I don't see why "artefact." Poetry is not simply elevated feeling; it is the experience of the full range of life. And there is nothing limiting in reading an experience of feeling "mad" or depersonalized. These feelings are human.
Interestingly, many early reviewers of Eliot praised him precisely for offering the "naked" truth of experience.
>>> Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> 3/18/2008 12:56 PM >>>
The Man and the Poet / The Experience and The Poetry / The Fact and the Artefact
Very well said. I never meant limiting the connotations of such an experience
to mystical/spiritual. You're right, sometimes the original experience by itself
is far too valuable as artefact. It should not, however, act as a limiting
influence in our appreciation of poetry.
As for Hieronymo, the poet may not have intended a complete
correspondence with the textual character -- maybe he was
interested in only one aspect of him.
Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Many writers and poets have made great works out of madness, despair, melancholia, loss. I am not at all sure what it means to talk about a "mystic/spiritual" dimension being in some way always essential to that. Sometimes what the text does is genuinely evoke the experience itself. That is not a lesser or less creative thing--it may in some cases be a greater thing than attempts at transcendence or idealizing or philosophizing.
Hieronymo in "The Spanish Tragedy" is not simply mad; his many voices have a carefully planned purpose, a rather horrible one.
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.