- You could do it better
- Delusion and Imagery
- Life on the shoulder
- What makes poetry, poetry?
- For poetry month (3)
- Counting the steps
- For poetry month
- What is the purpose of education?
- Creating a team-like atmosphere in classes
- Who is responsible for learning?
- Teaching academic classes like sports?
- Follow Write about what? on WordPress.com
Imagery is one of the harder to pinpoint concepts in poetry. What exactly is the difference between describing something in poetry and creating imagery? This concept is not always easy to explain. So I looked at what some experts in the fields of communication and language said about imagery.
Marshall McLuhan, a modern philosopher well known for his communication and media theories, was particularly in the application of these theories. He wrote extensively on how marketing and advertisement appeals to people. He stepped into the realm of politics to comment:
Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to abdicate in favor of his image, because the image will be much more powerful than he could ever be.
Noam Chomsky, a linguist and cognitive scientist, who is known for his political involvement looked at McLuhan’s area of expertise, how the public perceives advertisements. According to Chomsky:
Everyone knows that when you look at a television ad, you do not expect to get information. You expect to see delusion and imagery.
There is a similar theme running through both of these quotes, the idea that imagery provides more than actually exists in the object or person being described. The literary device of imagery can be defined as using words to create a mental picture. However, the mental picture is not simply what exists, but what exists at a more intense level. A simple cookie dipped in tea takes on a taste, texture and color that make it magically memorable, or an ordinary machine become monstrously frightening. In a way imagery is description on steroids.
Some of the techniques that move imagery to this level comparisons known as similes and metaphors. Similes typically deal with more superficial appearances (the sky is gray like slate), while metaphors deal with deeper structural similarities (the sky is an ocean of air) and can be extended into complex extended metaphors. However in each case the writer is adding nuances to the description that are beyond simply what is observed. Imagery adds connotations which builds another level of perception and results something being more appealing or distasteful.
In the end what reader of a poem desires is not simply to feel like they are present with the author but able to see the intangibles, the feelings, desires and very beliefs that drive the words on the written page. Remember the imagery in commercials: the man standing stalwart in front of flapping flag sells stability not the candidate, and the car rushing down the open road sells freedom, rather than a brand of automobile. People do not want poetry to show them reality, but something beyond it.
Speeding ahead barely glancing I was the momentary observer at the edge of my vision, of a child-sized, plastic vanity, spurned by an overloaded car. And a pink coat with shreds of wrapping paper still clinging. Left for the world to watch, a yet to be marred celebration slowly soiled by gravel spray. Further down the freeway lipstick tubes, cheap make-up, spilling from cheaper plastic bins, intended to beautify, now unintended refuse. Then I spied the book, open pages, still pristine, flapping in the draft of cars, I could not resist, braking hard screeching down the shoulder. Running back, recklessly to rescue the words, anxious to peer at the choice of escape. From this too all too gritty, world that steal our things Things that will decay, or may be outgrown first, still I read the words, hoping they would reveal more than the unplanned exhibit of the unmade-up face.
As a young child I assumed poetry must rhyme. Meter was beyond my comprehension. It was only that constant repetition of ending sounds that mattered. In fifth grade, the teacher encouraged us all to enter a poetry recitation contest. The selection had to be memorized. In a conscious attempt to be an over achiever, I choose a poem longer than any other student, a ballad by John Greenleaf Whittier called Barbara Fritchie.
In what seemed to be a monumental task, I spent the next week committing to memory the story of an old Quaker woman confronting Stonewall Jackson as he marched into Frederick, Maryland. I didn’t care much about the history behind the poem, but I loved chanting the neat rhyming couplets. Each ended on a single syllable accented word so I could really punch out those rhymes.
However, I did have a bit of a quandary what to do about the couplet that read:
” All day long that free flag tost
Over the heads of the rebel host.”
Should I pronounce the end of the first line as “tossed” indicating the flag flapped in the wind, or force the rhyme? If I said “toast” the poor listeners might think the flag was performing a ritual honor or baking in the sun. In the end meaning won out I pronounce the Whittier’s made up word as “tossed.”
This was not a traditional competitive contest with a few winners. Rather it was a blatant attempt to foist a little culture on grader schoolers. The judges had a criteria for excellent, good and fair. Everyone received a ribbon. On the day of the contest I managed to rattle of the entire ballad without a single error. Unfortunately for me, everyone else that participated in my class brought home a blue ribbon for excellent recitation, while I was given the lowest level, a white.
I entered the kitchen mournful, showing my feeble white ribbons and declaring I would never enter a contest that required speaking again. My mother dismissed the judge’s decision by saying, “It was a sing-song poem. Next year, choose one that doesn’t rhyme. You’ll do better.” I hadn’t realized that reciting tightly rhymed poetry with its sometimes awkward syntax was harder that reading blank verse.
Later, in high school English class, when we were given assignments to write poetry, I asked about writing blank verse and the teachers were generally okay with it. The other students thought I was cheating, writing poetry without having the complication of making it rhyme. In this day much of the published poetry is free verse, which has follows neither the conventions of a rhyming or regular meter. This departure from traditional poetry leaves many with the question: What makes poetry, poetry?
The basic answer is repetition. When I write prose I search for synonyms so I am not always repeating the same words. Early on my mother pointed out that repeating the same words was the sign of a very amateurish writer. I also vary the syntax. Using both short direct sentences and longer ones with subjective clauses improves the flow. Free verse breaks all these conventions of “good” writing by using intentional repetition. It may not be the repeated end sounds of rhyme, but the other sounds such as alliteration, assonance and consonance. Similar words, phrases and parallel construction are used over and over again. The challenge with free verse is creating a new structure, not an already established poetic form and repeating it so the new form has a recognizable pattern, a pattern with enough variation to keep it interesting.
One of my favorite poets, Robert Frost, said writing free verse was “‘like playing tennis without a net.'”(1) This changes the game, but it can be done. One of my students said poetry was expressing his ideas indirectly. He liked writing it because he could say things that he wanted to without letting people know precisely who and what he was discussing. That is not necessarily what makes poetry, poetry. But it is part of what makes poetry good.
Ellman, Richard and Robert O’Clair. The Norton Anthology of Modern Poetry, Second Edition. New York: Norton, 1988.
According to surface politeness, preferred by the world, I inquire of another’s well being, a simple “How are you doing?” I am answered by a booming, over confident “Great, never better” and I cringe A strange response to the reply of someone, obviously doing well and sure of it. how is it, that I have grown to dread hearing it? It is the surety that seems in question as the evening rolls on. “Never better,” means better than before better than one more, who must fall beneath the cutting words of disdain Disdain required in the mind of the over confident to make him truly “great” to propel him towards to the next level of “never better.”
Has he seen since? One step. “It’s my work” He gently explained to them Smiling proudly outside, terrified inside As they saw him off on a journey ending in Liberia leaving them three weeks ago at the D/FW airport. Door step.
After watching a fifth grader standing confident before a class full of peers and parents to deliver a poised speech on Tennessee, I got to watch my own son mumble through a presentation on Maryland. Now, his was actually more organized, including economy, geography, major cities, types of population and educational institutions that he had gleaned from the Internet, and an atlas at the local library. These comprehensive details were missing from the disconnected facts and “places I visited” presentation made by the more poised student. If the presentations had been written, his would have been considered superior and the teacher did notice.
Years later when developing a technical training program, a coworker with years of experience in leadership development confided to me that he really didn’t feel comfortable with technology. Most of the leaders he had dealt with tended towards the inspirational, big picture persona. They like to lead people, and leave the details to others. So they didn’t really comprehend how to find trends in data through crunching numbers, or the use the technology available for planning and scoping out possible courses of action.
What do these two vignettes have in common? Use of technology is changing society, education, work and who we consider to be leaders. If you paid attention, you may have noticed the rise in many tech companies was engineered by a pair, the vocal spokesman and the less noticeable creative “brain” – one to inspire people, the other to invent things that actually worked. In the past when people shared ideas (and source codes) freely over the Internet, some vocal promoters had a wealth of new products/ideas to choose from without working with the geek who could pull all the details together. We probably never will learn the real inventor in many cases.
But leadership is changing, a lot of people tell you (or sell you) their idea in the new practice of leadership coaching. It is a rising business in which people try to teach social skill to the techies who seem to lack them, or encourage the confident speaker that he really does understand things when he doesn’t know what to do with pile of data. We may soon rethink who is good at doing what based on a whole new criteria, especially our leaders.
What exactly is the purpose of obtaining an education? If you answer “to learn” that is obvious, but that answer also side steps the question. It says nothing about what you are going to learn or the why you are going to learn it. About 15 years ago as I sat at a university commencement, the keynote speaker said the purpose of education was to make students “change agents.” This was the lingo of the time to say education was given the lofty goal of changing the world to make it a better place.
Roll forward a few years and post secondary educators are challenged to figure out if their graduates are going to know what they need to get a decent job. I have seen numerous articles directing students into majors that will actually results in careers based on their studies and allow them to pay back their student loans. Recently my daughter had a discussion with a philosophy major at a medium large state university. He was one of only two philosophy majors, and after their discussion, it seems like he is bailing out, leaving one lone philosopher. It looks like making the world a better place will have to be put on hold for a while.
I thought it might be interesting to look back at some notable people in United States history to see what they had to say about the purpose of education. Benjamin Franklin said “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.” This definitely falls into education equals earning power camp. You may protest that interpretation saying that the founding fathers were noble seekers of freedom. However, you need to realize the Thomas Jefferson had considered using pursuit of “property” rather than “happiness” in the declaration of independence. What did our first president George Washington say about education? He said that he owed great thanks to his mother for teaching him all that she did.
Abraham Lincoln noted that “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” Although this president did not provide a lot of insight into what he thought should be the philosophy taught in the school room, he did make an astute observation. Philosophy is taught in school, even if there are no more philosophy majors. Text book writers, teachers, coaches professors all present morals and values as they instruct, and these do not all agree. If we think that can teaching without teaching beliefs we leave students awash with detailed minutia of facts and no coherence. However philosophy is often presented by behavior rather than the words we say, which makes me cringe every time I see someone in education getting arrested. This does affect how the next generation of leaders will lead. (It is interesting that both Washington and Lincoln praised their mothers for teaching them.)
However, my favorite presidential quote about education has to be the words of Theodore Roosevelt. He grew up in the gilded age, when the industrial age brought opportunity for men to make more of themselves, even if it meant building big business at the expense of others. Roosevelt said “A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad.”
Imagine a group of athletes from different sport that all have a general idea about playing positions in the other sports. However, they have little to no idea how their skills stack up against other in their group, whom they barely know. They have never played together, and they are told “You are now a team; you decide who plays what position. This week we will play baseball, next week we’ll mix up the teams and play football.” Most class group assignments are actually based on this model. Much of the work required is deciding how to organize the team before anyone actually gets anything done.
Encouraging students to work as teams in class has many shades of difference from getting a group of athletes to work as a team. Sports teams are formed to wage athletic “war” and win against other teams. In classes the goal is to create a viable product rather than to win. The decision making that goes into teamwork to achieve specific goals by creating products are often removed from the athlete. They do not decide what position they play, who directs the team, or how much practice is required. Often even eating, sleeping and exercise habits are prescribed by others to ensure peak physical performance. Students expect coaches to be concerned with their activities outside of sports. After all, school grades and behavior are often tied to whether or not a student is allowed to compete.
However there are some commonalities. I have seen some groups in which one or two students do most of the work, just like star athletes that carry a team. Only the rest of the team gains nothing from this because the objective is to learn rather than win. However, this is also what happens in the real world on the job, and the people slacking do reap benefits.
Try setting student teams at competition with each other for a limited number of passing grades – like a strict curve in which as many students must fail as those that receive A’s. This is the academic version of tryouts for limited slots. Students who could do the work would be cut because the class had a limited size, or those would could not might remain if there were no excelling students. However, determining which students should be in a particular level class doesn’t work the same way as determining who should be playing on a team. If it was you would probably find not so much an increase in effort as a sudden rash of cheating, sort of like the rise in performance enhancing drugs in sports when athletes must do well to keep their jobs.