As I was looking ahead at the next few poems that we will soon discuss in class, a great idea struck me. Two of these works, Yusef Komunyakaa's "Facing it" and Billy Collins' "The Names", seem to form a connection with S.I. Hayakawa's research on semantics. I am surprised as to why I did not see the connection upon my initial analysis of the poems.
Yusef Komunyakaa served in the Vietnam War and acquired a taste for writing upon his return to the United States. He published a book of poems about his experience in Vietnam (Dien Cai Dau), ending with the poem "Facing It", included in this chapter of our Literature for Composition book. In this piece of writing, Komunyakaa agonizes over the 58,022 names etched into the black granite of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial located in Washington, D.C. He looks at the name of a former comrade and forms a connection between a word and a painful memory. To him, the name represents something more than a name; it is an emotion, an irreversible event. He feels that the symbolized (the dead) is inseparable from its symbol (the names).
I touch the name Andrew Johnson;
I see the booby trap's white flash.
(Komunyakaa, Lines 17-18)
Billy Collins was inspired to write "The Names" on the first anniversary of the destruction of the Twin Towers (September 11, 2002). He progresses throughout the poem, giving names of victims, mentioning one for each letter of the alphabet. To the author, the symbolized, or owner of the name, no longer exists, yet the symbol remains, ready to keep the memory of the deceased alive. Does he not believe, then, that the symbol and symbolized are not a single entity, that they may be separated?
(let X stand, if it can, for the ones unfound)
[Collins, Line 42]
Here, the "X" is nothing more than a symbol of what had once existed.
Thus, I have drawn the conclusion that Yusek Komunyakaa would disagree thoroughly with Hayakawa's views of the symbol vs. the symbolized. On the other hand, however, it seems as if Billy Collins would heartily agree. These are merely my perceptions.
I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving!
(Samantha Maliha)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think that one element that's missing is the context of Hayakawa's statement. His assertion that the symbol is not the symbolized is with respect to the initial state of the two. Thus, while they are definitively separate entities a relationship can be formed between the two over time.
When you say that "To him, the name represents something more than a name; it is an emotion...", you're progressing from merely recognizing that relationship to stating that they are one and the same. Though I'm not familiar with the work of Komunyakaa, I feel as if he doesn't really make that jump. By forming the connection between his own memories and the words upon the memorial, he is forming (And recognizing the existence of) relationships between the symbolized and the symbol. They are still separate, but related, entities. The same goes for Collins' "The Names".
I guess I wouldn't really say that any of them would really "whole-heartedly" disagree with the other. There's always room for different perceptions, right? After all, Hayakawa addresses the initial state of symbols while Collins and Komunyakaa seem to tend towards the role of symbols later in existence, after relationships have been formed. None of them necessarily have to be mutually exclusive entities.
Aw man, you're right! I always regret my word choices; they infer absolutes when I don't voluntarily mean for meanings like that to be understood by the audience. I apologize.
You're right in that nothing has to be mutually exclusive, yet I still do feel that the approach to symbol vs. the symbolized varies between Komunyakaa and Collins. Can we really shy away from the idea that one sees the names as something more than a name, while the other simply uses the name as a tool of identification? I just feel that there is a significance present that shouldn't be overlooked.
(Sam Maliha)
I think one of the key differences between the two poems is that it seems Komunyakaa has an emotional connection to the names and a memory attached. He is looking from his own perspective and expressing his own emotion. On the other hand, I think Collins is, maybe, looking from the perspective of people (in general) that don't necessarily have a personal/emotional connection to the many names. I don't think that Collins is saying that names are insignificant, though. I think his point is that there are so many names that people have a tendency to minimize the significance of the human being attached to the name: "So many names, there is barely room on the walls of the heart." (Collins, line 54.) Thoughts?
Emily T.
Hmm, you have a point there. Yet still, because there are so many names, they seem to hold less signifigance, don't you think? They are symbols of what once existed. If Collins knew any of the victims of the September 11th tragedy, this argument could easily work conversely.
I do believe, however, that because Komunyakaa shared close ties with several owners of the names on the Veterans Memorial, the names of each of the deceased hold a greater meaning for him. He easily connects the name with an event or an emotion. We, as the audience, can't predict whether the same applies to Collins, yet he chose to write his poem as more of a stranger than a fellow soldier.
(Sam Maliha)
Post a Comment