Okay, I may get a little snarky today, but I don’t mean it in a bitter and cynical way. No, I’m talking a more light-hearted, whimsical snark, more rascally than irascible; more puckish than prickly – and it’s all related to a site I stumbled upon when exploring Hart Crane’s poem “To Emily Dickinson.”
I found a webpage with the poem (HERE), and it was linked to professor’s site at George Mason University, HERE.
I found a webpage with the poem (HERE), and it was linked to professor’s site at George Mason University, HERE.
| On the professor’s page there is a book he has written, “Plerosis/Kenosis,” and a blurb about the book – and that’s what caught my eye. The description begins, “Why do readers report being powerfully affected by great poetry? What happens to us when we read a poem?” Of course, the first thing that came to my mind were comments made by Emily Dickinson: “If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can warm me I know that is poetry. If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know that is poetry. These are the only way I know it. Is there any other way?” |  |
The description about the book continues, stating that it “offers a new way of reading poems by treating poems as dynamic — essentially as fields of energy — and by focusing on how poetry pushes language towards two contradictory goals: the desire to say more, to convey universal truths, and overwhelm the reader with intensity; and the desire to speak with perfect clarity and precision, to achieve the purity of mathematics or logic.”
The comments on the goals of poetry called to mind a statement I’d read recently in an article entitled “An Acrostic Window on Emily Dickinson’s ‘I dwell in Possibility’” by Julia Hejduk -- that Dickinson was “a poet of incarnation – of the small, concrete, and quotidian becoming a vessel for the infinite” – and even Dickinson’s own words, “My business is circumference.”
Is that what Dr. Nanian was after – the ability to convey universal truths in a focused, concise manner? If so, Hejduk’s line was certainly more succinct.
Also, I’m not sure I would agree that the dual goals of conveying universal truths and doing so with clarity and precision are “contradictory.” Maybe “challenging”? “Complicated”? Plus, the statement then asserts, “The pursuit of both goals inevitably ends in failure.” Hmm. I don’t think that was the case with Emily Dickinson.
Before I go on, though, let me address the title of the book, Plerosis/Kenosis. It, too, called to mind some lines I’d heard before too. Not lines from some lofty poem or a weighty article on literary theory. No, the title called to mind some dialogue from an episode of the sit-com “Frasier,” when Frasier Crane and his brother Niles discussed the possibility of buying and operating a four-star restaurant:
The comments on the goals of poetry called to mind a statement I’d read recently in an article entitled “An Acrostic Window on Emily Dickinson’s ‘I dwell in Possibility’” by Julia Hejduk -- that Dickinson was “a poet of incarnation – of the small, concrete, and quotidian becoming a vessel for the infinite” – and even Dickinson’s own words, “My business is circumference.”
Is that what Dr. Nanian was after – the ability to convey universal truths in a focused, concise manner? If so, Hejduk’s line was certainly more succinct.
Also, I’m not sure I would agree that the dual goals of conveying universal truths and doing so with clarity and precision are “contradictory.” Maybe “challenging”? “Complicated”? Plus, the statement then asserts, “The pursuit of both goals inevitably ends in failure.” Hmm. I don’t think that was the case with Emily Dickinson.
Before I go on, though, let me address the title of the book, Plerosis/Kenosis. It, too, called to mind some lines I’d heard before too. Not lines from some lofty poem or a weighty article on literary theory. No, the title called to mind some dialogue from an episode of the sit-com “Frasier,” when Frasier Crane and his brother Niles discussed the possibility of buying and operating a four-star restaurant:
Nanian’s title seems just like that — “hard enough to pronounce to intimidate the riff-raff!” Later in the book’s description, he even makes note that the book is for “scholars, graduate students, and SOPHISTICATED undergraduates” (I added the caps). In the words of Frasier Crane, it sounds “very, very exclusive!”
By the way, "plerosis" and "kenosis" are terms with roots in ancient Greek, often used in theology and literary analysis to describe contrasting yet related concepts. Kenosis refers to self-emptying or emptiness, while plerosis signifies fullness or fulfillment.
Of course, in the episode of “Frasier,” Niles wanted the name of their restaurant to be inviting and welcoming.
I don’t think Nanian achieved that; however, I suppose one could argue the title is intriguing? Does that border on inviting?
One review of the book (the only one on Amazon.com as of today) opens with, “Do not be put off by the title,” and the reviewer added this: “This study of poetry's faceted, complex appeal, although academically informed, is neither jargon-laden nor forbidding. Written for a general as well as an informed audience, Nanian's presentation lays out clear end points and situates poetry in general and specific poets within that spectrum.”
Hmm. I wonder if this book is, as Niles Crane had hoped for his restaurant, welcoming?
More on all of this tomorrow.
By the way, "plerosis" and "kenosis" are terms with roots in ancient Greek, often used in theology and literary analysis to describe contrasting yet related concepts. Kenosis refers to self-emptying or emptiness, while plerosis signifies fullness or fulfillment.
Of course, in the episode of “Frasier,” Niles wanted the name of their restaurant to be inviting and welcoming.
I don’t think Nanian achieved that; however, I suppose one could argue the title is intriguing? Does that border on inviting?
One review of the book (the only one on Amazon.com as of today) opens with, “Do not be put off by the title,” and the reviewer added this: “This study of poetry's faceted, complex appeal, although academically informed, is neither jargon-laden nor forbidding. Written for a general as well as an informed audience, Nanian's presentation lays out clear end points and situates poetry in general and specific poets within that spectrum.”
Hmm. I wonder if this book is, as Niles Crane had hoped for his restaurant, welcoming?
More on all of this tomorrow.
RSS Feed
