Moore and Stevens

This blog confused me more than the other ones, and that’s saying something. Poetry has always been a struggle for me so here goes nothing;

In comparing the poems, I chose “Anecdote of the Jar,” and “To A Snail,” both because they are short and they seem to have a remote similarity to one another. Both Moore and Stevens use random rhyming patterns throughout their poetry, rarely sticking to a form. This, along with their choice of topics, makes their poems very interesting.

Starting perhaps with “Anecdote of the Jar,” my first impression was that it seemed very simple due to the language and word choices, but it was complex in the message, or “anecdote” it was relaying. It gave a very complicated position to the jar, putting it in a place that few have put jars. Stevens uses some rhyming in the last stanza, rhyming “everywhere” with “bare,” but other than that, there is no direct rhyme structure. Also, I found the line “the wilderness rose up to it, /and sprawled around, no longer wild” to be very profound in the idea that the entire wilderness rose up to “meet” a simple jar.

Moving on to discuss “To a Snail” and to compare it with “Anecdote,” I found this poem most impressive because it also took something simple (a snail) and turned it into interesting poetry. I found that Moore tends to use certain words more than once, but it is in the context that she is almost having a conversation with her reader. It is in this that I found the biggest difference. The tone differences are quite significant with each poem. For example, Stevens’ poetry has a bit more of a formal feel to it, whereas the line structure and wording gives Moore an aesthetic comfortable feel.

In “Anecdote,” Stevens uses internal rhyming (“the jar was round upon the ground”) to give his poem a whimsy quality, although it doesn’t have the same light effect that Moore’s poem does. However, it makes the poem more interesting. I find the last three lines of “To a Snail” the most interesting. They are; “in the absence of feet, “a method of conclusions”;/ “a knowledge of principles,”/ in the curious phenomenon of your occipital horn.” This is quite different than the way Stevens ends his poem, which says, “It did not give of bird or bush,/ like nothing else in Tennessee.” He chose to use a more abstractly worded ending, whereas Moore used previously used quotations and large words to convey a sense of importance to the snail.

T.S. Eliot and Modernism

TS Eliot writes in such a style that separates him even from other modernists. He is very vague as to his actual meaning, and “The Waste Land” is very hard to understand. There are several different parts, each discussing something different, but having the same somber quality. His tone throughout is melancholy and somewhat empty feeling. While other modernists are openly sardonic and outspoken, Eliot has a mellow tone, but there is bitterness boiling under the surface of each part.

He is like other modernists in that “The Waste Land” is a direct observation of society, but Eliot gives his view in a different way. For example, in “A Game of Chess,” he first discusses a woman who I thought was discouraged- she had a lot of wealth, but there was a man making her unhappy. Eliot then gives a scenario between two women, in which the one is telling the other to fix herself up before the husband returns or he won’t want her. Also, it seems like the woman was trying to hide something from her husband, and the other one was making her feel guilty.

Through all of “The Waste Land”, Eliot seems to be basing his ideas on the modernist concept that society has lost its sense of morality and spirituality. He discusses prostitutes, empty marriages/relationships, death, and destitution caused by a 'drought". However, almost all of his “stories” or points are described by allusions to other occurrences and situations. He uses many biblical and mythological references.

“The Fire Sermon” begins with some kind of bittersweet song, intermixing unpleasant aspects with the softer points. It then moves to the observations of a young couple by an old blind man, Tiresias. He describes how they are in an empty sexually based relationship, which is in accordance to the general theme of waning morality that Eliot employs.

Eliot’s poetry, at least in “The Waste Land”, is exceedingly hard to understand. He is clearly a modernist in that he gives a frank, somewhat blunt observation of society, but he writes it in such a way that the reader has to read it over and over in order to just get the point. He uses many allusions, and it seems that throughout the poem, the anticipation of rain is a common theme. He talks about a dry and desolate world, and leaves the reader still waiting for the coming rain when he ends the poem. I think that the rain is supposed to symbolize some sort of necessary change that Eliot believes needs to take place to transform the “dry” world. Especially in the end on page 1440, he focuses on the desolation and arid land, saying, “Her is no water but only rock/rock and no water and the sandy road…seat is dry and feet are in the sand/ if there were only water against the rock.” This seems to be his final desperate cry for help.