tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4014415529871703586.post3961590013096144341..comments2023-12-16T02:44:20.427-06:00Comments on Reginald Shepherd's Blog: How Do You Mean That?: Some Thoughts on Meaning in PoemsReginald Shepherdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11965170916626482963noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4014415529871703586.post-45999259760063237632007-03-15T19:39:00.000-06:002007-03-15T19:39:00.000-06:00Dear Mr. Shepherd, I've enjoyed this post. My rece...Dear Mr. Shepherd, I've enjoyed this post. My recent thoughts include refusing to personally criticize art on the basis of either the conformity or challenge it presents to direct communication. My effort at exploring meaning has become an exploration of significance representing the living expression of its transformance on all sets of relations. I liked the direction of your conclusion and wonder if this piece seems relevent.<BR/><BR/> The Crowkeeper<BR/><BR/> Two threadbare words<BR/><BR/> a hat and rag<BR/><BR/> would dress this cross as<BR/> <BR/> well as five bright stars.<BR/><BR/> If it stood (which it does not)<BR/><BR/> to merely keep away the winsome <BR/><BR/> crow.<BR/><BR/> "Much to little poetry in the<BR/><BR/> more or less of words, we know <BR/><BR/> is not among my faults" She said.<BR/><BR/> "You see, the brave feast even <BR/><BR/> now as some will only later on <BR/><BR/> the gleanings."<BR/><BR/> P.S. I knew Steve Harvey.scotlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01549546977518972516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4014415529871703586.post-5401417341409493032007-03-15T09:55:00.000-06:002007-03-15T09:55:00.000-06:00... but Stevens' remark (as often with Stevens) is...... but Stevens' remark (as often with Stevens) is equivocal, and doesn't quite fit your argument. <BR/> <BR/>It's at least double-edged, maybe triple-edged. <BR/><BR/>First, it can be understood as you do - simply a statement that meaning is transitive, that it carries us along (better than any other "wing" does).<BR/><BR/>Second, the singular, riddling, gnomic style of the statement is itself "poetic" - and this poetic quality somewhat challenges, complicates (rivals) its own denotative meaning. Sort of a box-within-a-box, self-reflexive & equivocal effect (like many a poem). "There is no wing like meaning" : the poeticalness of this statement is a LIMIT on denotation or reference.<BR/><BR/>But thirdly : the statement can be understood to be saying that "there is NO WING like meaning". In other words, meaning is a flight or undertaking which is strictly INCOMPARABLE to that provided by (physical) wings or any other means of transport.<BR/><BR/>And this could be taken to mean that Stevens is very slyly pointing towards a deeper level of intelligibility or intellectual substance or intellectual activity which surpasses or brackets the game or flight-pattern we call poetry.Henry Gouldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06763188178644726622noreply@blogger.com