"The gene pool threw up a wobbly stem
and the tree danced. No.
The Tree capitalized.
No. There are limits to saying,
In language, what the tree did..."
In these lines, Robert Hass rejects some common imagery of the humble tree; it is not dancing in the wind, nor is it dominating. The author posits that language does not have the depth to describe what it is the tree is doing exactly; to paraphrase Freud, sometimes a swaying tree is just a swaying tree. In the closing line, Hass says "Aspens doing something in the wind." This reinforces the idea that the imagery of the tree's dance, or of the mighty tree dominating, is not the end-all. Sometimes the best poetry doesn't rely on gimmicky visuals or unnecessarily flowery language; honesty in writing trumps these cliches any time.
Do you think the speaker's invitation to dance - "Dance with me, dancer." - is directed at the tree? If it is, then perhaps the poet is considering the tree's essence as a living and moving thing.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder about your assertion that "language does not have the depth to describe what is is the tree is doing." The speaker in the poem announces: "...There are limits to saying,/In language, what the tree did..." Are these limits then some lower dimension (like depth)? Or perhaps, language is overstuffed with meaning or potential meaning. I like that notion. A writer can add meaning and add meaning -- see Gunther Kress -- and fill words with even more meaning and not express the essence of the tree. All the speaker can guarantee is that the tree - here, aspens -- do something and perhaps interact with the speaker.
”Sometimes the best poetry doesn't rely on gimmicky visuals or unnecessarily flowery language...”
ReplyDeleteI agree—but does this poem support your point? The speaker is obviously trying (and failing) to describe the tree’s movement. Is it a failing of language or a failing of the poet? And how compelling would the poem be if the poet decided to use such “flowery language” if it meant completing the poem?