The Poem as Act: A Way to Reconcile Presentational and Mimetic Theories

Transcription

1 The Iow Review Volume 6 Issue 3 Summer-Fll Article The Poem s Act: A Wy Reconcile Presenttionl Mimetic Theories Chrles Altieri Follow this dditionl works t: Prt Cretive Writg Commons Recommended Cittion Altieri, Chrles. "The Poem s Act: A Wy Reconcile Presenttionl Mimetic Theories." The Iow Review 6.3 (1975): Web. Avilble t: This Contents is brought you for free open ccess Iow Reserch Onle. It hs been ccepted for clusion The Iow Review n uthorized dmistrr Iow Reserch Onle. For more formtion, plese contct lib-ir@uiow.edu.

2 :love, t terplnetry center, rhymes 'yellow' with 'pollen' : thorn from greenstem equls wht md cumbed :blue blnces it boundless pendulum ir : violte Night its source, course. "Now ply tht womn, led before mystic crib, begn sg her quverg voice, n voice chnged, chnged from voice witch tht n ngel, from n ngel's voice child's, n nswer cme..." "gret plnes tht termgle" *... bsolute north, bsolute south..." (Vn Gogh) "1 m gog put blck white green prk with pk pths." CRITICISM / CHARLES ALTIERI The Poem s Act: A Wy Reconcile Presenttionl Mimetic Theories In pre-romntic poetry poet's or speker's cts md serve supple ment context or rgument; poetry sce Romnticism ct md tends become content poem. This oversimplified but use ful generuztion should us help underst why ory poem s ct md strikes us s n importnt subject should mke cler stkes volved our ttempts construct ory tht will t once suffice for poetry Romntic trdition fford new perspective on more trditionl poetry. We need terms for discussg ct md poetry lrge prt be cuse we hve come trust so litttle older views which subordte quuties exhibited md ction gener?ztions md chieves. Sce Romnticism, however, our poets hve come shre, even our precipitte, culture's cresg scepticism with respect bstrct 103 University Iow is collbortg with JSTOR digitize, preserve, extend ccess The Iow Review

3 rtionl structures, morl universls, symbouc mythic systems for defg vlue prticulr ctions. As Pound put it, we hve become less terested universl truth ides thn quuties md ex hibited person s he enterts se ides. We distrust generuztions bout judge ctions primrily terms quuties y present or results y produce. Romntic poetry drmtizes se generl socil tendencies shiftg its ttention wy from ferg rguments terpretg fvor presentg scenes which exhibit md process seekg n de qute stnce which foreground very process terpretg prticulr md is engged. The im n is not fer conclusions bout but present s performnce kds mentl ctivity which might most fully disclose how md cn register respond complex dimensions scene confrontg engg g it. Poetic thkg becomes lrgely mtter wht Kets clled "st tiong," demonstrtg modes movements mentl Ufe which tensify our wreness md's powers quickened sense life se powers cn provide. Kets' direct heir is, course, WUce Ste vens with his view poetry s depictg md's strtegies fd wht will suffice his sense tht mesure significnt poetry is not its generl truth but its flexibility presentg vrious fcets quli ties Ufe imgtion midst nturl flux. But Stevens only reflects on wht or modern re poets reflections : Yets, EUot, Auden, for exmple, were concerned less with bstrct truths thn with explorg stnces wrds which might provide uthority for ir poetic medittions give m ccess needs powers ir img tions. The criticl quest for ory s poetry ction, n, cn be seen s primrily nor step endless process critics' seekg ln guge tht will suffice describe poetry tht justifies ir existence. But this quest lso hs importnt culturl vlues itself?both for prcticl criticism for more generl ( lmentble) post-romntic criticl tsk justifyg humne vlue poetry. Gefrey Hrtmn ex nicely presses implictions this kd ory for prcticl criticism. "If books re not prophetic, if y do not revel 'voice shuttle' s well s ' figure re crpet,' y expendble."1 Hrtmn suggests here two wys which ory poem s ctivity voice shuttle enbles us trnscend limits formlist contextul ist criticism. First ll, voice is medir between relm prxis tht " figure crpet." By ttendg it, critic gs ccess socil, psychologicl, onlogicl needs contrdictions formg text's rhericl structure. And form itself becomes less n 104

4 object thn process, Uke tht Kenneth Burke defed s "symbolic ction," for deung with concerns. lrger Second, ttention this voice llows critic lso move more freely opposite direction, tret poem less s forml sttement thn s n tense humn. The critic cn, with Thoms Whitker, see s poem drmtized ct humn speech which "reuty becomes ctul" through temporl movement spekg voice s it pre sents its direct emotionl tellectul enggement sitution.2 More over ory poem s ct cn provide criticl terms for judgg quuty this without referrg universl truths or sym bolic levels significnce. We cn evlute qulity poem s ct exmg how live it is complexity sitution it presents. And we cn spek its depth less mtic bstrct terms: depth is creted wreness complexity poet's biuty volve us chrcteristic humn concerns problems. Depth becomes function drmtic situtions, not s explntions mticlly ter proposed prettions "meng" those situtions. this on s Flly emphsis depth dimension situtions reder's response sitution enbles oreticl critic pursue culturl role bequed New Criticism. Even though most us re ject prcticl clims New Critics, we fd ourselves unble es cpe need y felt give justifiction for poetry tht might, de fg quuties literry, serve t lest mol?fy cresg positivism modern culture. Wllce Stevens climed tht imgtion resists " pressure reuty," he thus defed cen trl tellectul role our culture for Uterry critics. must They mke cler how cert forms cognition disclose quuties which re not dequtely expled scientific models humn. The m thret Stevens New Critics ws behviorism, s reception Skner's recent work dictes, thret hs not subsided. But contempo rry criticism fces structurlism more powerful thret, becuse its l guistic scientific model clims expl very quuties literry dis course on which old rguments rest, terms tht deny humn pur posiveness ll dimensions depth. Michel Foucult, for exmple, hs climed, with n ll o humn rher icl flmboynce his deconstructions, tht our ge is witnessg " deth mn" s purposive, self-reflexive beg. Humn ctivities, he feels, cn be subsumed opertions lguistic structures, Ro l Brs hs proposed model Uterry nlysis he feels is cpble supportg such clims: If up until now we hve looked t text s species fruit with 105

5 kernel (n pricot, for exmple), flesh beg form pit beg content, it would be better see it s n onion, construc tion lyers (or levels, or systems) whose body conts, no flly, hert, no kernel, no secret, no irreducible prciple; nothg except fity its own envelopes?which envelop nothg or thn unity its own surfces.3 Brs, effect, denies tht texts literry represent ny ction t ll ex cept ply lnguge, he rejects bsic Romntic clim tht ct constitutg poetic text is syntic one, our wreness deepeng qulity ctions cretg complex terreltionships mong ir vrious spects. Orgnic terreltionships show nothg except cpc ity lnguge operte severl terlockg codes. Wht Knt hd s proposed unique model humn cpcity order prtici pte complex, Brs disposes. But ory poem s ct enbles us recover much force Knt estics. In fct it is from Knt, from less rtionustic constructions his ory ction thkers Wittgenste trdition,4 tht we cn fd terms for resttg chllenged ssumptions bout humn vlues cn show how Uterry texts support those ssumptions. Knt rgued tht no sgle explnry scheme will suffice for deung with humn ctions. It is crucil distguish between discoveries pos sible from scientific pot view ors provided from more "tui tive" or phenomenologicl pproch. Scientific explntions re limited cuse-effect reltionships ssume tht we must tret ctions from s third-person perspective merely events physicl world. But res discourse like ethics re mengless se terms; only pprochg ctions from first-person perspective gent cn we mke sense terms like tention, purpose, responsibility. Science ten mkes mistke confusg limits its methodology with Umits relity. The orist poem s ct tkes similr perspective, even when he is not cler bout his philosophicl ssumptions. Thus he cn rgue tht it is certly possible del with texts from lguistic perspective see m s essentilly bstrct systems lguistic codes. But structurl ists re ten guilty troducg ir nlyses climg tht ir l guistic pproch leves no room for subjectivity n concludg with onlogicl clims tht re is no such s thg subjectivity. The orist poem s ct cn counter, here, tht it is lso importnt see text terms first-person ctivity?both ttendg ctivity reder empthizg with pot view spekers crs text. Two wys recoverg text s more somethg thn ply surfces n emerge, becuse we cn view text s temporl structure s well s one. sptil The reder does not merely observe for 106

6 ml ptterns; he grdully tegrtes m syntic wholes tht re more thn sum ir prts. By ttendg wy vrious strs text come ger give specil weight cert nodl move ments, reder constructs work s n embodied ct md. He re covers process on grdully reflectg erlier reflections detils grg m complex highly chrged imges sym bols.5 Second, reder does not tke text s n end itseu, but s mens which he is led reconstruct imgry world ctions represented. He is only decoder sense tht he trnsforms textul signs clung upon his full cpcities for sympthizg with under stg humn ctions. I will n give exmple both se procedures fl section my pper. For now it should suffice pot out tht, despite its excesses, drem orgniclly unified text serves im portnt onlogicl epistemologicl functions. The orgnic text does not trnscend ordry relity, but it does provide wy enggg humn ctions tht trnscends conditions scientific nlysis. 11 Our very needs for ory poetry tht our corresponds culturl situ tion mke it extremely importnt tht we be creful posg scrut izg formultions poem s ct. The more we need bstrct justifi ctions for procedure, more we re pt ccept ny ory tht seems get job done. In literry mtters, where ory is only justified we prctice, hve our perhps only self-respect lose from dequte orizg. Noneless coherent ory my serve concentrte critics' ttention on one set questions rr thn ors, my llow us con tue defend humne impuetions our discipune,, t very lest, should mke us sufficiently self-conscious prevent our beg nively conventionl or nively vnt-grde. We must first ll recognize tht re re severl vlid wys spek bout poem s ct. A poem requires vrious ctions its reder: spek g poem volves his complex musculr ctivity; redg it dems his ctively respondg sensuous qulities sound imgistic structure; construg it volves his respondg poet's humn speech sympthizg with imgry sitution he cretes. Moreover poem my be considered ct n uthor severl wys?s n ct speech s our performnce cllg ttention his verbl, structurl, rhythmic skills. Yet se spects poetry will not crry burden vlues orists wish ssert climg tht poem is n ct. For tht we need expl how poem s ct cn be unique kd cognitive cpble deepeng our sense wht is volved humn ctions. I would defe poetic ction on this cognitive 107 level brodly s presen

7 ttion humn processes which volve reflective consciousness which suggest for reder possible vlues or impuetions se processes. We need n mke two bsic sets distctions if we re void oreticl tendency limit kds ctions which poem presents. We must first ll recognize tht poem cn cll ttention t lest three different forms conscious ction, ten complex combi ntions: it cn present forms drmtic nrrtive where udience is sked with sympthize chrcter construct morl psychologicl impuetions tl ction; it cn foreground pro cesses reflection drmtized lyric person expressg immedite out feeungs, tryg rhericl roles, or on medittg scene, event, or ide; it cn foreground ctivity n impucit uthor who shows signs his rtistic effort give form flux or tries mnipultg lnguge structure corporte perspective his drmtized more speker lrger, complex vision. The blld, poetry Kets, tht Yets might be tken s exemplry se three strtegies. The second set distctions is fr more complex more chllengg ny sgle poetic ory. There re mong orists two bsic pproches overll cognitive shpe poetic ction which must be recon ciled. I refer or expressive presenttionl ories poetry mimetic ories y sought replce. I shll try Ust briefly bsic clims both ories suggest why neir is dequte itself. In process I shll tret se clims s only y ffect wy prcticl critics tret ction poem I shu ignore importnt differences between pure presenttionl ories, which tend be objectivist Uke those WilUms Olson, pure expressionist ories, which tend concentrte on impucit ctivity uthor poem. The centrl difference between presenttionl mimetic ories is wy y consider poem s ction. Presenttionl ories see poem s n immedite process or ctivity drmtizg movement md s it tries estb?sh medittive equilibrium with n externl scene. Ex pressionist versions tret ory tht immedite process s poet's ttempt express order his feeungs poetic form. Mimetic ories, on or h, re concerned more with poem s completed c tion thn s n ctivity: y tret poem s product rr thn process, y stress rhericl structure s primry context for terpret g drmtic s typicl embodiment chrcteristic or universl humn problems. Typicl presenttionl expressionist ories mke five bsic clims.6 ( 1 ) The poem does not imitte or copy n event outside poem which it must be fithful. As Joyce WilUms put it, Uterture imittes nture only sense tht, Uke nture, it is presenttion contuous cre 108

8 ti ve ctivity. (2) Insted imittg s, poem brgs experi ence or beg nmg rticultg wht hd been merely vgue or diffuse impressions. Thus poem presents wht is effect new wy experiencg world. (3) Becuse poem is new, presenttionl orist stresses its immedicy. The poem Uterlly plces reder direct contct with n ct md virtue his shrg poet's speech, his recretg embodied uthor's struggles give form or feeungs, his imgtive volvement poet's ttempt chieve stnce which his md cn compose scene recognize vlues numous forces ltent it. (4) The stress on immedite ex perience leds critic reject sptil forml models literry meng sist on one's tretg poem s construct temporl whose meng unfolds s deepens he follows movements md. (5) Given on emphses immedicy temporuty, meng poem is not considered reside ny conceptul terprettion poem but rr be herent or ct disposition md reder s redg poem. Meng resides quuty ex perience cnnot be reduced discursive sttements: Fenollos's terms, wht poem mens is wht it does. Mimetic ory is more difficult summrize becuse it hs mny shdes vritions. The bsic elements, noneless, cn be if we recognized distguish three bsic projects Aristle's origl formultion ory. The concept mimesis is necessry first ll not ssert simply tht uterry works re copies rel, but defe just wht kd re. copies y Only this wy could Aristle respond Pl's ttck on literture s merely copy copy. Thus Aristle sists tht clrify how Uterture imittes we must grsp purpose ( or Knt's more sophisticted system "purposiveness") representtion. Fr from merely copyg fcts, literry work seeks crete forml imge course ction which cn provide reflective model wys men ct cn illustrte meng implictions different wys men order world fcts. In Aristle's response Pl, n, re re two bsic importnt criticl clims: (1) tht literry text is neir merely copy nor direct reuty, but product purposive structurg tended mke us sympthize with drmtic sitution while lso controllg wy we reflect upon it; (2) tht literture is medited form expression which cn only be re lted properly when we ttend forml mens writer hs t his disposl structure reder's processes reflection. These two prciples Uow Aristle clim both tht Uterture does refer rel s tht it rrnges such wy tht it serves cognitive purposes. He gets trouble, however, when he goes pl wht those cognitive purposes re. For n he turns wy 109 on ex from de

9 scription his own generl philosophicl defition s meng ori, s wy one comprehends reltionship prticulrs universl prciples.7 He refore defes purpose imittion s Uterry production cthrsis: Uterture imittes ctions order our purify understg ir nture probble consequences us ledg see sgle process ction s coherent structure cuses prob ble effects. Aristle is no simplistic re?st cnons vokg verisimiutude; Uter ture must be true logic psychology ctions consequences, not surfce phenomen. Noneless his epistemologi cl terprettion purpose imittion is terribly Umited hs rightly been rejected Romntic orists. Aristle's sistence on s plot shpg sgle nrrtive ction his concern for meng terms universls will not suffice for good del Uterture. Mny lyric poems, for exmple, simply present processes or expression medittion which im our wreness tensify qulities cts prticulr md us ccess give prticulr moods or modes feeung. Some de gree or t universlity, lest relevnce or Uves, is necessry, but tht need not on or depend plot concepts or universl prciples. The critic need simply describe resonnce creted process thkg feelg order show its quuties depth comprehensiveness. Moreover AristeUn ory tends, Uke New Criticism, overstress cri teri unity thus mistret cert kds texts Uterry whose power on depends rticultg comptible movements md or even on rdi cl contrdictions between me uthor tries ssert thrust imgry world he cretes (Prdise Lost, for exmple). Aristle's concepts purpose, medition, reflective reference, how ever, must rem bsic ny dequte Uterry ory. They mke cler tht, while we need expressionist presenttionl concepts del with poetry engendered Romntic rejection mimetic we ory, must recognize limits se s concepts explntions ex Uterry perience. The primry filg se Romntic ories is n sistence on immedicy tht disrts our ordry sense estic. One crucil spect estic is our emotionl prticiption literry work s contug drmtic event, but event redg lso requires cert mount distnce. In we redg reflect on s s well s prticipte m. We become volved poem first recognizg tht poem suggests prticulr purposive ct n uthor crries out its purposes employg forml devices poetry pro vides for eucitg controllg reflective medittion on ct pre sented. The reder seeks not only shre poet's but under st it, tht understg depends on his beg wre system reltionships creted with drmtic event poet's rhythmic, 110

10 styustic, structurl devices. Thus while seem Gry Snyder lyric might render direct nture, clims for its directness must ig nore medium, more importnt, ignore wy which me dium guides peculir reflective wy we prticipte. We do not see simply md nture; we consider s poem's syntx sign wy md composes itself order hve ccess wht is vluble scene, we reflect upon poem's specific develop ment ction s wy drmtizg how humn desires nturl scenes reforce one nor's vlue.8 m The difficult burden tryg tegrte se ories hs been some wht Ughtened pst few yers work Richrd Ohmnn. Oh mnn is process developg ory mimesis tht voids limittions Aristle's position. He wnts show how forml ele ments text serve control reder's reflective prticiption ction imitted, more importnt, he wnts redefe wy Uter ry text refers ordry so tht we cn spek text's meng without ssumptions bout conceptul universlity or unity c tion. His ory is bsed on ide tht Uterry text is n illocutionry ct without illocutionry consequences. The concept illocutionry ct derives from J. L. Aust's distc tions between locutionry, illocutionry, perlocutionry forces n utternce; locutionry force n utternce estbushes its sense possible reference, illocutionry force stems from kd speech ct person performs, perlocutionry force is determed effect n utternce on its udience. Illocutionry force registers difference utternces which hve sme reference but signify different cts speker (e.g., "Als, Mry's divorced" "Good, Mry's divorced"), it lso expls cert cts we perform lnguge which re mesured terms felicity rr thn truth flsity. Thus "I tke you for my wife" is neir true nor flse; sted, syg words ccomp?shes tsk curs rights obligtions if proper conditions f eucity re met. In mrrige exmple criteri for feucity re wher mn cn leglly mrry wher prescribed socil conditions re stisfied (e.g., mister must hve proper legl uthority, etc.). Now Ohmnn's crucil sight is tht ory?locutions Uows one cpture expressive qulity so bsic Uterry utternces while fess g problems reference creted if we tke text s locution, or psychologicl reductionism if we tke it simply s perlocution. And he furr recognizes tht becuse felicity illocutionry utternces de on pends socil conventions, view texts s Uterry imitted illocutions or immeditely plces situtes text socil context. Imittion n 111

11 serves two functions. It suspends ordry force illocution so tht we cn reflect on ct's meng its context. And it mkes reder crete n imgry world which he cn underst resons for sttement, its judge feucity, relte his sense texts' ction his sense society?eir judge kd society which chrcter cn perform successful ctions or reflect on socil implictions drmtized filures cts. illocutionry Thus redg Beckett's Wtt, we first must recrete world novel underst its disjoted discourse, n we recognize tht Beckett's contully thwrtg possibility felicius illocutions clls question complete system socil rrngements.9 We cnnot, however, simply dpt Ohmnn's work for ory poem s ct. There re severl problems needg be ironed out which stem from Ohmnn's rdor for lkg Uterry nlysis with potentil socil criticism. I shll briefly two develop problems which ber on my project. While Ohmnn's defition cts is o iuocutionry brod some respects,10 it is o nrrow ors crry oreticl weight he wnts it. Poems, t lest, ten do not imitte ny kd iuocutionry ct do not cll ttention socil structures voked forms expression. Mny poems re monologues which speker tries under st his emotions or focus his medittions on sitution so tht he cn recognize vlue significnce ltent it. And or poems, Uke Ohmnn's exmple Wordsworth's ImmortUty Ode (SAS, 249), which g some ir emotionl power from conventionl contexts elicited wht my loosely be clled illocutionry cts, noneless depend primr on ily specific quuties poet cus up ctivity md he drmtizes. Our primry questions bout poem re less concerned with felicity se illocutionry cts thn with specific reltionships y estbush between md nture. The poem does not imi simply tte illocutions, it mkes illocutions prt lrger processes md whose prticulr richness tensity require phenomenologicl reflec tion. Ohmnn's mimetic ory thretens sve poem from immedicy only lose it esy generliztions bout verisimilitude or debte bout nture on poem's dependency socil structures. My second concerns objection Ohmnn's curious sistence tht poem imittes cts illocutionry but is not itself n ct. illocutionry We hve seen tht mny poems do not cont iuocutionry cts, but every poem qu poem is distctive form speech ct which vokes conven specific tions if it is be properly undersod. Aust does not clude spekg poeticlly mong his ctegories, but poetry clerly meets his criteri.11 In deed only concept Uke f cn eucity expl why or criteri thn those propositionl truth re flsity importnt judgg respondg 112

12 poetry. Moreover while poetic monologue is not n illocutionry ct, we tke it s mimetic rr thn direct speech becuse it exists with set illocutionry conventions. We terpret conditions impued ct reflect on its qulities; we do not respond it s direct discourse. Thus literry works re not imittions illocutions, but imittions becuse y re illocutions.12 Once we qulify Ohmnn's clims tke poem itself s n illocution ry ct, we cn go long wy wrds reconcilg expressionist mimetic ories. For on level drmtic ction, poems present vriety di rect expressions illocutions, but se re enclosed with lrger set conventions tht led reder pproch drmtic ction with curious blend sympthy reflective distnce chrcteristic our estic ttitudes. Thus we cn ccept Ohmnn's vluble description how process imittion leds reder reconstruct contexts situt or g plcg ctivity imitted s possible rel humn some settg. But becuse poem itself not cts specific with it evokes tht we procedure, provide those contexts for ll ctions poem, not just for its illocutions. And becuse re is such vriety contexts needed, we need not limit ourselves describg socil ones; Ut erry cts lso cll up onlogicl psychologicl situtions. Flly Ohmnn's work provides crucil distction which llows us fesse bsic source conflict between expressionist mimetic ory. Most se conflicts develop becuse ct cretg poems tkes such different forms. Relists sist tht poems copy, morusts tht y terpret it, Romntics tht y utter immedite process es md or (for Wordsworth) memory directly renderg its rec tions volvement sitution. But Ohmnn shifts emphsis from production consumption. No mtter how poem is creted, our response it tkes form reflectg upon its drmtized ction upon reltionships which forml properties crete mong elements ction. Mimesis n cn, perhps must, be tken s primrily term describg wy which we relte poetic s existentil ones. Thus poem Wllce Stevens which I shll explicte my lst section cn be s recognized pure exmple expressionist poetics. It pre sents poet ferg direct temporl medittion on with purpose or rticultg nmg set feelgs, even unique stte md. We cnnot sy tht it n copies we cn recognize dependently poem. Yet when we red poem, we do not merely plunge ourselves it or recrete expressive ct poet. We try underst its temporl movement ttendg wy forml elements crete ternl reltionships, we reflect on poem tryg comprehend it s imgtively possible ct 113

13 relm. We sk ourselves wht it would be Uke pproch terms Stevens provides, n we brg tht question bck supplement our direct poem. I suspect tht Ohmnn might object csul wy I dpt ory bsed on specific conditions understg speech cts more generl considertion or ctions imitted uterry texts. But this dpttion is possible becuse concept illocutionry cts cn be sub sumed s subctegory lrger frmework for describg humn c tions presented Ervg Gfmn s process "keyg."13 Keyg, Gfmn is recurrent on expls, phenomenon ll levels niml life. Keyg is procedure which beg tkes new perspective per forms different set ctions with respect wht might be cued his primry frmes for orgnizg. When nimls bite one nor, primry frme would cll for violent response. But signs cn be given which key bitg s ply, se signs produce nor conventionl form proceedg. In similr wy, stge settg signifies tht udience is respond violent ctions with different conventionl pro cedures thn those y would dopt if only ir primry frmeworks were voked. As drmtic metphors so bsic discussg keyg might dicte, concept is crucil one for discussg Uterry ctions. The ide key g requires two elements? concrete specific sensul tkg plce, defite, ten conventionl, procedure determg how we respond tht wys different from wht our behvior would be if or signs were not keys recognized. Thus philosophicl terpre ttion n event, unuke drmtic representtion it, would not be n stnce keyg becuse system philosophicl explntion dis plces origl concrete content does not our merely chnge wy reltg it. Literture differs from philosophy precisely its efforts mke us reflect on significnce concrete without displc g tht concreteness sttus mere exmple. The illocutionry ct ferg n s Uterry text, n, provides mens keyg n so tht it t once rets its immedicy is regrded with reflective distnce. The poem both expresses n, for udience, imittes it. The clerest stnces uterry s t once direct keyed re those tht best fit Ohmnn's ory imitted illocu tions?lyrics nrrtives which foreground expressive ctivity drmtic uthoril voice. Or modes, Uke medittion, objective novels, or drms, re more difficult fit becuse wht is hterlly presented re de scriptions ctions or scripts, not ctions mselves. But so much s cn lnguge be seen s us directly ledg imge situtions?tht is, s cler rr thn n opque, self-referentil medium? sme condi tions hold. 114

14 Gfmn's model, n, llows me summrize briefly vlues conceivg poem s ct long Unes I hve suggested. We hve l redy seen tht reconcilg expressionist mimetic ories it c counts some extent for curious blend sympthy reflective dis tnce tht constitutes our estic response literture. On simplest level it shows how literry s mt texture rel events while clung for different kds response thn those employed when re re no keys lter primry frmework procedures expec ttions. On more complex level, keyg model illustrtes why liter ture so esily becomes self-referentil?for both uthor reder. There re lredy two levels opertg, it becomes very esy shift keys, move from presentg prticulr key re flectg on procedures volved very ct keyg. Thus text cn key its own keyg, but it usully does so on level where udience is sked see tht second keyg s lso expression wy ctg ssumg stnces wrd. This flexibiuty mong levels keyg lso provides some oreticl foundtion for procedure becomg more populr recent criticism, procedure for conceivg texts dilecticlly s rticultion tensions between complex events depicted forml structure which seeks terpret events. As Ohmnn hs suggested, primry existentil level text is constituted fully cretg imgtive contexts for ctions presented. Now keyg model llows us grnt full com plexity event see t times tht forml terpretive struc ture is not dequte it. The more fully event itself is recreted, more clerly we cn judge both dequcy terprettion suggested sources possible dequcy. Prdise Lost, for exmple, cretes world which we cn sy tht more fully we imge it, more Umited it renders terprettive keys Miln tries impose upon it. The rheric my, s C. S. Lewis shows, clim n cresg loss dig nity for Stn, but figure Miln clls us imge simply cts wys not reducible tht structure. Indeed, if we on key keyg, Miln's uthoril voice hs s much common with Stn s it does with Christ humnist judgg Stn. These tensions, let me dd, cn be seen s objectively with text not mere ideologicl terprettions, if we hve n dequte model for wy poems present humn ctions. Flly model keyg llows us expl how forml elements text operte. First it suggests tht rhythm, structure, ptterns diction, imge, symbol serve key work s Uterry text, so dog y cll ttention mselves s very mens which control reflective procedures y itite. Second keyg model llows us dmit tht while Uterry object is forml medited mode expression, presence form does not deny its powers sig 115

15 nify or refer rel. And it denies clims tht formlly com posed literry objects re re trnsformed nor onlogicl relm, be it trnscendentl one climed symbolist estics or more demonic imgry relm proposed vrious wys psychon lysts, Srtren phenomenologists, structurlists. Form does not chnge primry mterils but provides focus for reflectg on m. Form is not primrily sptil ptterng which cretes self-referentil objects some how divorced from ordry. Forml ptterns serve sted compose tensify reder's temporl volvement grdully deepeng his wreness how vrious elements re relted one nor. Form is mens for viewg ctions, not for trnsformg m.14 Thus sted rdiclly divorcg uterture from life, keyg model mkes it contuous with ny or mode reflectg upon. The poem is simply form developed so ciety deepen our wreness wht we cn be wre when we ct. We cn be mde wre how consciousness opertes wide vriety contexts, beyond tht, we cn recognize tht our wy becomg volved ction serves stisfy culturl needs I discussed eruer. Poetry itself will not sve us, but it my help cll ttention dimensions which will mke us feel we re still worth svg. rv Poetry will not sve us, ory will not sve poetry. Indeed we must suspect ny ory which clims present rdiclly new wys deung with mterils tht lrge prt on depend conventionl, if not expucit, contrcts between uthor udience. All orist cn do is mke ex pucit tht contrct, suggest its epistemologicl behviorl foundtion, correct limited views full poem provides, fer guideles which reders cn ttend wys those s un fold. I would Uke, n, demonstrte how my recover ory helps full dimension lte lyric Wllce Stevens, poem which is fruit lifetime's medittion on poems s cts md. I hve chosen "Fl Soliloquy Interior Prmour" becuse it is clerly n expressionist poem requirg our ttention temporl movement md t once presentg new reflectg on s it is rticu lted. Yet despite overt expressionist mode, Ohmnn's strtegies for situ tg poem mimetic context, lbeit more onlogicl Heideggeren one thn he would s grnt relevnt, re necessry if we re disclose poem's full depth. Flly I hve chosen poem becuse Merle Brown, normlly sensitive prcticl critic, fils discussg it for resons tht stem directly from his dequte expressionist ory. The more I cn demonstrte how wreness forml controls mimetic contexts deep 116

16 ens our poem, more I cn justify my clims tht ex pressionist mimetic ories must be reconciled. I will first quote poem n Brown's bsic comment on it: Light first light s eveng, room In which we rest, for smll reson, thk The world is imged ultimte good. This is, refore, tensest rendezvous. It is tht thought tht we collect ourselves, Out ll differences, one thg: With sgle thg, sgle shwl Wrpped A light, tightly round us, sce we re poor, wrmth, power, mirculous fluence. Here, now, we forget ech or ourselves. We feel obscurity n order, whole, A knowledge, tht which rrnged rendezvous. With its vitl boundry, md. We sy God imgtion re one... How high tht highest cle lights drk. Out this sme light, out centrl md, We mke dwelung eveng ir, In which beg re ger is enough. The sense fncifulness, unrelity, oneness keeps poem from beg fnciful unrel. Even so, excluded re thgs not felt s n omous thret; poem is domi nted dremy plesure neglectg ornesses world one's body. The poem must seem silly unless it is tken s delicte rticultion comfort d n old mn whose imgtion hs escped from tentcles his body flowed oneness with wht he feels be governg force his world.15 The irony here is tht Brown's concern for uthor's expressive ct his desire locte origl svge feeung beg given form led him bd version imittion ory. For criticl question his nlysis rises is problem determg from poem wht existentil context 117

17 best gives significnce mentl processes encted. Brown is correct see tht domnt ffective quuty poem is "n ese md." However becuse his ory does not grnt forml quuties poem enough power control our reflections, he immeditely posits rr siuy existentil model for feelg. The import poem resides sted process thkg it drmtizes imgtive ct it re quires reder if he is terpret reltionship md hs here its own reflections. The crucil question here is not who is speker but where is he, wht spce md is he hbitg. The openg Une signifies tht we re not deung with simple drmtic sitution, but rr with n ct reflection tht presents unique kd mentl existence. "Light first Ught seems eveng" hve cler illocutionry force which plces speker typicl domestic settg. But followg simile "s room..." dems rdicl chnge focus. The itil domestic settg is now s s metphoric it is rel, when poem goes on tret room both terms physicl ("rest") terms defg Ught room s possible mentl entities, reder must serch for wy situte illocution. The two bstrct structurl ptterns poem re our mjor clue determg img ry site defg terior prmour: one pttern grdully spirituuzes possible mengs nlogues itil "Ught first light," while second pulls gst tht symbolic thrust with con tul remders mn's poverty, like "for smll reson," which sist tht whtever vlues imgtion discovers must reside somethg Uke domestic sitution. (Even Wordsworth's conjugl pir, md nture, must eventully tke up dwellg nrrow confes civilized order.) This sptil pttern, however, is not meng poem but structure terms it seeks resolve temporl process tht unfolds through vriety mentl cts. The first stnz develops vcilltg mentl process brekg openg sttement two mjor verbs reltive cluse, "rest" "thk." The first verb picks up domestic context illocution room it is metphor, echoed wry "for smll reson," while second verb picks up fct openg metphoric trnsformtion begs relte "lightg" relm bstrct imgtive ctivity vocbulry ultimte vlue terms. The second stnz n reencts process set thkg motion itil bstrctions. "Therefore" dictes tht md is lredy tryg reflect upon its own reflections, but process is difficult one. The first ct stnz returns locl settg, "this," only bstrct terms. And we re n immeditely moved bck md's motions s it tries resonnce give its own summry metphor rendezvous. The md seeks collect itself, but vgueness "one thg" mbiguity "tht thought," which 118

18 cn refer eir first stnz or openg second, dicte dnger this self-reflection. The third stnz chnges direction thought concrete met phoricl expressions ffective feelg concludes first hlf poem with synsis two relms. Thought second stnz hd n produced bstrct unspecified ide unity; now spce opened tht thought (s repetition suggests) llows metphoric thkg breeds series ppositions which, ir lck cusl or hier rchil connectives, produce rich sense coexistence concrete bstrct elements. The md is enclosed physicl spce bodily f fections, yet physicl spce seems become t sme time enclosed n ct md. The centrl function series ppositions is re gr physicl qulities light while extendg ide lightg light relm metphor where it will ultimtely prlleled God's cretive "Fit lux." The ppositions progress from "wrmth," physi cl quuty Ught which noneless comes only consciousness through "shwl" term metphor, "power," with both physicl spiritul qulities, spiritul relm where one cclims " mirculous flu ence." (Notice lso tht series moves from bre nouns one modified n s djective spiritul expnsion volves emotions, tht defite rticles give wy defite one, suggestg how on level imgtion vrious specifics shre determg fluence. ) The fourth stnz troduces second hlf poem plcg mirculous fluence bck immedite scene. "Here, now" echoes EUot's phrse for sexul crntionl presence word. Indeed this full cceptnce celebrtion immedite present is probbly sgle most importnt triumphnt me modern poetry. And Stevens follows exclmtion with n exphcit reference feelg order express effect bstrctions on speker's concrete self. But celebrtion lso moves nor direction. As Hegel tells us, expres sions "here" "now," so der empiricl re philosophy, relly quite bstrct terms; y simply express mentl stte unless defed physicl coordtes. And this is precisely Stevens' pot: "here, now" re fers sense presence, but one which is locted t once possible concrete room ct forgettg empiricl reuties s one is cr ried n wreness tht trnscendent order is lso present. Stevens is plyg here with metphor crntion?n itil sense sexul presence becomes lso seculr wreness tht trnscendent order enters flesh trnsforms it. The fifth stnz mkes explicit synsis which poem hs been preprg, through ellipses, drmtizes chnges mentl c s tivity md comes recognize where it sts. The first two les present md returng csul wy limits bstrction ("we 119

19 sy") order defe wht hs hppened. "We sy God img tion re one" becuse speker ( drwn n identity with his pr mour) reuzes tht simple humn cretive ct Ughtg Ught effects tht ct on his sense imgtive his condition prllel God's cretion world so tht he cn look bck, sy it is good, rest.16 The ellipses n suggest tht md hs reched limits bstrction, but se Umits re not felt s negtion. Insted y produce trnsformtion s thought gives wy exclmtion. The exclmtion is simple illocution, but it is on only reflectg wht justifies this illocu tion tht we come recognize how pproprite cle is metphor here. The cle metphor synsizes origl Ughtg, God's "Fit lux," wreness subsequent imgtive wht metphoric?prllel mens for mn's limited condition. It is precisely presence drkness, both literlly figurtively, which dems cretion Ught. The impliction here is tht precisely becuse mn's perennil pov erty he cn contully pproprite for himself powers tht God only used once. Moreover it is exclmtion itself which drmtizes wht it mens recognize prllel between mn God. The exclmtion registers sense wonder tht derives from mn's on medittg his own powers even when confed nrrow room his poverty. And it is only with exclmtion, with speker's emotionl response his own cre tivity, tht bstrction concreteness re thoroughly unified through synsis cle metphor. Tht metphor is obviously importnt semnticlly, but its full meng emerges only when we sk wht is volved ct speker who utters it t this prticulr pot poem's temporl unfoldg. The lst stnz returns us quiet reflection, "sd, wste time stretchg before fter," but Stevens' world decomposition vision produces cceptnce not despir. One reson for cceptnce is tht even quiet reflection imgtion scene rem te grted pl speech poverty rems chrged with resonnce. The fl poem's pposition presents lovely blnce physicl men tl reuties. The Ught remds us md's power enter, while prllel reference centrl md suggests tht md is s concrete s light. The speker hs lerned hbit mentl spce t once concrete bsolutely bsolutely reflective, s just Sntyn nor poem lerns dwell two homes, centers empire religious imgtion. And g mjor verbs re crucil. Through out poem Stevens employs strtegy, picked up Robert Creeley, usg elementl words like "here, now" crry philosophicl weight embody me tht our ctul cle blzes with rtifice. In fl stnz key terms re "mke" "beg re." These terms express full rnge poem's desire tegrte imgtive ctivity with mn's 120

20 primry need dwell fully confes his domestic sitution. Wht se terms rend sunder, "ger" tegrtes lst triumphnt expres sion, more triumphnt becuse term is so csul. Yet on syn tctic phonologicl levels poem's ctivity term is not csul t ll. "Toger" breks flow lst le, but only reforce wht it mens ctively be re express wreness quiet mny synses poem hs chieved. Moreover s "ger" clls ttention itseu brekg syntx, it lso clls ttention fct tht even phonologiclly this word most grs domnt sounds le lguistic, non-symbolic gerness. To pprecite fully poem's lst word, we "enough," must generlize bout kd medittive spce Stevens hs creted. The word brgs pttern terms poverty climx expresses centrl ide heroism Stevens' work. For Stevens centrl heroic ct is chieve ment sufficiency, stte wreness which recognizes power imgtion ct world without llowg imgtion trnsform world provide only consoltions mythology. The im is concentrte on cts imgtion without pursug herent con tents imgtion (s Blke does), which resist pressures relity only ledg md live unrelities soon mock men with ir substnti?ty. Thus "Fl Soliloquy Interior Prmour," metphoricl nlogies light eventully negte ny trnscendent source cretion,, like Ught itself, rem s only properties illum tg mn's physicl world metphysicl poverty. If we re rem concrete world still prticipte fully cretive life imgtion, poetry imittg moments numi nous perception Uke those so common imgism contemporry poetry will not suffice. It ignores md's cpcity recpture its powers crete myths n empiricl frmework. Stevens' tsk is mke us lern hbit kd reflective spce which blurs boundries between conter conted presents md world s one. Uterlly It is just ct md this reflective spce which Stevens imittes poem we hve been considerg, forml structure his imittion leds reder recrete this spce his own reflective ctivity. The poem sks us prticipte it reconstitutg unique mode beg which its illocutions, ppositions, metphoric trnsfers seem relly possible. The reder is sked crete "dwelung" which crves out unique spce for md occupy. The blueprt for tht is dwellg poem, especilly its lst pposition where physicl light, its met phoricl nlogues, centrl md evoked those nlogues, ll exist on sgle plne beg. In his erlier poetry Stevens hd vcillted between fith vitlity concrete scene energized imgtion sense tht wht would suffice would only emerge if md lerned 121

21 bstrct itseu from scene reflect on source imgtive ctivity figure Mjor Mn. In "Fl s so SoUloquy," mny his lst poems, ct poem cretes spce which both forces come ger one require nor without tension.17 The world exists neir for medittion nor medittion but s medittion? Stevens hs us tught recognize fuu temporl hypoticl dimensions tht lovely connective which perhps defes onlogicl sttus U poetry. NOTES 1 Beyond Formlism: Literry Essys (New Hven: Yle Univ. Press, 1970), p. XIII. I consider Hrtmn's work on Wordsworth's poems n excellent exmple tretments phenomenologicl poem s drmtized ct md role forml elements focusg quuty impuetions tht ct. 2 Thoms Whitker, "On Spekg Humnly," Robert Scholes, ed., The Philosopher Critic (Tuls: Univ. Tuls Press, 1970), p "Style Its Imge," Seymour Chtmn, ed. Literry Style: A Symposium ( New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1971), p For summries recent see rguments John Cook, "Humn Begs," Peter Wch, ed., Studies Philosophy Wittgenste (New York: Humnities Press, 1969) pp , Alsdir Mclntyre, "The Antecedents Action," Bernrd WilUms AUen Montifiore, eds., British Anlyticl Philosophy (New York: Humnities Press, 1966), pp The most suggestive modern use Knt on ction is P. F. Strwson, "Freedom Resentment," reprted Strwson, ed. Studies Philosophy Thought Action (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968). I try terpret met physicl impuetions Wittgenste's groundg his ory meng ction, fer tht s terprettion critique structurlist semntics "Consciousness Action: The Use Wittgenste's Lter Onlogy s Foundtion for Literry Criticism." I thk essy is forthcomg Modern Lnguge Notes. 5 The limits sptiuy oriented formlist re nlyses nowhere so evident s Romn Jcobson Clude L?vi-Struss' clssic essy, "Chrles Budelire's 'Les " Chts,' reprted Michel Lne, ed., Introduction Structurlism ( New York: Bsic Books 1970), pp The essy ignores wy Budelire's itil imge cts gs imgtive power s poem its develops spiritul physicl impue tions. Most ptterns uthors discuss exist poem, but y unfold tem porlly so dog tensify domtg figure ct. 61 tke s pure exmples presenttionl poetics ories writers like Chrles Olson, Robert Bly,, fiction, Ron Sukenick, s exmples criticl prctice work critics phenomenologicl like Heidegger, Poulet, Jen-Pierre Richrd. For see pure expressionist ory both Kenneth Burke's work on symbolic form idelist estics Croce Gentile. For recent exmple, which lso typifies or expressionist polemic gst strw-mn simplified New Criticl formlism, see Merle Brown, Wllce Stevens: The Poem s Act (Detroit: Wyne Stte Univ. Press, 1970). For two sttements good blendg expressionist see presenttionl poetics John Vernon, "Poetry Body," Americn Review, No. 16 (Feb., 1973), , essy Whitker cited bove. We should lso note tht Brs' own ory Uterture s is significtion kd lguistic expressionism which ex lnguge presses its own See his possibilities. Criticl Essys, trns. Richrd Howrd (Evnsn: Northwestern Univ. Press, 1972), p

22 7 See Frncis Fergusson, "Introduction," Aristle's Poetics, trns. S. H. Butcher (New York: HiU Wng, 1961). My brief loose tretment Arisde is lso debted Leon Golden O. B. Hrdison, Aristle's Poetics: A Trnsltion Commentry for Students Literture (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice HU, 1968). For good modern, non-aristel discussion imittion, see Brbr Herrnste Smith, s "Poetry Fiction," New Literry Hisry 2(1971), hve substntited clims mde here "Gry Snyder's Lyric Poetry: Dilectic s The Fr Ecology," Pot, No. 4 (Sprg/Summer, 1970). Like Moliere's chrcter, like mny critics, I fd I hve lwys been spekg bout poem s ct with out it. knowg 9 The best sttement sgle Ohmnn's recent position is "Speech Acts De fition Literture," Philosophy Rheric, 4(1971), For or sttements more directly tyg iuocutions socil structures, see "Speech, Action, Style," Seymour Chtmn, ed., Literry Style: A Symposium (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1971), pp ; "Literture s Act," Chtmn, ed., Approches Poetics (New York: Columbi Univ. Press, 1973), pp ; "Speech, Literture, Spce Be tween," New Literry Hisry 4(1972), I shll use bbrevitions tken from title pproprite essy citg Ohmnn's work. 10 His concept ct is o iuocutionry brod becuse, like Aust, he fils dis tguish between cts which perform tsk conventions vokg ( e.g., syg I tke you for my wife ) cts whose performtive quuties simply dicte force utternce (s my exmple responses Mry's divorce). The concept felicity holds for first ctegory, but for second it merely substitutes for psychologicl terms like scerity. Notice tht if you sy words mrrige ceremony scerely, re you still bound mrrige, but no similr occur obligtions if you pretend be sd t Mry's divorce. Most literry iuocutions re second type, where ties socil conventions re not so strict. For furr discussion problems with con cept iuocution see essys P. F. Strwson, J. O. Urmson John Serle Isih Berl, ed., on Essys J. L. Aust (Oxford: Clrendon Press, 1973). H John Serle, pprently without wre beg Ohmnn's work, hs recently rgued similr position which denies my clim tht spekg poem cn itself be tken s n ct. iuocutionry He clims tht ct generl is illocutionry performed func tion meng sentence (e.g., "I mrry you"), but utternces poems do not clim re y poems. However s he goes on present his own ory Uterry iuocutions s "pretended ssertions," he seems ignore fct tht re is no explicit reference ssertion illocutionry sttus it s pretense. He lso cites for his cse exmple gmes like chrdes, which surely lter sttus iuocutionry without literlly referrg ltered sttus. Flly he clims tht wht defes Uterture is ttitude we tke wrds utternces, but won't grnt tht it is signs literress text ( which poem re so s pronounced pproch Uterl sttement iuocutionry sttus) which cu up tht ttitude vokg iuocutionry conventions. See Serle, "The Logicl Sttus Fictionl Discourse," New Literry His ry 6(1975), Ohmnn cnnot grnt tht poem is itself n ct illocutionry becuse it would prevent him from tht climg literture directly vokes socil contexts. If whole poem is n iuocution, only socil conventions directly evoked re those estblishg estic ttitudes. The only society with text is n imge creted uthor. Ohmnn is ten wre this (SLSB, 54ff ), but he resists contextuusm when he thks he cn demonstrte how texts Uterry directly voke socil judgments. Thus he de fends clims his women students tht y could not recrete mimeticlly Ldy Cht terley "without self-betryls" (LA, 106). The more trditionl correct view would 123

23 criticize this direct judgment terms Ldy Chtterley one's own s seu-imge serious limittion power literture develop its presenttion imgtive contexts sense sympthy with lives we my not desire pursue my not moruy condone. We must distguish between possibility situ understg tion imgtively, which Uterture provides, process morl judgment which requires or s disciples supplementry secondry literry understg. 13Ervg Gfmn, Frme Anlysis (New York: Hrper Colophon Books, 1974). See especiuy his third chpter, which is n developed throughout book, with mny complictions I void, re lthough y relevnt pics. For chnges levels keyg, which I discuss below, see p And for s keyg process controug response see performnce, pp It is over lrgely disputes question nture form which led present tionl expressionist orists dulge polemics gst New Criticism. On one level se re ironic polemics sce it ws short-sighted, New Critics Uke Brooks Blckmur, with concepts drmtic ttitude gesture, who populrized concept poem s ct. Yet on nor level re y somewht justified, for New Critics did tend give poem s forml sttus. The orgnic object specil poem becomes less wy viewg thn unique object somehow eir free contrdictions or more ordry complex unified thn ny ordry. The question, I suppose, is wher qulities ction which poem mkes us wre re ltent or only vilble with com structures plex literry discourse. 15 The Collected Poems Wllce Stevens (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1964), p. 524, Brown, pp In U firness I should out pot tht Brown does not pretend fer fuu nlysis poem. 16 Brown, pp , clims tht this stnz is not erned: it comes o unless esily we n imge old mn's stte md. We see here quite clerly how his need for origl feeungs be trnsformed, feelgs he cn only fd with difficulty order justify this le, leds him problemtic model verisimilitude, more importnt it denies contextul power poem defe role such les s elements process developg mentl ctivity. The stnz is less clim bout reuty thn on prospect reuty, justified prticulr tr thought prticulr imgtive site or sitution. The sttus is not speker foregrounded this poem, so it is not his quuties but quuties reflection which n utternce. In justify poem like "Prufrock" sitution is quite different: re site poem is with hed prticulr chrcter, we must project psychologicl conditions formg his speech cts order pprecite poem. 17 The best criticl locus for this explg spce md is Northrop Frye's discus sion ngogy Anmy Criticism (Prcen: Prcen Univ. Press, 1957), pp Stevens, however, gives ngogy seculr twist: s nture becomes conted md, md tkes on kd existence. physicl 124