In relation to Elisabeth Bishop’s poems and subjectivity
Bishop breaks the narratives of both the poems “The Fish”
and “One Art” to disrupt the presence of the speaker and through this explores
an innovative way of elaboration on the question ‘what does “Me” mean.’ Despite
being restrained by the surrounding world and intrinsically subject to
language, Bishop arranges these literary pieces in a way to situate the “I” in
between the subject and object through discarding the direct depiction of herself
and her emotions. This essay discusses the mentioned poems in relation to “Me”,
and posits that literature and its “other way of thinking” shows how persons
are subjected to influential factors such as nature and social.
Every person’s query about the “Me” is a complex idea because by
thinking about “Me” a person becomes subject to his or her own query. This is a longstanding question and has been discussed
in various disciplines, particularly in philosophy. Citing from Socrates who
has once observed, ‘[t]he unexamined life is not worth living’, Bennett and
Royle assert that the question about “Me” which is presumably limited to humans,
also defines ‘human being’ in the way it has formed and articulated (151). The significance of this interpretation is
that it underlines the importance of the ways in which the question about “Me” is
articulated not merely the question itself. In this respect, whatever knowledge
which provides more possibilities in representing this question broadly and distinctively
should be considered more valid and critical. According to Bennett and Royle
the question about “Me” is “characteristically human” (151), therefore, it should
be presented in the literature, which reflects humanity more than any other fields
of wisdom. Literature differs from
science and philosophy in that literature is not bounded to mere pieces of
evidence such as science, and not limited to specific disciplines of discourse like
philosophy. Literature is full of the complexity of human life and provides
with an immediacy of acquaintances which are broad, diverse, and unique as
human beings. For that literature allows us to say anything. The poem “One
Art” aligns a few instances of living experiences in which the existence of
the “I” is being examined by the continuation of the very first act of human
beings which is “losing”. In fact, we start losing something from the foremost
second we come into this world which is that second of time and this act of
losing stretches out in the entirety of our life. In Bishop’s point of view
“Me” is the disastrous perpetuation of losing things such as “key”, “rivers”,
“names”, “cities” and even “a continent”, so it “isn’t hard to master” (178)
because it is inevitably the fate of every human being. Bishop establishes a provocative articulation
about the query of “Me” and reflects upon identity by the very wisdom of
humanity which is literature.
Every human being is under the influences of either external or
internal forces which limit our autonomy and affect the ways in which we
perceive the “I” or “Me”. However, a human cannot step out of these forces
entirely. Everyone, to some extent, possesses the capabilities to resist a
complete subjection. The instance of sailing delivered in the lecture
(11/05/2017) is a clear example of this idea given the fact that the sailor is
always subject to the wind but he or she has the choice of manipulating the
wind and turning its force into positive power for proper manoeuvre and
navigation. The influential forces vary from natural forces such as gravity to
social factors. Though it also has roots deep in our own self-knowledge as it
is quoted in Bennett and Royle’s work, the poststructuralist philosopher
Foucault defines the subject as “tied to one’s own identity by a conscience or
self-knowledge” (151). However, by the late eighteenth century, human
subjectivity had undergone a fundamental change, which was reflected in “European
Romanticism in particular through the ‘new emphasis on ‘I’ as a subject who
both thinks and feels” (156). The
concurrent characterisation of both thinking and feeling implies a tendency
towards a balanced state of being in relation to nature. Since feeling is the
process in which human beings grasp external effects and subsequently holds
a passive position, on the contrary, humans actively oppose effects through thinking. Therefore, the main characteristic of the
romanticism approach towards subjectivity was the state of “fusion” between
subject and object. According to Bennett and Royle “[t]he (impossible) desire
for a fusion […] is one of the most striking characteristics of the work of the
English romantic poets” (156). This characteristic has been practiced and
developed in the mentioned poems by Bishop.
In “The Fish”, there are several stanzas that involve senses: “while
his gills were breathing in the terrible oxygen” (50). “rainbow, rainbow,
rainbow!” (50) All senses are directed towards a climax in which the speaker
overcomes the inevitability of being either subject or object because what he/she
fells are only a sudden epiphany through encountering the rainbow at the floor
of the old rented boat.
Bishop employs suspense in both poems “The Fish” and “One
Art” through breaking the plot of the narratives. Both poems employ the
similar approach of descriptive narration which allows the images to follow one
another but the ending stanzas suddenly disrupt this smooth flow. In “The
Fish” “[a]nd I let the fish go.” (50), and in the “One Art” “though
it may look like (Write it!) like disaster.” (178) The speaker suddenly
steps off talking with the reader and starts telling his or herself. These
sudden halts are made possible through a deliberate intervention by the “I” on
the self, and because the speaker accosts his or herself the conventional
position of subject and object is being disrupted. On the one hand, the “I” has
brought in to commence a self-directed imperative and change the flat and
linear description of narrative. On the other, it brings the author’s position into
a “fusion” in relation to the literary work. It is possible that the author can
be considered, in Bennett and Royle’s words, “an ‘I’ before or outside the
literary work.” (155). This is the way in which Bishop manipulates the
influential factors and resists a complete subjection by stepping outside
herself and allowing a fusion between subject and object.
The position of the author may vary in relation to the act of thinking
about the “I” and differs from those of philosophers. A close reading of “The
Fish” indicates that the author is representing herself through the overall
issues that she has with herself; therefore, in this context “I” is the
concomitant result of being within nature and not merely “thinking”. In fact,
this poem entirely represents the confrontation of the author with herself
which subsequently diverts the positions of subject and object. The poem is
titled “The Fish” and all the story happens between these two major
events which are literally catching and then releasing the fish. From the very
first stanza which is “I caught a tremendous fish” (48) to the last one “I let
the fish go” (50), the “I” is quite different from that of Descartes. In Descartes’s view “I think therefore I am”
(153). This means that being is the inference of the act of thinking while in
this poem the being is practiced rather differently in which “I” is a reference
to a subject by the same subject because the whole poem disturbs the “I” with
him or herself. However, the story is centred around the fish, but it is
nothing more than a pretext. The first few stanzas provide a passive
description of the fish. “He didn’t fight. He hadn’t fought at all.” (49).
These two stanzas clearly indicate that the fish had come along to a complete
submission. Furthermore, the fish carries at least “five old pieces of
fish-line […] four […] wire leader […] five big hooks” (49). These are the
shreds of evidence that the fish has hooked several times so far. Therefore, it
does not make a difference for it to be released or not. In fact, for the fish,
the fight is over and whatever is going on entirely relates to the speaker
alone. This is the position of the poet who has an issue with herself and thus
explores the other ways of representing the “I”.
In conclusion, the question about “Me” has been a fundamental query
throughout the times. However, rather than the question itself, the ways in
which it has been explored appear to be more critical. The human
characterisation of being able to think and feel has provided us with a choice
in how to play around the different influential forces and therefore resist a
complete subjection. Literature as a way of thinking has provided Bishop with
the means to explore innovative representations of “Me” and develop the state
of “fusion” between subject and object.
References:
Bennett, Andrew, and Nicholas Royle. An
Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory, edited by Andrew Bennett,
and Nicholas Royle, Taylor and Francis, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=4429796.
Bishop, Elizabeth. “One Art.” Complete Poems, London: Chatto & Windus, (1970). 178. Print.
Bishop, Elizabeth. “The Fish.” Complete Poems, London: Chatto & Windus, (1970). 48-50. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment