On Grief and Reason - Phillip Murphy
Brodsky's article presents a very in-depth analysis of Frost and two of his works, "Home Burial" and "Come In," which he feels share the same curious attribute of being darker than Frost's other poems. One way in which these present such a darker tone is in the way they portray human interaction and the language they use to reflect it. Brodsky is saying that this culminates in a reflection of Frost personally and his life because Frost's own life experiences are what fueled his writings. He discusses the various emotions, such as grief or fear, that lead to specific elements of the poems. In fact, Brodsky would argue that every part of these poems were born from Frost's own personal experience, whether readers know it or not. The lens most appropriate to this work would likely be psychoanalytical criticism. As we stated in class, this is a notable subversion from new criticism, but I feel it is a good one. While some of the individual details of Brodsky's argument may not hold water very well if they were presented on their own, when placed together to support each other very convincingly, which is the hallmark of a good argument: many little details that add up to one big picture. What strikes me most about this work is not so much the argument itself (Sorry Brodsky!) but rather the pure dichotomy between what I thought I knew about Frost based on the whimsical nature of most of his poems, and the actual reality of who he was. Now I have a more nuanced understanding of some of his works, even if every detail of his life and psychology is not necessarily applicable to every poem. Nothing sticks out to me as confusing, although I am sure if I were more familiar with Frost beyond this article I might be able to think of some sort of counter to certain points.
I agree with your assertion that each of Brodsky's arguments do not hold up very well on their own, but when they come together they all connect and build on each other, and how one of the most striking things about the article was how it revealed a darker side of what was thought to be a more positive poet. I also agree with your statement that the best way to approach this work would be through a psychoanalytic lens, for Brodsky delves deeply into the inner workings of Frost's mind and examines what could have caused him to take a darker turn with these poems.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ethan, Brodsky's VERY in depth analysis's of the two poems provide many "points of light" that can very well stand alone but when they come together make so much more sense! I am very astounded that nothing stood out as confusing for you because there were moments when I was very much confused.
ReplyDeleteIts interesting how you explained Brodsky's claims as if they were a house of cards or an illusion, either of which is waiting to be taken down. Does the fact that the claims rely on one another diminish their value? And if so which of the facts or assertions of Brodsky serves as the lynch pin of the argument?
ReplyDeleteI agree about the lens for sure. I find it interesting how the psychological lens is so closely connected to the biographical. And oddly, Brodsky, like Nabokov, seemed to resist these lenses.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great statement to work with, overall you've when right to the point of the article and used pieces of evidence I had not thought of which work so well. To bring in the aspect of comparing the work to Frost's own personality and life bring another light to the subject rather than only focusing on what the works mean in a literary sense. Could there be more that hasn't been discussed on yet?
ReplyDelete