In the past few weeks we have talked
about nonsensical poetry and literature in class with examples from Lewis
Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland and
Edward Lear’s whimsical limericks. We analyzed their work in great detail and
saw how these two authors depended on the form and rhythm of their writing
rather than the depth of meaning of the words. In these examples both Carroll
and Lear wrung out certain words in the English language by twisting and
morphing them to fit their needs—it did not matter whether or not their writing
actually made sense, they rather focused on the sounds and rhythm of their
passages. We discovered how both writers played with words and the English
language to create literature that made no logical sense but it fit into the
purpose of creating nonsense. Mallarme on the other hand has a very different
style of writing where even though some people may classify it as nonsense, I
disagree.
I
would say that Edward Lear’s limericks that we read in class fit into the
complete nonsense literature pile. When you read his poems you see that his
main purpose of writing was to create a piece with 4 lines that rhyme. That was
his sole purpose and therefore when read aloud, Lear’s limericks had a
beautiful flow and rhythm but the words made absolutely no sense. I believe
Mallarme’s writing differed greatly. Instead of focusing solely on the form and
structure of the piece he wanted to write, the French poet instead paid greater
attention to the content and meaning of the poem rather than focusing on the
rhythm. You can still see when you read his poems that they still have a
specific pattern and rhythm but the rhymes have been molded around the meaning
and not the other way around like Lear’s poems. Because content is given such
importance in Mallarme’s work, I do not believe his language is one of
nonsense. Mallarme did not create words to add in his poems because he wanted
better rhymes but rather found other ways he could create a steady beat in his
work where he could work around the words he wanted to use.
Mallarme’s
work may be considered nonsense due to his unconventional style of writing
which combines many different styles of fonts, sizes, spacing, and
capitalization but a closer reading of his poem will demonstrate how important
all of these factors are to the meaning of the text. He uses fonts to emphasize
certain words and phrases, which add to the poems interpretation. He creates a
unique visualization with his creative use of spacing, which helps the reader
connect the poem together. In “A Dice Throw” Mallarme structures the words on
the page to resemble the path of a rolling dice to show its random nature,
which he then compares to the uncertain movement of the sea. Mallarme makes is
difficult to interpret his poetry as nonsense because it does have a deeper meaning
unlike Lear’s limericks, he just created his own unique structure, which may be
more unconventional.
Nageen, I think that your analysis of nonsense is very comprehensive. It shows that you definitely took the time to delve deep into the texts. I must say though, that I feel exactly opposite of the way that you do about the texts. That is to say, I feel that Lear and Carroll’s works seem to consider form and word function more whereas the Mallarme holds no particular set of rules regarding the way that language should be used. I will say, however, that your observation regarding Mallarme’s careful word choice seems to me true as well.
ReplyDeleteBeginning with Alice in Wonderland, I think it is clear to see that our definitions of nonsense differ drastically. Where Carroll writes regarding fanciful and far-fetched subjects, often using polysemy to violently twist the plot around, I still find the text easy to follow. After all, it is written with children as its intended audience. I do not assume that the text has a logical or even subliminal theme, but I think it is fair to say that the writing may be more or less understood by the average reader. You say that both Lear and Carroll depend on form and rhythm in their writing, more than the meaning of the words themselves. Though I don’t think Lear or Carroll were shooting to write something that “made sense,” I also don’t believe they focused on sound and rhythm over meaning. In fact, I think Carroll shows far more concern for the meaning in his writing than for the sounds and rhythm of his work. For example, when he writes such clever passages such as that about “drawing” treacle from a well, I think his concern is the meaning of this word, how the reader will understand its meaning, and how he can switch back and forth between the two. I believe he is a gifted writer, who while doing all of this, can maintain an even rhythm and meter, but I hardly agree that these are the author’s main concerns.
In the defense of Lear’s limericks, I concede that form and rhythm take a much stronger role than in Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. I don’t, however, agree that the piece’s intended messages/value are found only in their structure. Instead I think that Lear designed each of these limericks with care, not only with a perfect meter and rhyme scheme, but also with a whimsical humor that is entirely relevant and precise. Each character described in the limericks is found performing some soft of action, which reflects upon the sort of person they were described to have been in the poem’s first line. I think that Lear uses language in the poems to indicate much more than a simple structural pattern, but creates a series of poems with unique and carefully designed meanings.
As far as the Mallarme, I tend to consider it a better representation of nonsense than we have seen thus far. The work contains almost no conceivable structure, with few words or phrases that speak directly to any sort of theme or current idea. In my opinion, A Dice Throw is a uniquely nonsensical piece, not without meaning, but which holds its meaning in a far off place, not fully attainable for anyone.