On The Universality Of Poetry Essay, Research Paper
Like any art signifier, poesy is considered cosmopolitan. It ranks with music, dance, and all right humanistic disciplines as a signifier or procedure of showing Man & # 8217 ; s ideas and passions. Unlike other art signifiers, nevertheless, poesy & # 8212 ; and in fact literature & # 8212 ; has a curious feature. As a medium it uses linguistic communication, and unlike other mediums & # 8212 ; like stones, pigments, round & # 8212 ; linguistic communication is non cosmopolitan, it is cultural. Since civilization varies harmonizing to geographics, clip, faith, and gender & # 8212 ; it is without uncertainty that there are battalions of different linguistic communications. Therefore poesy becomes cultural or non-universal in signifier, a characteristic that confines the production and response of poesy to people that understand the signifier ( linguistic communication, symbolism, idiom etc etc ) that poesy usage & # 8212 ; a comparatively little category of people.
Some clip ago, our English category read T.S. Elliot & # 8217 ; s & # 8220 ; The Love Song of Alfred J. Prufrock & # 8221 ; , a long verse form in the signifier of a monologue on whether or non the character should or should non near a adult female he loves, eat a Prunus persica, or portion his hair. Reviews declared it as the modern Hamlet & # 8212 ; a contemplation of the consciousness of the Modern Man. They exclaimed that the verse form is a concise description of resent political orientations and doctrines. With a batch of trouble and counsel, we understood and even appreciated the verse form, chiefly because we are familiar with the & # 8220 ; linguistic communication & # 8221 ; that Elliot used. But would a husbandman or merely border any single unfamiliar with the niceties of poesy understand O appreciate it? Possibly, but the most likely scenario is that they would understand the major points of the verse form, but t non acknowledge small inside informations that make the verse form great & # 8212 ; the fact that it contains extracts from major English authors and that the images in the verse form echoes its sense.
It can besides be noted that the allusions present in & # 8220 ; Prufrock & # 8221 ; are Western in beginning. There are cuts from Chaucer, Donne, Shakespeare and about every other canonical English authors. This technique of touching to the Masters is non present in Pru
fruck entirely. In fact, this is prevailing in the literary plants produced in the past four hundred old ages. Allusion in poesy is non merely for aesthetic intents but besides a manner of demoing regard to someone/something great. That about all allusions are to Western pieces, imply that literature is so or what is considered to be “great” literature are basically Western.
Consequently the criterion for literature became that of the West & # 8217 ; s and the wont of Western-oriented poesy is established. It became progressively more hard for new and different to be accepted as great or even as poetry/literature. Thus Eastern writers & # 8212 ; in order to be great & # 8212 ; have to come up to this Western ideals and in the procedure become Western.
The most common misconception is that poetry/literature is cosmopolitan because it tackles the Human status & # 8212 ; it is a contemplation of Humanity. That even if an thought is stated in a different manner, subjects behind certain verse forms transcend civilization, clip, and hence linguistic communication. It is. That the indicission felt by Prufrock is no different from the indecisiveness that Rama felt in Bhagavad Gita. Yes. But would an Indian appreciate the fact that Prufrock & # 8217 ; s internal struggle is about hair-parting and eating Prunus persica? Would an Englishman understand the Bhagavad Gita if it is written in Hindu or even understand the basically Asiatic concern of wheter he should or should etc etc?
The fact is that signifier and significance come manus in manus. The signifier determines the significance and frailty versa. There can non be one without the other. Therefore if a individual does non even travel beyond understanding what the signifier expresses, what he sees is merely a fragment of the piece of literature, a portion of the whole.
Since people are divided into categories of persons with different colourss, business, and gender each with their won manner of showing their already changing experiences even of the same events & # 8212 ; there can ne’er be one unifying and cosmopolitan linguistic communication, signifier, and hence nver be any sort of cosmopolitan literature.