Hayseed Huck
04-13-2010, 08:15 PM
TS Eliot defines for us the idea I have been diascussing
here with only tepid results.
" ... there is a verbal formula for any given state of
emotion which, when found and used, will evoke that state
and no other.”
The poet doesn't express an emotion, he evokes it-- and
the reader is stirred. If the poet starts out attempting
to direct their reader's emotion by direction, by'forcing'
the emotion, the poem will fail.
Of course, many theorist disagree with Eliot, but only
in the thinnest way.
Oh well, what did Eliot know?
Just as perception is 'out there,' not in the observer.
Sensation is 'in here,' not 'out there.'
Sensation is given a formula by the poet and the reader
perceives.
Once a poem is given to the reader, the poet is 'out of
the picture.'
Gone.
Not relevant.
HH
here with only tepid results.
" ... there is a verbal formula for any given state of
emotion which, when found and used, will evoke that state
and no other.”
The poet doesn't express an emotion, he evokes it-- and
the reader is stirred. If the poet starts out attempting
to direct their reader's emotion by direction, by'forcing'
the emotion, the poem will fail.
Of course, many theorist disagree with Eliot, but only
in the thinnest way.
Oh well, what did Eliot know?
Just as perception is 'out there,' not in the observer.
Sensation is 'in here,' not 'out there.'
Sensation is given a formula by the poet and the reader
perceives.
Once a poem is given to the reader, the poet is 'out of
the picture.'
Gone.
Not relevant.
HH