More on The Idea of Order and anagogy

In the anagogic phase, literature imitates the total dream of man, and so imitates the thought of a human mind which is at the circumference and not at the center of reality.
-Frye 119

In it's anagogic phase, then , poetry imitates human action as total ritual, and so imitates the action of the omnipotent human society that contains all the powers of nature within itself.
-Frye 120

As I was revisiting my thoughts on Steven's The Idea of Order at Key West, I found some new and interesting connections. It starts with the idea presented on page 119. This passage was another sort of light bulb in that the human dream, which is a kind of all seeing all knowing powerful representation of human life and interaction, is not at the center of reality projecting out, but at the edges holding it all together. We take out dreams and thoughts and wrap them around the reality that is presented before us, either to understand or to control. This poem demonstrates through out it's entirety how it's not only she, the singing maker, who is involved in this changing of reality, but also the bystanders who experience the effects of her reality altering song.

"But it was more than that, more even than her voice, and ours, among the theatrical distances, bronze shadows heaped on High horizons, mountainous atmospheres of sky and sea."

But is was more than both her and the regular human onlookers. The reality, the dark sea, outer voice of the sky, and of the summer air are more than the human persona, or society. It, the reality, the world in which the poem breaths was more than the onlookers, more even that that of she who sang it's creation or alteration. They, the human society is not at the center of this reality, but at the edges, holding this dream, thie other reality of Key West together.

In regards to the second quote from Frye : In it's anagogic phase, then , poetry imitates human action as total ritual, and so imitates the action of the omnipotent human society that contains all the powers of nature within itself.

This second passage from Frye embodies the entirety of what the poem is I think. She is singing, as a maker, a poem. This poem not only imitates the omnipotent human, in all her powers of creation, but it contains all the powers of nature within itself. The entire third verse contains and imitates nature.
If it was only the dark voice of the sea
That rose, or even colored by many waves;
If it was only the outer voice of shy
And cloud, of sunken coral water-walled
However clear, it would have been deep air,
The heaving speech of air, a summer sound
Repeated in a summer without end
And so on.

She, the maker, contains all the secrets and powers of nature otherwise how could she alter the reality of nature around her and her audience?

Now for something completely different...
I have reached page 472 in Don Quixote and have successfully started part two in this impressive novel. It began with the author defending his second section of Don Quixote because it seems there was some controversy whether the second installment was as authentic as the first. But all that aside, the story picks up where it left off, with poor old Don bedridden and staying true in his madness despite the efforts of the barber, the priest, his niece, and the housekeeper. And poor Sancho still striving to achieve is promised insula.

"And no doubt this was a kind of prophecy; poets are calledvates, which means they are soothsayers."
-468
Don Quixote says this when defending his books of chivalry ( and his madness of believing them a reality) and I think it ties in beautifully with what we've been discussing in our readings of Phillips and Frye.

Light Bulb..again

"The reason for producing the literature structure is apparently that the inward meaning, the self-contained verbal pattern, is the field of responses connected with pleasure, beauty and interest."
Frye-74
This simple sentence can sum up a good 10 to 15 pages of what Frye is trying to get across, and it's lovely and friendly in it's simplicity. The bottom line of Frye's book, his arguments, and his criticism is that we must not look at the surface (the author, our tastes and opinions, or even literally just the cover) of a piece of literature, but the internal patterns, rhythms, and different phases.

And broken down even more, this passage is like the secret of literature that is being whispered around the exam room. Everyone wants it even if they don't know it's available. Everyone wants to know what to look for when judging, or not even judging, when interpreting a piece of literature. For if you know how to correctly look at a piece of literature critically you can not only fully understand it, but enjoy it's beauty for what it is.

This passage not only subtly tells you what really matters when critically looking at a piece of literature but it tells you that it was written simply for the beauty and intricacy of the words themselves. And when you read them, you don't realize that you're enjoying the book is because the writing as that particular repeating pattern and combination of irony and comedy.
What makes someone enjoy a piece of literature has to do more with the subtleties of the verbal patterns and rhythms then the fetching hero or fearless heroine, even though those characters are contributing factors.

Just a quick short post on my thoughts.

Light Bulb

"When we pass into anagogy, nature becomes, not the container, but the thing contained, and the archetypal universal symbols, the city, the garden, the quest, the marriage, are no longer the desirable forms that man constructs inside nature, but are themselves the forms of nature."
Frye-119

" This is not reality, but it is the conceivable or imaginative limit of desire, which is infinite, eternal, and hence apocalyptic [or] the imaginative conception of the whole of nature as the content of an infinite and eternal living body which, if not human, is closer to being human than to being inanimate."
Frye-119

As I read this second entry from Frye I had a little epiphany about Wallace Steven's "The Idea of Order at Key West." Or more specifically I had an epiphany about the first verse in the poem:
She sang beyond the genius of the sea
The water never formed to mind or voice
Like a body wholly body, fluttering
It's empty sleeves; and yet it's mimic motion
Made constant cry, caused constantly a cry
That was not ours although we understood,
Inhuman, of the veritable ocean.

This made me ask myself, what if she was this infinite eternal living body, either human or not, that embodies the imaginative concept of nature? And then it all became all the more clear as I read is lines such as, But it was she and not the sea we heard, It was her voice that made the sky acutest at it's vanishing, She was the single artificer of the world.

This poem is what Frye calls apocalyptic in the world of anagogy, because there is this "She" singing and creating or altering the reality, or the world around the speaker in the poem. In this poem "she" is the image in the anagogical sense because she sort of represents what Frye names as a characteristic of anagogy; "the sense of unlimited power in a humanized form"
The poem never explicitly describes this "she" as being a goddess or of possessing any obvious magical or higher powers other than an exceptionally powerful singing voice, but it is implied in the last two concluding verses what she did indeed project some sort of power or change over them or the world. Something changed : "The maker's rage to order words of sea, Words of the fragrant portals, dimly-starred, and of ourselves and of our origins"

It almost sounds to me that the Maker, this "she" somehow altered language, or words themselves. And in changing the word base of a thing (sea, fishing boats, what have you) the entirety of the thing now is seemingly completely different. I like to imagine that when the speaker of the poem turns around he doesn't understand any of what he sees because this She has changed around the order of everything and now nothing is as it was. "In ghostlier demarcations" What was one way is now another and only the ghost of "ourselves" and/or the sea remain while the newly sung version stands in it's new ordered place.

Aristotle and Don Quixote

Aristotle defends poetry, and the art of writing in general, by laying down the laws of imitation. First off, there are three differences that determine exactly what kind of imitation it is. There is the medium "of color, form or again by voice", which is basically the form the imitation is in; a tragedy, prose or verse, even a dance, thus "taken as a whole, the imitation is produced by rhythm, language, or harmony, either singly or combined."

Then there is the objects. These are generally men, or types of men "in action". These men are either higher than, the same as, or lower than us. So Aristotle argues here that poetry doesn't lie, but represents and imitates the different levels of people that are actual, that are real and breathing. The purpose is not to give a complete accurate history about a specific person, but to represent the level of a person who exists somewhere and everywhere.

Finally there is the mode or manner in which the objects, or people, are imitated. What is meant by this is how the poem is written/told. Like narration, or how Plato told his stories through Socrates (because there's no proof that Socrates was his own person because Plato was the only one who ever wrote down what he supposedly said). Thus the poet is imitating through narration, first person, or whatever have you.

Aristotle also argues that imitation is natural and rooted in human nature from childhood. In fact all living creatures rely on imitation to learn. Key word here, LEARN. Without an example, irrelevant if it's historically accurate or true, no one would know how to do anything.
So basically, Aristotle argues that poetry is no more a lie than reality is. It is an imitation based on the history of man kind. It may not be historically accurate, matching up perfectly with specific names and dates, but poetry imitates the actual, the possible. It's no more a lie than the imitation of this computer is. There could be the perfect computer out there, ideal in form and process, but I still have this computer here, imitation the perfection of the perfect computer form. And it's no less real.

"If one were to reply that those who compose these books write them as fictions, and therefore are not obliged to consider the fine points of truth, I should respond that the more truthful the fiction, the better it is, and the more probable and possible, the more pleasing. Fictional tales must engage the minds of those who read them, and by restraining exaggeration and moderating impossibility, then enthrall the spirit and thereby astonish, captivate, delight, and entertain, allowing wonder and joy to move together at the same pace; none of these things can be accomplished by fleeing verisimilitude and mimesis." - Senor Canon

First fleeing verisimilitude : fleeing appearance of being true or real.

This brings me to the section I just read in Don Quixote. It starts on page 411 in chapter XLVII and continues into chapter XLIX. I'm referring to the conversation that mainly goes on between the Priest and the Canon that the meet of the road, and to some extent that of the Barber and Don Quixote as well. They are discussing the books of chivalry and the Canon and the Priest pretty much agree that they are "foolish stories meant only to delight and not to teach, unlike moral tales, which delight and teach at the same time."

Basically they argue in this section what Plato and Aristotle argue, the worth of fiction. The Priest /Canon side agree with Plato where the Don Quixote side agrees with Aristotle. Don Quixote believes the fictions are true in that there were actual knights of errant who completed deeds like those in the books. He takes is a step further that Aristotle and instead of believing that the poems/books are imitations of knights and their feats, but that they are actual histories. He knows that there were once knights, and thinks there still is, so why aren't these histories true, and not just imitations.

The Canon and the Priest argue that even though where were knights errant, the books are pointless lies because they only delight and even lead the mind astray in believing their lies are actual histories.
So yeah. I'm up to page 432 in Don Quixote and I found these chapters extremely relevant to what we have been discussing in class.

Thinking...and then rethinking

I was checking up on the class notes, cruising Rosanna's blog when I read her entry; "Pregnancy of Poems." My attention was caught by one sentence: "if poems are born, then there must be a universal poetic language. And what is that?"
True all literature shares patterns and rhythms, so in essence they all speak the same speak, but I don't see how the metaphor of a piece of writing being "born" has to do with it.

I think my biggest problem with this simple concept is basically that people are born and we by no means have one universal language, literally or figuratively. We're all people, so we share the various patterns and rhythms of the type, or mode, of person we are. Poems, or pieces of literature also have patterns and rhythms in themselves that make up what they are. They are also are born from the artists womb of a brain in the same sense that when a child is born. And similarly, once the poem/child leaves the womb/hands of the artist it's severed all ties. It's its own person, in a sense. It's one self as a piece of writing, even though it is still so-and-so's piece of writing, just as I am my parents daughter. It doesn't make me them, or even the essence of them. They just typed up up and sewed my pages to my spine.

The only thing that gives insight into who/what the poem/child is, is in itself. To understand the poem, the answers are in the words. In how it's written and what it says about who or what. The same goes for a person; the outside can be altered by the opinions and tastes of others, but that's on the inside, what's in the text itself, is what or who the person is. The patterns of behavior and rhythms in which they live out their lives is in a sense their language of being, of existing as a person...

Wait a minute, that's kinda what Rosanna said. Aha! So maybe now as I'm writing I'm understanding more of what Rosanna was saying. So the patterns and rhythms are the universal language because they can be found in all things written...almost.

What an odd entry. But as it has happened before, as I write about something I supposedly don't understand, I work it out through the thinking process of writing. I was too stuck on that once sentence that I couldn't step back and really see the whole idea of what Rosanna was saying. And as tempting as it is to restart this entry and have a writing topic that is actually coherent, I'm going to keep it as is and hope it wasn't too confusing (or pointless).

I am Carl Gustav Jung

I am a Swiss psychologist and founder of analytical psychology who likes to hang around with Freud and discuss the unconscious. But unlike Freud I believed there was a second and deeper unconscious, the collective unconscious, which is like a holding tank for all of the past experiences of our species.

This ties in with my own theory about archetypes, and guess what their called...the Jungian Archetypes. In this theory, archetypes are inherited psychic dispositions that form the base in which from human life emerges. Evidence of these archetypes can be seen through out history in myths, symbols, rituals, and basic human instincts.
And all of these archetypes are a part of our collect unconscious.

I may have also been responsible for the foundation of Alcoholics Anonymous by admitting to an American patient that their case of alcoholism was so bad that only turning to spirituality would save them.
There are also rumors that I am a Nazi or a Nazi supporter, but pay no attention to that. It's all a big misunderstanding.

To learn more!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetype


Anyway, Claire is now on page 410 in "Don Quixote". Poor Don Quixote was once again tricked by the barber and priest and is now riding in a cage on the back of an ox cart believing himself enchanted. From chapter XLIII the story has take up many Ironic Comedy traits. Poor Don Quixote is the butt of everyones jokes and he is even tied by the hand from the tower of a castle by the wicked and bored Maritornes! He is definitely the the center of the innkeepers, and to some extent of Don Fernando, Dorotea, Cardenio and all of his other friends. Except Sancho, who will always be blunt with his master for he knows of his madness but accepts it and even believes it.

These chapters also hold gobs of juicy low mimetic comedy with a little possible tragic romance regarding the forbidden love between Don Clara and Don Luis.
I'm very much enjoying "Don Quixote".

Key West and Abrams

Well, as I see it, The Idea of Order at Key West incorporates all four of Abrams' classes of literary theory. First there is the Universe. The relationship between the poem and the theory of the Universe is evident in the poem's own creation myth. This "she" is singing the to the sea which inspires it into a new existence, that is why they see the town differently after she sings. She's not creating the Universe but changing it into her own creation. And that creation is sublty bigger than just the sea:
"But it was more that that, more even than her voice, and ours, among the meaningless plungings of water and the wind., theatrical distances, bronze shadows heaped on high horizans, mountainous atmospheres or shy and sea."
The sea is everything, the Universe.


Next, The Idea of Order at Key West incorporates Abrams' theory of the Artist. This is perhaps the most obvious of Abrams' theories, thanks to a few lines in the poem:
"She was the artificer of the world in which she sang. And when she sang, the sea, whatever self it had, became the self that was her song, for she was the maker."
Nothing could be clearer. She sang thus she created. An artist creates, whether through voice, painting, or writing and She created a Universe in the sea. At least that's how I see it. Without this She, there would be no song, no changing sea, no poem at all. Because of her artristy, and that of the poet Stevens, a Universe was created in and out of the sea.

Thirdly, The Idea of Order at Key West incorporates Abrams' theory of the Work, because quite honestly, the poem it's self is the work, according to Abrams' pyramid. Universe, Artist, and Audience all branch off the work, because they couldn't exist without it as their center. One might find it taxing to call a poem a "work", but I guess that's irrelevant. The Idea of Order at Key West is the expression of the artist, of the worker of the Work. Stevens wrote this poem that contains the elements of Universe, Artist, Work, and Audience and analyzing it thusly makes the poem a Work.

Finally, The Idea of Order at Key West incorporates Abrams' theory of the audience in two ways. One, right now I'm doing an indepth, intense study of the Work. I'm analyzing it's possible meanings and reading into it's so called hidden or encrypted texts. So I am an audience member who has formed a relationship with the poem.
There is also the second audience in the poem, the We:
"It was the spirit that we sought and knew that we should ask this often as she sang...As we beheld her striding there alone..."
She has an audience in the poem, an unidentified group of ordinary humans who observe her as she sing-creates the new Universe. The author of the poem itself can also be part of the audience, because the poem is written in first person. It seems as if the author himself was walking on the beach, observing as She sings her song that she sang.

On to Don Quixote. I am on page 368. The captive just finished his story of how he escaped prison and the adventure of saving Zoraida. This tale was a tragedy where as the previous reuniting of Cardenio with his Luscinda and Dorotea with her Don Fernando leaned more towards a Romance, maybe even a Romantic Comedy.
I never fail to be amused by how many audiences there are in this book at any given time. There is always me, but at times there is a whole herd of people playing the part of the audience, listening to various stories at various times. I have to giggle at the layer cake of audiences woven through-out the story. I'm the audience observing the audience who is observing the teller, who if he is crazy enough, might even have his own private mid-evil audience inside his own head. And I'm not naming any names.