All I have to say is that I really like this poem. I feel that I can connect with what Robert Hass is arguing in The Problem of Describing Trees. Language is something that is indefinitely finite. There are only a certain number of words in our language, or in any language for that matter. Yet, there are unlimited actions and feelings in the universe. The problem with these limits is that we confine ourselves merely because we do not have a correct word for a thought or emotion. Just because we cannot name something does not mean that it cannot exist. Time is up!
Going back and comparing this to the other poem we read, I can see an obvious connection. They both explain how when using any language, there is always a gray area. Actions are more specific than words, and it is not possible to be as specific as a certain action calls for. All in all these poems are nice, but they are using this shortcoming of language to explain something they know and teach that cannot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree 100% with you! When I wrote my response, I was thinking the same thing: that just because someone can't pinpoint exactly what words to use, doesn't mean that there is absolutely no way that something is happening. Take, for example, the trees moving. I have seen trees moving, and I could describe how they move to anyone I wanted to. However, for someone who may never have seen a tree, he or she might not fully understand what i mean by the 'leaves rustling' or the 'branches swaying'. It would be infinitely more difficult to paint a visual picture of what the tree is doing from just a written account of it, rather than by actually seeing it. Experiencing it for yourself is the only way to truly understand exactly what the tree is doing.
ReplyDelete