Print

Print


Wasn't it the insistence by some to essentially equate Imagism (big I) with symbolism that led Pound to start referring to Vorticism and to abandon Imagism.  I think Pound was intent on showing modernism and its subset, vorticism (imagism) as very distinct from symbolism or any of the other modes of the romantics.

Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 5, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> The issue here is, as you note, what one means by "symbolic." Hughes seems to think it is the same as "symbolist" in the notion of being a gateway to a spiritual world outside physical reality. That would seem to cut out a great deal of poetry--like imagism, or WCW or Levertov or any poet who saw or sees poems as ways to engage with the material world directly.
> 
> Otherwise, as you say, it is just a tautology.
> Nancy
> 
>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> "Because poetry is fundamentally symbolic in its form, it possesses the
>> capacity to suggest the incommensurable and unknowable of the transcendence
>> and thereby reawaken the spiritual experiences that gave rise to the symbols
>> and stories of poetry in the first place."
>> 
>> This is an odd proposition. Classified ads are fundamentally symbolic. Porn
>> videos on YouTube  are fundamentally symbolic. Coffee-shop chatter is
>> fundamentally symbolic. Nothing in particular follows from the tautology
>> that poetry is symbolic.
>> 
>> The portentousness of the mere word, "symbol," is itself a bit odd.
>> 
>> And what is the difference between "poetry is symbolic" and "poetry is
>> fundamentally symbolic in its form"?
>> 
>> Carrol
>