it's only a matter of feeling out the perimeters. It is a mode of thinking I'm comfortable with.

      With poetry, though, there isn't a pre-agreed arrangement. In fact, it founded on the very opposite idea. I can spend hours with a poem and feel no better about where I've gotten than I did after the first reading. Poetry relies on feeling, and feeling isn't easily manipulated or directed. While I can be fairly certain my interpretation of a philosophy is accurate, I can never be sure with poetry. In fact, often there isn't a right way. And I have a difficult time with that.

      Delete
  2. Okay, a) great! and b)why do you have a complex about poetry? You're a creative writing major, for heaven's sake!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, firstly, I haven't even taken a poetry class yet, and secondly, please refer to my response to Cassidy.

      Delete
  3. This is amazing!!
    But you got IV wrong. Basic mathematics states that if two things added ("a man and a woman")equal a sum ("Are one"), then the addition of another thing to these two ("A man a woman and a blackbird") should create a different sum. However, as this poem clearly states that the addition of the blackbird does not result in the change of the sum ("Are one"), therefore the blackbird is like '0', in which he ceases to change the desired outcome, or is nothing.
    You, however, have had the audacity to declare that when adding a poem and a poet, you have one, but when you added a third to this mix ("a reader") the answer is not unchanged, but rather resorts to a form of non-existence itself, as if the reader nullifies the existence of the poem in the first place. This is clearly not the point of Stevens' poem and even more offensive, not true. I demand you up your knowledge about the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

    A

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I choose to disregard quantum physics.

      Delete