Mallarme Blog Post- Hernandez

Mallarme uses a sort of language found in the other nonsense writer’s works we’ve seen, but honestly it’s so unique I don’t think I can say it’s the same. The concepts flow somehow, even if it is much like a long, drawn out run-on. Mallarme is much more like a traditional poet to me. The idea is drawn out, a metaphor is chosen, the throw of a dice, and many other symbols are used to respond and play with that imagery. It’s classic poetry, and yet it is much like nonsense in certain moments as well. We have Carroll, whose poem about a rat’s tail heavily shows his use of polysemy. The entirety of Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland does the same, and even in Lear’s nonsense poems, polysemy is a tool that is heavily used. And yet Mallarme isn’t a huge user of it. He leans toward a poetry tool, huge lack of end-stopped lines.  The white space emphasizes words, as does the font size. Perhaps this is why I struggle to include Mallarme with Lear and Carroll. His poem seems more philosophical, more “meta” perhaps, that nonsensical. The words have a definitely rhythm, a real structure that ignores the page but does not harm the flow of the poem. The narrative is more confounding than Lear and Carroll; it leaps subtly, from ocean imagery to the talk of the void. And then we are given the final line “Every Thought emits a Dice Throw”. What are we to make of that when we have been led through a maze of concept and thought? That’s the real connection I see between Lear, Carroll and Mallarme, the spirit of nonsense. It leaves us in thought, the greatest tool. Perhaps the biggest connection in relation to this is the concept of absence Mallarme plays with in his heavy use of white space. Is nonsense not the absence of sense? Maybe the run-on of thought is nonsense here. Maybe the lack of adherence to page number and concise writing is. But all in all, I have to say Mallarme uses nonsense, but does not fully implement it. At least to me, even with a drawn out sentence it make some connection in its subject, chance, or more clearly the throw of a die. I can’t deny its deep meaning. Lear and Carroll may seem so alien to Mallarme because they wrote for children, and Mallarme wrote for older audiences. It’s a possibility. In the end I still find myself questioning if this poem is nonsense, just as I did when we first read this poem. Philosophical is definitely a better describer for it, maybe even confusing, but it isn’t pure nonsense, even if it does echo a spirit of it.  It’s a huge frustration to me, perhaps I’m not seeing it, as connected to poetry as I am, or maybe I’m pushing to give it a place outside of poetry. I’m interested to see if others feel differently even after out various discussions on the topic. Perhaps I’ve missed something.