Pitfalls of Brevity
Ryan's diction is terse, to say the least. While some of her poems have as many as twenty or thirty lines, they seldom contain very many syllables--in "Chemistry," for example, the lines mainly are three or four syllables. And line 9, "sentiments," is, well, only one word. The short syllabic count makes the poem rhythmic; it also necessitates enjambment---I'm not sure if there's a technical term for this, but in lines 4-8 we see some sort of "quadruple" enjambment, where the thought carries over not just two lines, but FIVE. This also makes the rhyme interesting, since at least in the final 'sentence' (and consequently, six lines), there is rhyme three times: sentiments, sediment, and filament. Usually, rhyme at the end of one complete phrase (and line) rhymes with rhyme at the end of another line. Here, it almost seems like internal rhyme when read aloud since the poem flows so quickly and without pauses at the end of the lines.
Words especially
are subject to
the chemistry
of death: it is
an acid bath
which dissolves
or doubles
their strength.
Sentiments
which pleased
drift down
as sediment;
iron trees
grow from filament.
I do think that Ryan's brevity is at odds with her effectiveness at conveying a message--it's easier to get a point across when you're wordy, and Ryan is SO brief that some of her intent is muddled. This poem, "Swept Up Whole," is just five lines. I think that it could benefit from expansion (it’s only 18 words!):
Swept Up Whole
You aren't swept up whole,
however it feels. You're
atomized. The wind passes.
You recongeal. It's
a suprise.
Ryan's style makes it so that readers have to put a lot more of the puzzle pieces together themselves. I don't know that this is always a bad thing, but I do think that Ryan certainly risks the misinterpretation of her poems. Perhaps the reader is forced to do more thinking, but with so few clues from the author, it's more difficult for the reader to actually grasp Ryan's occasion/intent/message.
Words especially
are subject to
the chemistry
of death: it is
an acid bath
which dissolves
or doubles
their strength.
Sentiments
which pleased
drift down
as sediment;
iron trees
grow from filament.
I do think that Ryan's brevity is at odds with her effectiveness at conveying a message--it's easier to get a point across when you're wordy, and Ryan is SO brief that some of her intent is muddled. This poem, "Swept Up Whole," is just five lines. I think that it could benefit from expansion (it’s only 18 words!):
Swept Up Whole
You aren't swept up whole,
however it feels. You're
atomized. The wind passes.
You recongeal. It's
a suprise.
Ryan's style makes it so that readers have to put a lot more of the puzzle pieces together themselves. I don't know that this is always a bad thing, but I do think that Ryan certainly risks the misinterpretation of her poems. Perhaps the reader is forced to do more thinking, but with so few clues from the author, it's more difficult for the reader to actually grasp Ryan's occasion/intent/message.
4 Comments:
I agree with you. To me, it seems arrogant to expect the reader to assume so much when there are so few words. The words aren't very musical either, which leads me to question the microscopically short lines. In such a little line, I would expect the ending word to be something strong or important, but half the time they end in "and" or "the." I do believe that there is something to short poems, because they force the reader to savor each succulent word, but in Ryan's writing, the reader is sucking on a bone. And it's hard to reach the marrow of meaning when there's so little to crack open.
Swept up Whole” is definitely an interesting poem. It packs in quite a bit. I agree that the poem can be misinterpreted with such little information. I’d like to take a stab at it though.
I think it explores a split second where a person undergoes some kind of transformation be it from an emotional experience or an epiphany. Being swept up whole implies that the person maintains their “structure” or “shape” if you will. But the speaker here disagrees with that—what happens is that the “structure” of a person (mental, physical, or emotional) expands (atomized) and then returns to his/her original form of thought, emotion, personality, etc.
The imagery here is most certainly powerful stuff. It taps into unlikely relationships, making the poem, as you said, vivid and memorable but not necessarily lucid.
Tiffany
I don't know that the shortness of these poems enables their misinterpretation any more than extraneous language does. Words in a poem are a precious commodity, because they suffer from inflation- the more words you have, often the less each one is worth. These short poems seem to allow the reader to bring a lot of himself to the poem.
Also, when dealing with Harmonium, I got really frustrated because the message was difficult to find- as it is in these poems. However, I think we all know that the way the poem is written is far more important than the fundamental conceit of the poem, and it's a much better use of one's time to look at Stevens's language than try to discover the message of his poems. Ross told me that in those poems, sometimes sound is meaning, and I think that holds true with some of Ryan's poems as well... at least from what I've seen.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home