On Grief and Reason~Aleesa Jewell
Brodsky's stance in "On Grief and Reason" is to analyze Frost's poems in a way to prove they provide more than the lightheartedness shown from the first read. The purpose is to prove Frost's poetry has deeper and darker meaning especially in Frost's poems. He supports this by using examples of the woman standing next to the man to show human interplay and how it relates to the reason poets use words. He says that language is the "most efficient fuel" which is true in both poetry human interactions in general. All of poetry has to be fully thought about and each word is chosen carefully to convey a specific message and feeling to it. The way Brodsky divides poetry into three roles and sets those roles to the poet himself helps to understand the way Frost thinks and why he writes how he does. Every word holds its own meaning and has its own purpose creating more than one meaning often shown in his poems. Something that confuses me is how Brodsky transitions directly to the man and the woman before explaining it. I had to read this a couple times to really understand what was happening. Brodsky focuses mainly on the psychology behind the poems.
I agree that at first it was confusing I had to read it over again as well and like to look at that psychology stand point he uses as well as relating it the narrator/characters.
ReplyDeleteThe way Brodsky breaks down language, which you talked about in your post, is the key to making the whole argument work, which is why I like how you put so much emphasis on it. In a way, in order to understand how the poem is deconstructed, Brodsky is telling us how it was first constructed. Really interesting.
ReplyDeleteBrodsky's transitiona were very confuaing and the overanalyzing of information almost proved too much for me to understand the meaning of 'Home Burial.' Ultimately, reading the entire essay a couple times over made it easier and provided a new insight into a poem that on the surface provided a story but little meaning.
ReplyDeleteI, too, was very confused at first and I had to read the essay over twice in order to fully understand what Brodsky was trying to say. However, once I understood his meaning, I was able to fully appreciate his way of writing and, as Phillip said, his argument worked because of his methods.
ReplyDeleteI like how you've begun everything by stating the issue of confusing the overarching tone with lightheartedness before diving deeper into the works and understanding their true meanings, which were as you said had to have been well thought out in order to work. I believe you have a great understanding of the premise of Brodsky's article, Aleesa, something I'm still trying to piece more together.
ReplyDelete