On Grief and Reason-Carter Newman
In Joseph Brodsky's article On Grief and Reason, he asserts that Robert Frost's writing is
"American" in the sense that writing is creating a projection of the
self, and therefore his writing should be tied to him as a person and author
rather than without recognition of the outside world. He does this by defining
the key difference between the European poet and the American: that Europeans
confront nature and creates story about the nature's past and what it has
witnessed, while Americans meet nature as if it has no past, alongside the
author who temporarily holds no past, and confronts himself, therefore leading
to "terrifying" writing, writing which recognizes "his own negative
potential--with his sense of what he is capable of." This creates the
suggestion that Frost is a much darker writer than he appears on the surface
because of this "terrifying" factor, and Brodsky proves this point
through a line-by-line analysis of Come
In and Home Burial, and coming to
darker conclusions than others would come to on their own. He does this through
an expert usage of language and evidence, quickly and seamlessly moving from
element to element of language and physicality present in the poem and tying it
to the purpose of proving Frost is a "terrifying" writer.
I completely buy Brodsky's interpretations, as they are most certainly backed by evidence from the poem and reference to Frost's life outside of writing, and I do believe that the "deeper writing" of many poets is about the capability of man, as nearly every thought imagined has happened just based on the vast history of mankind.
I am simply amazed at how Brodsky can move from analyzing a multitude of elements of language in the same sentence-at one point he looked at 5(!) different devices, which I could never imagine. It is as if he never went into crazy depth on one specific device, yet it feels as if he did once the article was over because there was an emphasis on the physicality of writing-something to be considered more moving forward in literary analysis.
I completely buy Brodsky's interpretations, as they are most certainly backed by evidence from the poem and reference to Frost's life outside of writing, and I do believe that the "deeper writing" of many poets is about the capability of man, as nearly every thought imagined has happened just based on the vast history of mankind.
I am simply amazed at how Brodsky can move from analyzing a multitude of elements of language in the same sentence-at one point he looked at 5(!) different devices, which I could never imagine. It is as if he never went into crazy depth on one specific device, yet it feels as if he did once the article was over because there was an emphasis on the physicality of writing-something to be considered more moving forward in literary analysis.
Yes! I am just amazed each time I read this essay by how deeply he sees the poem--he really unfolds every single word, punctuation, even white space on the page. I hope it helps students think even more deeply about their own poetry explication. Brodsky is the model of all models!
ReplyDeleteThis really helped my understand what Brodsky was trying to say in terms of what was American about Frost. I did not quite realize that it meant it more as comparison to European idea of nature not what it meant to be American as a whole.
ReplyDeleteYour emphasis on Brodsky's conclusions about European and American poets are important especially when further exploring the biography of Frost. I had forgotten about these important details once he delved into "Home Burial." The characteristics brought forth by your response underline the keys to understanding Frost's works from a biographical lens. I had not thought of those comparisons to be notable until you pointed them out.
ReplyDeleteI never realized that everything about nature was regarding its past, not simply its characterization. I also find it incredible that Brodsky is able to dive so deep into what appears at first to be a shallow pond of a poem.
ReplyDelete