This right here is when the poet went against describing trees. Previous to this line the poet is seen describing trees, then once this line hits, he stops. He begins to go against and say "it is good sometimes for poetry to disenchant us." This here is when he says that poetry often lies to the readers.
I remember this poem differently; to me, the breakdown in description came shortly after the scientific view of the tree. Is "The tree danced" really a description? Or is it just a first example of disenchantment?
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from, but I disagree with what you are saying. The poet wants you to imagine what he is saying. I understand why you feel that the poet is rejecting that image, but he is having you reject it in your mind for one reason or another. Try to image the trees dancing then quickly stopping that image in your mind.
ReplyDeleteI think you pinpointed the correct moment in which he stops describing, but you could expand on it a little more fully Do you agree? Are there any other lines? How well did he describe trees in the beginning?
ReplyDeleteCan you tell me the name of the poem and the poet? There is not enough to know exactly what poem you are talking about and what is in the poem. Since I didn't read this poem, I can only guess that describing in poetry seems to be overrated.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat made you think this was the turn around? your title of this blog is really intersting!
ReplyDeletedo you agree that it is good to disenchant the reader? and why is that good or useful?
ReplyDeleteIn the part of your post "This here is when he says that poetry often lies to the readers" I actually don't understand what you're saying. Someone commented that you mean this is where the author wants us to imagine what he's saying?
ReplyDeleteI don't think that you have to add on to this post because you answered the question and didn't make us go through BS to find the anser.
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree with your statement, "This here is when he says that poetry often lies to the readers." I wrote something similar to this when I responded to this same poem. I wrote this as well because I felt that the poet was really trying to say that in his poem. I say I only somewhat agree with your statement because I don't think the poet was trying to say that poets often LIE to the readers, but that poets ENCHANT readers. Those are two very different things.
ReplyDeleteI am confused about what your opinion on this is. Also, I don't think that he is saying that poetry lies to us. Disenchant doesn't mean lie. But the identification is accurate.
ReplyDeleteIf poetry lies to readers—what is to be said about the poet? Is it relevant to distinguish between the poet and the speaker? If this is so, one could claim that it is the poet's intention to cause this caesura. Is this poet lying? Or is the speaker? I'd assert that the poet knows exactly what to do here, and there aren't any lies; the speaker is only trying to communicate the difficultly of communication.
ReplyDeleteI found this poem slightly confusing myself. I felt that the logic broke down after the descriptive aspect in the beginning of the poem. I don't necessarily agree that poetry lies to readers, but I do feel like it makes it's readers see ordinary objects in new and different ways.
ReplyDeleteIn reading these comments, I am reminded of Emily Dickinson's "Tell all the Truth/But tell it slant." I suppose we think poets lie and liars make poetry, because so many poets confess to lying. Why do they do that? I want my truth straight up, not slant. I want to know what the movement of trees is closest to being, as if a dancer, as a living thing.
ReplyDelete"Doing something in the wind" seems sketchy to me, too. At the very least, such a claim is non-committal. Why bother?