Untitled
Stephen Crane
In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said: “Is it good, friend?”
“It is bitter—bitter,” he answered;
“But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart.”
I for some reason LOVE this poem. I'm not sure why it is -I imagine it is for the vividness of the imagery- but I think that this poem leaves a lot of things open for interpretation. In the desert gives a a very plain, harsh, dry, dull setting. Perhaps it is meant to symbolize life in its unforgiving, ruggedness? And a creature. I imagine some kind of man lizard, beast like and naked. This to me represents inner human nature, or most basic, and brutal selves. And this thing has his heart, and is eating of it. Now the heart may represent the soul, or love, or compassion, or morality, or a whole slue of crap. But as for eating it, I think that again calls to the recognition of our primitive self, digging our teeth into the raw heart, and chews it like a piece of overcooked steak. What I get from the dialogue is that there is a relationship between the bitterness and his heart, because if it where not bitter, than it wouldn't be his heart, and if it wasn't his heart theres no reason he is working at devouring it.
Now reason for saying all of this is that Ana and I had a disagreement in-class where I compared this poem to a different work of the same poet, saying this work is much less specific in its theme then the other on. So by showing you that each symbol COULD mean a thousand different things (and that even the theme of primitivity is ambiguous-look two big words in one interrupter) I have shown that this poem can indeed have several different interpretations, causing me to refer to the poem as VAGUE in its meaning.
DT,
ReplyDeleteJust because these things COULD be symbols does not mean they are. The face that his other poem obviously refers to capitalism and such themes only proves what kind of thinker Crane is.
Crane notably said that "a story should be logical in its action and faithful to character. Truth to life itself was the only test, the greatest artists were the simplest, and simple because they were true." This is important because it leads us to believe that Crane valued logic and NOT emotion or vagueness FIRST. According to this well cited wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Crane#cite_note-berg25-209 ,
"Crane wrote "an intellectual poetry rather than a poetry that evokes feeling, a poetry that stimulates the mind rather than arouses the heart". In the most complexly organized poems, the significance of the states of mind or feelings is ambiguous, but Crane's poems tend to affirm certain elemental attitudes, beliefs, opinions and stances toward God, man and the universe. The Black Riders in particular is essentially a dramatic concept and the poems provide continuity within the dramatic structure. There is also a dramatic interplay in which there is frequently a major voice reporting an incident seen ("In the desert / I saw a creature, naked, bestial") or experienced ("A learned man came to me once"). The second voice or additional voices represent a point of view which is revealed to be inferior; when these clash, a dominant attitude emerges."
So I think I can safely conclude that to have a logical aim in a poem is to have a single intention of meaning - specifically in the case of Crane.
This poem - and none of his poems - are logically vague.
I'm not sure how to follow Ana. I think it's not vague so much as ambiguous. :) Again, I think you touch more on theme and less on structure and what he wrote to make it powerful and meaningful to you.
ReplyDelete