02.02:015
|
Richard Zola paints the power of imagination through interesting structure. The poem defines a branch and the second line continues from the title which subliminally precedes "and"; upon concluding the definition, we learn none of it exists - the 'branch is empty' - and closure reopens the poem to a second reading. How ican an empty branch include all this? The apparent "sentence" structure is without punctuation: through imagination, what is not on the branch remains perpetual as does the "painted mouth" and other objects in the poem are imagined (and, as a poem, imagined perpetually). Poem copyright & all rights retained by the poet. Site design © 2001 by PoetryRepairShop & www.poetryrepairs.com (All Rights Reserved). |
![]() |
Poets Parts 02.02 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 |
02.02:015TOP |
What Richar Zola's branch accomplishes (above poem) Peggy Meeks-King accomplishes by "personalizing" the poem: a discussion between "he" and "me" who, like the branch, exist only as poem. Readers forget the rational fact : pronouns refer to things; so, someone must actually be referred to, else the pronouns are empty, meaningless. Zola plants objects on the branch; Meeks-King objectifies these pronouns and the reader creates with imaginative power (we all have it). To know that poets' objects are not real takes nothing away from a poem. The relationship of reader to text is the relationship of Alice in Wonderland to the Cheshire cat. Text disappears (reality, its branch, remains) and the reader retains the pleasure of having read (the Cheshire Cat's smile). The reader must then ascertain what is real, what is true. Poem copyright & all rights retained by the poet. |
![]() |
Poets Parts 02.02 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024 TOP |