What guarantees profitable reading of a text poetic? Is the language simple, the simplicity of the technique or both at once? The reader is finally the word. Before
poetry-a genre of minorities, the reader prefers, in some cases, escape the text, since it is difficult to understand or, in general, because he feels he is not ready to read with the clarity with which reads For example, a novel or a story in a newspaper, in other cases, the reader assumes the challenge of unraveling the meaning of the verses making a major effort that allows its banality. The task is daunting if, moreover, the poem is written in an unfamiliar language and a complicated technique. If the reader despite its best efforts can not engage with the text, but finally decides ordinary: leaving the poetry, sometimes forever.
To test the attitude of readers to the poetic texts, soil often perform a simple experiment: distributed among my students of literature a poem by Luis Hernandez ( ash and silicon, "Ezra: / I know that if you were to my neighborhood / The boys say in the corner: / How about old, che 'mother') another of Francisco de Quevedo (the famous sonnet about love, "is burning ice, is frozen fire / is wound that hurts and does not feel ... ") and a third From poetry of José Watanabe: "The child went into the shade of his tree extramural / where daily chores left of intestine. / And if another child is crouched nearby tree / and was relieved / flowed between them / the honorable complicity in debugging / of good animal ... ").
poetry-a genre of minorities, the reader prefers, in some cases, escape the text, since it is difficult to understand or, in general, because he feels he is not ready to read with the clarity with which reads For example, a novel or a story in a newspaper, in other cases, the reader assumes the challenge of unraveling the meaning of the verses making a major effort that allows its banality. The task is daunting if, moreover, the poem is written in an unfamiliar language and a complicated technique. If the reader despite its best efforts can not engage with the text, but finally decides ordinary: leaving the poetry, sometimes forever.
To test the attitude of readers to the poetic texts, soil often perform a simple experiment: distributed among my students of literature a poem by Luis Hernandez ( ash and silicon, "Ezra: / I know that if you were to my neighborhood / The boys say in the corner: / How about old, che 'mother') another of Francisco de Quevedo (the famous sonnet about love, "is burning ice, is frozen fire / is wound that hurts and does not feel ... ") and a third From poetry of José Watanabe: "The child went into the shade of his tree extramural / where daily chores left of intestine. / And if another child is crouched nearby tree / and was relieved / flowed between them / the honorable complicity in debugging / of good animal ... ").
The results confirm most of the time, the thesis that the poems that use an everyday language and technical level are those with more acceptance.
Of the three poems, Watanabe and Hernández-in that order are quickly summoning the interest of students and, ultimately, the more they feel and understand. Employment expressions like "small chores," "stew", "minimum floor", "green flag" (Watanabe), 'neighborhood', 'boys',' corner ',' old 'or explicit' che 'his mother' and the linearity of their structure, serve this purpose. As the extraordinary Quevedo sonnet, there have to be careful since it is an amalgam result linking concepts with feelings. Students find it hard to get to understand it and make it even after some effort, the sonnet does not generate the same hook them that if they Watanabe's poems and Hernandez. It is well to add that poetry has lost readers and has become, in some ways, cryptic because readers have been trivialized. This world needs sheep to follow the dictates of the market. All that is contemplation, philosophy, depth and emotional richness is suspect and should be outlawed.
In an essay on the problems of the novelist wrote more than thirty years, Julio Ramón Ribeyro argued that before the technical language and the novelist had two ways. In language, must choose between Democritus (slang, and current single) and cataverusa (literary language developed, cultist). In the technique, take the side of the baroque (complex and elaborate) or at Cartesian (clear and direct.) I believe that this classification is likely Ribeyro applied to poetry. However, the choice between Democritus and cataverusa or between the baroque and not guaranteed Cartesian view that a poem will be successful. This requires more factors: style, knowledge, good taste and ability to tune with the interest of readers. There are, however, authors who find it very difficult to write in simple and authors it is almost impossible to concoct texts than in hard. José Watanabe and Jorge Luis Borges are good examples of what we say.
There are also those who, owing to completely ignore or Ribeyro proposals are far from the natural talent of Watanabe and Borges-or so simply written that become so vulgar or so tangled that they become incoherent. These, fortunately, are the least in the world of poetry and those who carry the burden of guilt when she fled because readers do not understand what they read. As at May 68: Let's face it, we ask the impossible. ------
Of the three poems, Watanabe and Hernández-in that order are quickly summoning the interest of students and, ultimately, the more they feel and understand. Employment expressions like "small chores," "stew", "minimum floor", "green flag" (Watanabe), 'neighborhood', 'boys',' corner ',' old 'or explicit' che 'his mother' and the linearity of their structure, serve this purpose. As the extraordinary Quevedo sonnet, there have to be careful since it is an amalgam result linking concepts with feelings. Students find it hard to get to understand it and make it even after some effort, the sonnet does not generate the same hook them that if they Watanabe's poems and Hernandez. It is well to add that poetry has lost readers and has become, in some ways, cryptic because readers have been trivialized. This world needs sheep to follow the dictates of the market. All that is contemplation, philosophy, depth and emotional richness is suspect and should be outlawed.
In an essay on the problems of the novelist wrote more than thirty years, Julio Ramón Ribeyro argued that before the technical language and the novelist had two ways. In language, must choose between Democritus (slang, and current single) and cataverusa (literary language developed, cultist). In the technique, take the side of the baroque (complex and elaborate) or at Cartesian (clear and direct.) I believe that this classification is likely Ribeyro applied to poetry. However, the choice between Democritus and cataverusa or between the baroque and not guaranteed Cartesian view that a poem will be successful. This requires more factors: style, knowledge, good taste and ability to tune with the interest of readers. There are, however, authors who find it very difficult to write in simple and authors it is almost impossible to concoct texts than in hard. José Watanabe and Jorge Luis Borges are good examples of what we say.
There are also those who, owing to completely ignore or Ribeyro proposals are far from the natural talent of Watanabe and Borges-or so simply written that become so vulgar or so tangled that they become incoherent. These, fortunately, are the least in the world of poetry and those who carry the burden of guilt when she fled because readers do not understand what they read. As at May 68: Let's face it, we ask the impossible. ------
Illustration: taken from the magazine Letras Libres .
0 comments:
Post a Comment