watch video on Emily Dickinson's "The Brain within its Groove" (part 2)

Loading...

Do curso por University of Pennsylvania

Modern & Contemporary American Poetry (“ModPo”)

165 classificações

University of Pennsylvania

Modern & Contemporary American Poetry (“ModPo”)

165 classificações

ModPo is a fast-paced introduction to modern and contemporary U.S. poetry, with an emphasis on experimental verse, from Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman to the present. Participants (who need no prior experience with poetry) will learn how to read poems that are supposedly "difficult." We encounter and discuss the poems one at a time. It's much easier than it seems! Join us and try it! Yes, the next live, interactive 10-week session of ModPo will begin on September 8, 2018, and will conclude on November 19, 2018. Al Filreis will be in touch with you by email before the September 8 start of the course with all the information you'll need to participate. If you have questions, you can email the ModPo team at modpo@writing.upenn.edu. During the 10 weeks of the course, you will be guided through poems, video discussions of each poem, and community discussions of each poem. And (unique among open online courses) we offer weekly, interactive live webcasts. Our famed TAs also offer office hours throughout the week. We help arrange meet-ups and in-site study groups. If you are curious about the ModPo team, type "ModPo YouTube introduction" into Google or your favorite search engine, and watch the 20-minute introductory video. You will get an overview of the course and will meet the brilliant TAs, who will be encountering the poems with you all the way to the end. If you use Facebook, join the always-thriving ModPo group: from inside Facebook, search for "Modern & Contemporary American Poetry" and then request to be added as a member. If you have any questions about ModPo, you can post a question to the FB group and you'll receive an almost instant reply. We tweet all year long at @ModPoPenn and you can also find ModPo colleagues using the hashtag #ModPoLive. ModPo is hosted by—and is housed at—the Kelly Writers House at 3805 Locust Walk on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia USA. All ModPo'ers are welcome to visit the Writers House when they are in our area. Our discussions are filmed there. Our live webcasts take place in the famed "Arts Cafe" of the House. To find out what's going on at the Writers House any time, just dial 215-746-POEM.

Na lição

chapter 1.1 (week 1)—Whitman & Dickinson, two proto-modernists

<p><strong>Week 1 of ModPo 2018 runs from Saturday, September 8 at 9 AM through Sunday, September 16 at 9 AM.</strong> For those doing ModPo on their own or in small groups, the week 1 materials are open and available all year. </p><p>In this first week of our course, we'll encounter two 19th-century American poets whose quite different approaches to verse similarly challenged the official verse culture of the time. As a matter of form (but also of content), Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson were radicals. What sort of radicalism is this? In a way, this course is all about exploring expressions of that radicalism from Whitman and Dickinson to the present day. Such challenges to official verse culture (and often U.S. culture at large) present us with a lineage of ideas about art and expression, a tradition that can be outlined, mostly followed, somewhat traced. In this course, we follow, to the best of our ability — and given the limits of time — that tradition and try to make overall sense of it. </p><p>You will find that we do this one poem at a time. Here in week 1, we will explore Dickinson first, Whitman second, and then begin to sketch out the major differences between them, which, some say, amount to two opposite ends of the spectrum of poetic experimentalism and dissent in the nineteenth century. Which is to say: on the spectrum of traditional-to-experimental poetry, these two poets are on the same end (experimental); on the spectrum of experimentalism, their approaches can put them on opposite ends. In short, they offer us alternative poetic radicalisms, and their influences down the line (which we will explore in week 2) are both powerful but are also largely distinct. One question you'll be prepared to ask by the end of the course: Is the Dickinsonian or the Whitmanian tradition more ascendant and apt in today's experimental poetry? </p><p><strong>ASSIGNMENTS</strong>: During this week, there are two quizzes due (see below); there are no writing assignments or peer reviews due. There is a live webcast on Wednesday, September 12, 2018, at 3 PM (Philadelphia time).</p>

watch video on Emily Dickinson's "I dwell in Possibility"23:28

watch video on Dickinson's "Tell all the truth but tell it slant"15:50

watch further discussion on "Tell all the truth"10:36

watch video on Emily Dickinson's "The Brain within its Groove" (part 1)15:04

watch video on Emily Dickinson's "The Brain within its Groove" (part 2)13:28

watch video on Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself" (part 1)24:30

watch video on Walt Whitman's “Song of Myself” (part 2)21:02

watch video on canto 47 of "Song of Myself"21:11

watch video discussion of the Whitmanian and Dickinsonian modes18:55

Conheça os instrutores

Al Filreis
Kelly Professor, Dir. Center for Programs in Contemporary Writing, Faculty Dir. Kelly Writers House

>> So, let's talk a little more about the current and the flood. First of all, you

know, there's a saying about water. Anybody know anything about rebuilding

New Orleans? What happened after the flood there? Anybody know anything about floods

like, the army core engineer goes, engineers goes in and it stops water from

going where it wants to go. Let's, Max, what's your thought about that? How difficult

that is? How crazy that is? >> It's incredibly difficult and the water ah, broke ah,

the dike to begin with. And so, it's, it's temporary. It's a temporary solution. It's

only a matter of time before ah, whatever the solution is, whatever they have to contain

the, the current. The flood is ah, [inaudible] again. >> So, the natural state of things is that water will

go where it goes. >> Yes. >> It find its own level. Anna, your thought on this? >> Well, I mean,

it's, it's, I, I agree with Max. That sort of like doing the project like from the

beginning to try and not to stop water from where it wants to go. It's kind of. >> So, now

obviously, yes so, so the army core engineer, anybody who builds a dam or a dike is

essentially holding off something that is probably the most powerful thing that we

know in nature. It will, it will take all artificial human structures and eventually

find its way to destroy it or to fight it. Okay. And now [unknown], what's Emily saying

about thinking? >> That your brain is going to go where it wants to go. >> The brain cannot. stop. >> You cannot stop

it. >> It cannot be stopped. So, constrain is the equivalent of the artifice of the dam

or the dike or the re-routing of the river. So now, let's look at this

comparison, But let a Splinter swerve, 'Twere easier for you to stop the water in

a flood. Easier than what? >> Than to remain true to the course that you began on.

>> Okay. So, it would be easier. So, it's pretty damn hard. It's easier to put the

flood back after Katrina than is to stop your brain from thinking the thoughts, the

B after you're suppose to be thinking of A, easier to go somewhere else. Is she

advocating that we let the brain go somewhere else? And if so, how? Tough for

us. >> I think so in the context o f our, our last poem for talking about possibility

and we should let the brain go wild. >> So she's advocating that wildness. Is there

any evidence in rhetoric, vocabulary structure, form. >> I think um, the but is

extremely important um, because that is the moment where the initial um, image that she

sets up is interrupted. So in a way, the but kind of acts as this pointer um, in the

poem. >> So the brain within it's crew, goes down evenly and true. But, but, just

think of something else. You will abandon your metaphor and it would be easier to

retreat from that new, that abandonment and go back to where you were. It would be

actually easier to do that than it would be to put a current of a flood back to

where it was. After it had slit the hills, a reference to just naturally or naturally

speaking slitting hills. >> The flash flood, Canyon. >> Landslide. >> Canyons, flash

floods, [unknown], these are places where the water will go when the flood takes place and the

hills have been slit, And scooped the Turnpike for Themselves, I guess another

reference to that turnpike would be, Anna. >> 276. >> Oh, you're thinking of highways. >> [laugh] >> I mean,

technique here refers to a kind of groove except that it's me but flood, the turnpike

for themselves. And trodden out the Mills, trodden. Whose got trodden? I think somebody

in here. Ann Maris. >> Yes. Tell us about trodden. >> Um, it seems to me with the sort of

weariness or reluctance. But, in this case, since it's bringing out the mills

um, that's a way to yield um, positive. >> Well, just give me a synonym for trodden. It's an unusual

word. >> Um. >> Probably is a word. >> Mm-hm. >> Related to trod. >> Using this context well. >> What's that? >> It's

kind of unusual use in this context. >> Yeah. But, what does it mean? Somebody provide a

synonym. Dave? >> Stand up. >> Stand up. >> Stop them. >> Stop them, trodden.

Trodden out is the near logism here. The invented thing is the [unknown] trodden out.

I'm not sure that anybody's ever used that until now, trodden out. And, so, are you

ready Max for Mills? You know, tell us about Mills. >> Well a mill here, ah, a

mill that would be um, sitting along a river or a creek. It would harness the energy of the

water, of the current. >> Oh, so mill produces power. >> The mill produces power to make [inaudible] or

various. >> Other than a mill that derives it's power from water, is there any other

kind of mill? >> The windmill. >> Windmill. >> Absolutely. >> So, this is not a windmill,

this is not, this is New England of the 19th century where mills are primary economic

structure. And where do we put mills? You started the sentence. >> Ah, along the river, a creek or, or a

body of water or a current. >> Cuz.. >> Because it harness the energy. >> How? >> By letting the, the current

turn the wheel. >> Current turns the wheel, wheel turns another wheel and what happens

is, you grind the grain. >> Mm-hm. >> Or you do, you produce some kind of energy prior to

electricity. So, you need mills to manufacture, need mills to be economically

what mill is, or was. >> Yes. >> Okay. But now, the mills have been trodden, trodden out. So, what's the state of

things? The mills are gone. >> Maybe iii to reconstruct [inaudible] now those turnpike exists. >> Sure. We always

rebuild. We rebuild. We rebuild New Orleans, arguably, the way it way even

though probably we should never built it there in the first place because there's

inevitably going to be, not only floats but second thoughts if I can out it that

way, according to this poem. But anyway, so, the entire basis, the entire structure, the entire business

plan and concept for New England has been trodden out and we're going to rebuild the mills.

Except, where are we going to put them? This is so profound. Where are we going to

put them? Anna? Molly? >> Add a new turnpike? >> Yeah. The only way you can do it is

move the mill to where the floods are now, where the water moves now. Do you think

that Emily Dickinson is skeptical about this? What? Ann Maris? >> Positive, maybe .

Skepticism because um, it's inevitable that others [inaudible] but that seems to reference that. >> I think

she's okay with that. I think she's okay with that. >> Yeah. >> She's okay with this destruction.

It's the destruction of a system that was based on the notion that you could build

something permanent next to something permanent and expect them to stay where it

is. But what's changing is the way the mind works. >> Well, it will even make it

more like a meta-poetic with it. >> We could go. We can do that. >> If we can go there, I

mean, if she's talking about the destruction of a system or destruction of

form, you can think about the way that she's actually constructed this poem which is in

two, four line stanzas. The rhyme is A, D, C, B in both stanzas. But, she's messing with it

because she's got this dashes and she's got this capitalization, so the form is there.

And if you take away the dash and take away the capitalization, it's actually relatively, I

mean, if you just, if you don't think about what it means, it's relatively traditional. But she's

uncertain with this capitalization, these dashes, and she's really messing with, she's kind of

destroying the form that so many people of her time still used. >> And if you were to

diagram the structure of the metaphors here, the conceits, they would go off the

end. >> Mm-hm. >> They would, they never circle back. They never form a completion. In fact, but,

as Alison is saying since the whole poem off the side, and then the comparison that

it would be easier for you to do all the rest of this. To, to train the floods that

slit the hills, scoop the turnpike for themselves and knock down the whole

economic structure of my native land. What would be more powerful than that, this is

only a comparison. What would be more powerful than that is, or more difficult

is to try and put the brain back to thinking the way it used to think. This is

about unconventional thinking. This is about being open to ah, something

unpredictable. >> poets aren't going to think the same way after, harder than Walt.. >> Right, you're really being

meta-poetic. >> [laugh] >> In thinking about this poem, is predictive of the kind of

influence. She's unleashing a flood. And it's the flood of a mind that goes where

it wants to go and of a poem that allows itself to go where the form is going to

take it even if it violates conventions of conceits, of consistent conceits. It's

going to go anywhere it wants to. This is about letting the mind go where it

wants to, within form. Alright, so let's think together a little bit about

the implications of this. This is very powerful. >> Ann Maris, your thought on this? What, what's,

I'm obviously excited about this, I think it's very powerful, do you agree? >> Um, yes. I

think it embodies the, that paradox dazzling gradually that we talked about in previous

poem. Um, sort of it [unknown] this idea of partial truths in succession. And, it's up to the

reader to find this new turnpike for him or herself. Um, it's my general take away. >> Good. Any other thoughts on

this? Why do you like this, Dave? >> I think she's saying, be open to new ideas. Always

be submissive to new ideas and let them take you where they may. If you try to

ignore it, it might do damage to [inaudible]. >> Max? And, and, and if there's, I think it's Anna was suggesting there are still some,

some structure that remains. It's still, it's still a house house of possibility when it's this, built. It

has rooms even though it's, it's an expensive one, it still contain [inaudible]. >> The [unknown] , it's an

impossible one that's to, it's impossible but it's about possibility. It's very hard

to conceive of the actuality of these conceits all added together, particularly

here. I conceit, I see a train slowly swirling off it's tracks, the tracks

disappear. Now, we have a flood, we've got a new direction, a new A and B. And

then, we've destroyed the, in the box thinking that allow us to harness power.

The, this is like a classic Dickensonian notion that the most powerful thing we

have is the brain. It's more powerful even than water. Much later in the course, on

Chapter 2, we're going to be looking about a Tender Buttons poem by Gertrude Stein which is about

water. And she plays with the same, kind of unpredictability of water and water

becomes the metaphor for improvisation. You know, I teach this poem to business people. And it

takes a long time, it takes about 50 minutes and we get to the end. And what

they say on their terms is, this is about out of the box thinking. This is, one of

them said recently, this is about how a 1960, the railroads were doomed because

they thought they were in the railroad business where in fact, they're in the

transportation business, that's a cliche about business plans, about thinking about where

to put your mills. And if you put your mills thinking that that mills will always have to

be by water, then you're going to be out of business, when the floods come. What Emily

is saying is that, out of the box thinking require us a form that allows the brain to

go where it's going to go and to unleash the power of the brain and there is no

equivalent to the mill. The mill would have to be the traditional poem, the form

of the traditional poem that gets run over by the brain. So, she's pre-modern or

proto-modern in the sense that she's working with the stanza, and she's pushing

as hard as she can at the edges of it and exploding the notion of consistent conceit,

and allowing her to do what she wants right at the edge of destroying the whole

thing. So, when we get to modernism in Chapter 2 of the course, the modernist

want to make it new. They want to blow it all up, they want to start again. They

don't want to touch the song, they want to get out of the form, the traditional form

business. This seems to be in a way the Genesis of all that. >> Pretty Whitmanian. >> [laugh] >> [laugh] >> You have

to get a Whitmanian final word. >> I did it. >> [laugh] Good. Good for you.

Explore nosso catálogo

Registre-se gratuitamente e obtenha recomendações, atualizações e ofertas personalizadas.

O Coursera proporciona acesso universal à melhor educação do mundo fazendo parcerias com as melhores universidades e organizações para oferecer cursos on-line.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Todos os direitos reservados.

Baixar na App Store

Baixar no Google Play