"What is in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet."
But in poetry and literature in general, a title is necessary. The power to pull someone into a work lies within the title. It's descriptive and explanatory, and the mere absence of a title makes a statement. So why is "Geography III" so important? I started thinking about this question, and I thought "okay, well there seems to be some sort of geographical reference in all of the poems compiled." Bishop wrote about physical demographics and locations often in the poetry we were assigned to read. So the "Geography" part I get, but why "III?" I even looked up her works online to make sure that I and II were missing. They are. There's not even three poems assembled. Maybe she favored the number III, or maybe she was just crazy. I'll never know for sure.
Her epigraph starts with lesson 6 and 10 in "Fist Lessons in Geography." It briefly describes the basics of geography and maps. I'm taking a total stab in the dark here by saying that she might have chosen this, because the very last paragraph, the one that sticks out to me the most, is just a series of questions. Direction is completely relative, and maybe she felt like a speck on the map in comparison to the volcano or the western side of the world.
In my opinion, the collection of poems made sense: how it was grouped together and the sequence of the writings. However, the content didn't leave me wanting more. If I never read another Elizabeth Bishop poem in my life, I would not lose an ounce of sleep over it. There were many times that I could stop in the middle of a poem and not be bothered by the questions "What happened?" or "what's next?" I actually felt that at points in the collection, Bishop dragged me into a drug inspired world. Because of this, I wasn't too keen on Bishop. I didn't really connect with her writings or the author herself. It's not that I don't like poetry in general, I just don't like this kind of poetry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is a very interesting thought to ponder of why she did not produce a Geography I or II before publishing Geography III. (Though personally, I think crazy does sound like a good excuse.)
ReplyDeleteTake for consideration the fact that she only included lessons 9 and 10 in her epigraph. Surely she would not have wanted to included lessons 1-8, but what about those lessons? Perhaps they are a clue. Maybe Geography I and II were once hiding under her bed (lost forever now, surely) but she deemed them less important and therefore skipped over them. She skipped lessons 1-8 so why not the first two as well?
It saddens me ever so slightly that you did not enjoy her poems at least on some level. But everyone has their own opinions and I’m sure you have other favored poets who are far superior to Bishop. (And perhaps not so trippy.)
I completely agree with you about not losing sleep if I never read another Bishop poem. She was a little, let us just say: odd. Her poetry was nice but it was long winded and she did not inspire me with anything but the images of volcanoes in "Crusoe". I would not even say she inspired much of that because it mostly made me want to watch Lilo and Stitch again because in my head I live in the warm climate of Hawaii. It is hard to become invested and interested in a writer that does not connect to you on a personal level. That is my theory on why most people do not like to read, it is because they do not look hard enough or find something that speaks to them on that purely raw level that only writing can do.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of the title is really in depth and I liked the fact that you went out of your way to prove your point. I had not given much thought to the III in the title but if I had to venture a guess I would assume she is most likely crazy. If you need a reason see that she cited a moose as a stability for her. weird, weird, woman. I did like the part of the epigraph with the questions. They made my mind wonder to all the places I wish to see in my life time but other than that I will claim no inspiration from her. which is sad because Bishop did not even write that epigraph.
Yes…Why the III? Like you, I get the “Geography” part (or I assume I do) as being a reference to the scenes she paints in almost all of her poems, but the III remains a mystery. I’m with you- she just liked the number and threw it in there to make everyone overanalyze it to death…just like a poet.
ReplyDeleteThis collection did not exactly leave me begging for more, either. Like you said, I can see how things were grouped together, and I can even appreciate her simplistic style of writing, but overall, I was not impressed with her. Yes, she used simple language, but it seemed to me that she OVER-used it. She went on and on, and I must admit, I found myself bored and struggling to get to the end, half the time. That probably has to do with the fact that I do not particularly like poetry, or at least the poetry we’ve looked at in this class so far, more than anything else. I never seem to translate it right, even though, technically there are no “wrong” translations. I actually think that’s what makes me the most annoyed- anybody can say that a poem is about whatever they want it to be about and everybody’s right. It’s above me, I suppose.
"What is in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet." Great Quote! Probably like you, I did not think much about the title upon first glance. There is nothing special about it when judging this book by its cover. Like you, though, I made the connection between the title and the poetry by searching for geographical references. Also like you, I found those in each poem—albeit some had more than others. Once I made that connection, I asked myself, “Okay, now that I have pointed out the obvious, what does this title really mean?” I came up with about as much as you did: why did Bishop use III? I have no idea. I also took a stab in the dark.
ReplyDeleteI think our ideas are similar for the reason she included the geography lesson at the beginning. You said you think that Bishop felt position was all relative and that she compared herself to volcanoes and or maps. I said that I thought she was taking note of her surroundings and trying to identify the importance of them in relation to her. With all the open ended questions she left us, I think it is great to say that she too was searching for answers.
Unlike you this poetry grew on me as we studied it more in depth. Initially I had feelings of disorientation mid-reading and lack of concern about happenings in the poem, but as I read more I started to ask those questions and that was what made the work more enjoyable.