Journey Across the Sea
Posted by ben on 14 Mar 2007 at 09:02 pm | Tagged as: poetry, responses/reviews
I went to see Edward Hirsch’s lecture at Trinity the other day, and found him to be a thought-provoking and entertaining speaker. The main thrust of his talk was encapsulated in a single image: the message in a bottle adrift at sea. Hirsch sees the poem as this message, launched into the turbulence of the world with the hope that one day, on a distant shore, someone might be able to give this message life through the reciprocal act: the act of reading. The thought that the reader is required to give life to the poem is a nice thought, and is a good complement to the book series he is editing for Trinity University Press (Writers On Writing). The readers in the audience (presumably a large number of those attending the lecture) got to feel that they do in fact have an essential role to play in the process of writing. I do think it’s important for readers to understand that they are directly involved in a creative process — the act of reading is not purely receptive, but involves interpretation, feeling, and growth. Especially in light of post-structuralist thought, the act of reading can be seen as the creation of an entirely new work.
However, despite the fact that I find his ideas compelling, and do not at all dispute his understanding of the relationship between the reader and the work, I must take issue with his implication that writing is primarily about reaching another person. This is an aspect of it, to be sure. But in my experience of writing (and this does of course extend to other forms of art), there is always an “other” that is part of the process before the reader, and is ultimately more essential than the reader. This other is deeply mysterious to me, but could be called the unconscious or God. Either of these titles will bring a lot of baggage with them, so perhaps it is best to leave it unnamed; let’s just say it is a relationship that can be experienced in the absence of other people. I do not think the experience of the creative act is ultimately dependent on another person (or even the idea of another person), nor do I think that the work remains inert and lifeless between the time of creation and the time of reception. In my experience, there is a give and take, a sense of conflict and resolution, that happens during the act of creation; and even after this, the work continues to live and breath in some hidden corner of the mind.
What the reader brings to the table is not the resolution of some hoped-for communication on the part of the author, but a transformation of the work into something new. With this transformation comes a confirmation that the work has been alive all along, that the poem has an identity independent from its author.
I’m not able to argue this point as forcefully or eloquently as the lecturer I’m responding to, using examples from the writings of Borges and Buber and Dickinson, but this has been my experience of the creative process.
[...] NOTE: You can now find a response to this lecture here. [...]
Hi, thank you for all the event lists!! I really liked your entry on this lecture–I saw it too, and I was surprised at the time that Hirsch simplified the “purpose” or usefulness of a poem that way. But I wonder if there’s any real danger in it, since though the creative process might be most effective–for you, the poem, and the reader–if you are engaging someone or something “more essential than the reader,” once anything’s shown to others communication is at the heart of it, no?
What I hear in what you’re saying is a celebration of the creative process for itself, and maybe Hirsch agrees when he stresses that reading is a creative process.
I love your description of the “‘other’ that is part of the process before the reader, and is ultimately more essential than the reader.”
Um, if you wanted to scatter quotes like Hirsch you could use Camus’ famous line: “An act like [suicide] is prepared within the silence of the heart, as is a great work of art.”
Thank you again for all the event lists :).
–G
p.s. i came across this site a while back and was really happy to see Aaron Forland at the heart of the name! I love him and his family.
Gabi- thanks for your comments and compliments! Hmmm… yeah, I think what I was bothered by in the lecture was the suggestion that the poem becomes inert at a certain point, and then has to be reactivated by the reader, whereas I feel that the work is potentially alive all along. But it really may have had more to do with his emphasis on the reader for this lecture, rather than an absolute statement about the nature of the work.
Ben.
Hi, Ben. I thank Amy C. for sending me a message to check out this site. Even though I missed an apparently impactful lecture, I’m fortunate to be able to take in your comments on writing. I agree with the idea that a writer’s work has a life of its own regardless of the existence of or need for audience participation. This is important for all writers to realize. Have you read anything about Jung’s technique of active imagination? The concept truly resonates with what you’ve said and, no, I do not intend to imply that your commentary needed validation of any sort. I just wanted to say that this is what it evoked for me. Furthermore, I feel the use of the title “unconscious” is perfectly acceptible and accurate.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this –
Deidra
It takes courage to say what many people are already thinking especially in this town where need for audience participation unconscious
Nuit Blanche