I can't believe I'm about to admit that at some point c. 1959, wandering the barren forests of the Interior, I taught myself this poem -- of which you have now put me in mind with your shorter, better one:
He would declare and could himself believe That the birds there in all the garden round From having heard the daylong voice of Eve Had added to their own an oversound, Her tone of meaning but without the words. Admittedly an eloquence so soft Could only have had an influence on birds When call or laughter carried it aloft. Be that as may be, she was in their song. Moreover her voice upon their voices crossed Had now persisted in the woods so long That probably it never would be lost. Never again would birds' song be the same. And to do that to birds was why she came.
(PS. Does that qualify, do you think, for the intentional fallacy, the pathetic fallacy, or perhaps both at once? -- remembering that it did once seem a flaw in any "serious" poem that it did not fall prey to at least one proper fallacy. "Fallacy", back then, of course, being to gibberish critical jargon what the intensely noisome and disagreeable "iconic" seems to be today. As in -- "Nice hat, dear." "Yes, quite iconic, don't you think?")
Leaving a man airborne yes but up in the air? That's another matter.
Tom,
That you should choose--at the tender age of around 18--to teach yourself this "Frosty" poem only goes to show how precocious a poetic child you were, my boy--nothing pathetic about that!
nature has its ways,
ReplyDeleteas does a fine woman,
leaving a man airborne
a lovely poem Vassilis.
~robert
Vassilis,
ReplyDeleteI can't believe I'm about to admit that at some point c. 1959, wandering the barren forests of the Interior, I taught myself this poem -- of which you have now put me in mind with your shorter, better one:
He would declare and could himself believe
That the birds there in all the garden round
From having heard the daylong voice of Eve
Had added to their own an oversound,
Her tone of meaning but without the words.
Admittedly an eloquence so soft
Could only have had an influence on birds
When call or laughter carried it aloft.
Be that as may be, she was in their song.
Moreover her voice upon their voices crossed
Had now persisted in the woods so long
That probably it never would be lost.
Never again would birds' song be the same.
And to do that to birds was why she came.
(PS. Does that qualify, do you think, for the intentional fallacy, the pathetic fallacy, or perhaps both at once? -- remembering that it did once seem a flaw in any "serious" poem that it did not fall prey to at least one proper fallacy. "Fallacy", back then, of course, being to gibberish critical jargon what the intensely noisome and disagreeable "iconic" seems to be today. As in -- "Nice hat, dear." "Yes, quite iconic, don't you think?")
Robert,
ReplyDeleteLeaving a man airborne yes but up in the air? That's another matter.
Tom,
That you should choose--at the tender age of around 18--to teach yourself this "Frosty" poem only goes to show how precocious a poetic child you were, my boy--nothing pathetic about that!
vassilis
ReplyDeletebeautiful.
Thank you and thanks for following faithfully, fatally.
ReplyDelete