Thursday, May 28, 2009
Strauss and the misinterpretation of Harwood
In the reflection on Harwood's career written by Jennifer Strauss she attempts to identify a range of general themes, interests and styles that she belives are particularly prevalent across Harwood's work. To my mind though the article has little to say of substance about Harwood's work and in some cases in fact misinterprets it. What do you think? In your answer you must refer to a poem we have not read in class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Jason Pietzner’s statement. I believe that the article portrays Harwood’s works in an simple way, leaving out some very necessary elements of her poems. Within the article Strauss does make some good points in regards to Harwood’s works, though she doesn't expand on some of the major themes Harwood often uses. Strauss comments on the obvious aspects of Gwen Harwood’s poetry, how she plays with the boundaries between flash and spirit, the world and language, the mundane and the transcendent, life and death and the present and the past. These aspects are all clearly prominent within Harwood’s poetry. However she focuses heavily on the themes within her work, and doesn’t actually analyze the content within the poems, for example Harwood’s works have a childlike innocence to them, with many references to the past and memories of childhood. Within the poem ‘The Violets’ there is a dream like quality, and heavy reference to nature and its beauties. Strauss failed to mention the beautiful qualities that appear throughout Harwood’s works. She says within the poem, ‘The melting west is striped like ice-cream’ again relating her scenery back to a child like state of mind. The language used throughout the poem is quite innocent, including words such as ‘you goose’ and ‘hungry and cross’. I believe that the article seems only to skim the surface of Harwood’s works and does not delve deeper into the substance of the poems.
ReplyDeleteJennifer Strauss’s reflection on Harwood’s career is dull and strenuss. After reading it thoroughly again, I approached it with an open mind yet on finishing the article I gained nothing new from Strauss’s writing. In-depth it may be, the writing comments on already explored terrain. Never truly focusing on a poem in particular, the article shifts from one idea to another briefly skimming across engaging points that needed to be fleshed out to truly be able to grasp the concept. The engaging points such as the way ‘Harwood’s work plays with, and confounds dualistic boundaries’ lacks evidence. It is a valid examination yet a reference to one of Harwood’s pieces would of finished the point off nicely. Take for example the poem of Father and Child concerns itself deeply with life and death. A child out of curiosity shoots a barn owl the bird dies and the child is left heartbroken by what he has done. This poem introduces its subject (being the child) to the boundaries of life and death. Strauss presumes her readers to have familiarity with Harwood’s work in order to understand her points, yet being an introduction this dependence on the audience is unjust. There is little to say in this article of the substance of Harwood’s work and therefore I agree with Jason’s statement.
ReplyDeletethat word in first sentence is meant to say 'strenuous'
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through Stella's blog entry I felt I needed to read Strauss's critique again. When initially reading it I didn’t realise how general the article is and how monotonous her writing was. Jenifer Strauss’s article was extreemly dull and doesn't explore the deeper meanings and ideas within Gwen Harwood’s poems. I believe that her views on Harwood’s works are inaccurate. I completely agree with what Stella had to say and strongly agree with Jason's statement. Strauss focused heavily on the overall picture, not exploring a particular piece but creating a general overview of Hardwoods works. Strauss makes no effort to explore the substance within Harwood’s works, focusing on ideas that have been previously discussed in the past.
ReplyDeleteThe article by Jennifer Strauss is mostly a chronological perspective on her life. It does not detail much of the depth of Hardwoods poetry. Although an interesting article, Strauss is more or less providing us with the detailed accolades that were bestowed upon her. The article does little to provide the reader with a depth of understanding of the way in which Harwood utilises poignant metaphors and the layers of meaning both metaphysical and physical that characterise her works. An example of this is in the beautifully written ‘The Lions Bride’ where she uses everyday situations as the framework and backdrop for the multi dimensional and evocative language. The article by Jennifer Strauss was though, a useful synopsis of her life and a brief insight into the meanings of her poems. I disagree with the statement; “in fact that some cases misinterprets it” because I believe that the article was Jennifer Strauss’ own personal opinion and is a valid interpretation of her works. The Fact is that every reader of Hardwoods poetry will see and feel differences in the language and its meaning. The debate is irrelevant, the real importance lies in the readers perspective.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Stella’s blog entry, I think sometimes its okay to have a perspective on a poet that just gives us a synopsis of the writer’s life. We don't always have to find the depth of meaning to prove our intellectual prowess. Readers come from all walks of life and can enjoy the beauty of the poetry in many ways. Stella’s understanding of Harwood’s poetry is valid and a useful interpretation. Something I think that Stella missed out on was to elaborate more about the poem ‘Father and Child’ and the learning and understanding from the boys perspective.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tallulah's blog, some interesting points were made. It is refreshing to read a strongly opinionated piece. Tallulah's point about personal opinion is strong and persuasive, yet the statement; " in some cases in fact misinterpretation" may have be a referral to Gwen Harwood herself, should an introduction be strongly opinionated and bias to theauthors view, or should it be a collection of others views as well as the authors. Which Strauss piece has failed to contain. This is were I beg to differ with Tallulah, the initial interpretation of a work may have been that of the authors therefore we are meant to interpret the work in a certain way. How can we decide whether an author has more right to decide on their pieces interpretation over an open interpretation. An interesting point, but this is not the statement that we are addressing. Tallulah, you have some insightful points that may of needed some fleshing out. Yet I understand the word limit issues, so good overall job.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with Jason’s statement. Strauss’ article fails to completely identify and properly flesh-out the prevalent themes within Harwood’s work, leaving out some of the most important aspects of her literature. The article is extremely generalized and speaks more of Harwood’s achievements rather than motives and influences. She draws a great deal of inspiration from her lifelong experiences such as childhood, motherhood and as an educated, working woman. Her works almost always have strong allusions to these aspects of her life, all of which form the basis of her personal philosophies and the intention of her poetry. One of these philosophies is her strong belief in the wisdom of a childs’ understanding of the world. This understanding is one that is stripped of social constraints, disregarding pomp and trivial expectations. An example of this can be seen in her piece ‘The Secret Life of Frogs’, which describes a recount from Harwoods’ childhood. It addresses a young girls understand of suffering, as she dearly defends the life of a frog, who would otherwise be tormented by foolish little boys. She alludes deeply to the incomprehensible chaos of war, relating the perilous life of a frog to that of a soldier (also relating to the suffering of her parents generation). What others would call ignorance, Harwood describes as innocence; a mind untainted by the harsh demands of adulthood. She suggests that to have a greater, objective understanding of the world around us, one must look back to the innocent mind we all once harboured as children. The article seems to view the artist and her works as separate entities and fails to explore the works of Harwood through her perspective. Strauss clearly has little understanding of Harwood herself, with the exclusion of some otherwise minor life achievements and general details. In effect this tells us little of substance about her poetry and is poorly backed up with any evidence, or even theory for that matter.
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out that although Sheridan and my posts are similar, they in fact address the point of childlike innocence in different ways. I guess we must have fed off each other in class discussions and had similar ideas of what had been left out in Strauss’ argument. I like they way Sheridan can commented on the importance of memories in Harwoods’ work. I think that Harwood must have believed strongly in the importance of drawing inspiration from the past to formulate an understanding of life in the present. Our past clearly determine who we eventually become, and it is through this understanding that we can fully appreciate and understand life in its entirety. In fact I think she comments deeply of the process of life being a constant journey of seeking knowledge, something we can only see in it’s entirety once we have completely run the course of our lives and transgressed from this life to the next.
ReplyDeleteThe article of Harwoods career, written by jennifer strauss’ is dull and exceedingly generalised. Although identifying a range of themes, interests and styles throughout Harwoods work, Strauss misses out on the stong sense of substance and depthness that is crucially prevalent throughout harwoods poems. I do not believe however that the article misinterprits Harwoods works, as the major themes and styles are listed, but do fail to be discussed or examined in great depth. One theme that is extremely common throughout Harwoods work is that of ‘flesh and spirit’. The poem ‘dreaming walking’ examines the connection between flesh and spirit and the sometimes indisguishable relationship between reality and dreams. The dream like quality integrated throughout many of harwoods peoems is also present in this poem as well as the incorporation of harwoods fascination with death. The theme of flesh and spirit is hardly discussed in Strauss’ article and is what I believe to be a crucial theme that deserves more of an in depth study. Strauss’ article however, is not solely an examination of the themes of harwoods poetry, but more of an abituary styled sequential examination of Harwoods life.
ReplyDeleteI am in general agreement with Jason’s statement. I found that after I read the article through, I was left without any sort of real understanding of depth or clarity about Harwood’s work. Strauss aims to give a general overview of the artist and her background which makes the article seem more like a sort of scientific analization as opposed to something of sensitive thought and substance. I feel that the Introduction to Gwen Harwood turns out to be a sort of confusing and undefined attempt to pin her down to some type of motivation. Strauss stresses the fact that Harwood refuses to commit to a definite meaning or theme concerning herself or any of her work. This is made out to be a bad thing, which I believe lets down the article. I believe the fact that Harwood’s work can be interpreted differently, by any person, is something to be celebrated. The beauty of poetry should be that it is capable of being a personal experience for everyone. Although Strauss did not cover some important themes in depth, there where some I agreed can be seen in Harwood’s poetry. I especially noticed the theme of light and dark. In the poem ‘The violets’ a very young Harwood wakes after an afternoon sleep to find she has been robbed of morning. I agree (with Strauss) that as an adult Harwood does not choose to show light over dark (or vis versa) but I think here, she is commenting on how, as a child life, is stunningly simple. That life is infact light and dark. Although some themes were identified, there could have been more words spent exploring them, and less trying to define the type of poet Harwood is.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Tallulah's blog and Stella's response I would like to bring to attention a few things. Firstly I personally found that Strauss' article didn't seem to have any sort of radical individualistic opinion on Harwood's work. However Stella and Tallulah both commented that it is an article of personal opinion. Tallulah stated that she believed that this was a problem, while Stella commented that it was something worth critising. For me, the article did seem to have other people’s opinions on Harwood’s work, from interviews and reviews etc, yet they were only there to support Stauss' point. I was under the impression that the article is merely a part of the views of the collective who do not see below a certain point in Harwood's work. The type who, only discover what they expect to find. This for me, was the point worth making.
ReplyDeleteIn response to both Julians responses, I have to say that I most certainly agree with you on the matter of the ‘extreme’ generalization presented in Strauss’ article. Individual’s perspectives differ immensely meaning that one interpretation of a poem to one person could be completely different to another individual’s interpretation of the very same poem and the idea that Strauss has used is that generally, we all possess the same understanding of the obvious themes throughout Harwood’s works. In saying this, I would have to disagree with the claim that the article is mainly a recollection of her life achievements, I believe that it does provide us with many of the important and crucial elements of Harwood’s style. However, on a deeper level, Strauss does not provide evidence, strong examples or even philosophical fundamentals that is heavily included in all of Harwood’s work, her poetry often having a much deeper meaning than it first appears to convey. In response to Julians statement ‘the article…fails to explore the works of Harwood through her perspective’ presented me with an idea that I had yet to acknowledge. It is this point in which I believe makes Strauss’ article weak and lacking in substance. Strauss simply presents us with a compilation of palpable facts rather than an in depth look into the beautifully poetic writings through the eyes of the author herself.
ReplyDelete