»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #2
»
Echolalia
| Critical Analysis #2 |
|
Echolalia |
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA 
|
Echolalia Sometimes a wayward tongue should just be aloud to pound on the closest trap set around, to hammer anvils in the foyer, to lift up heels in fetal stirrups for a full cadence. Then a fade to deliver the tiny snail inside from mistaking a short fleshy canal for the echo of a wide salt basin. |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Stephen Douglas Jones - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Stephan Well, I've been mulling this over for several weeks now and I don't believe I'm much further forward than when I began. Medical terms always involve a bit of research for me, and Wikipedia did the business as usual. So the title sets us on a journey of repetition (there was lots of stuff about connections with autism and other medical hoo ha - but frankly if a poem delves deeper than surface in this area, then I'm lost). All the ear allusion was well conceived and cleverly interwoven with childbirth - especially "fetal stirrups", canals and salt etc - not to mention the use of the various images conjured up by the shape of the ear and a foetus with the word "snail". Like I say, all very clever. I struggled a bit with "closest trap" and eventually could only think that this might be a play on the slang for mouth but also the literal trap as in ambush. Having floundered for a while with all this double meaning stuff and interweaving swirling around in my head I finally decided to pin my colours to the word "wayward" and go for the idea of "gossip" - i.e the harmful repeating of slander and lies. This would seems to imply the whole childbirth thing as purely metaphoric, an interpretation I'm not entirely happy with. Yet an actual unwanted birth as a result of something maliciously repeated sounds too ham-fisted. So there I am, still floundering. Oh, I thought that the wordplay on "aloud" was a bit tacky. But all in all an enticing little puzzle. Thanks. M |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I will give you some clues for a better reading perhaps. Think "Trap Set", rather than "closest trap". And "anvils" and "stirrups" are anatomical terms, as well as the snail and the "short fleshy canal" relating to the same. Thanks for letting me know what seems tacky. If so, that can be altered. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Like I said Stephan I "got" ALL the ear terminology, being reasonably familiar with the workings of the inner ear from high school biology. I will think on what you said about the trap. Is there such a thing as a "better" reading? M |
||
|
Gabe Junior Member
since 2008-08-05
Posts 17 |
Stephanos, quote: Quite the puzzle you've written here. It seems to be about gossip, or maybe laying a trap for the gossip. The "tiny snail" is the tongue and the "short fleshy canal" the mouth. I could follow you in the beginning and then after reading the last part and looking up "Echolalia," got the last part, but the middle thoughts seemed a little disjointed. If I can offer you any advice (and take this as it is - the advice of an amateur), I'd suggest you find a subtle way to make the message in the middle a little more clear. G |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
A word in your shell like? Trap set = drum(s) |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
I agree with Gabe - je suis still totally flummoxed in my usual dizzy Tuesday evening supper burning kids screaming ironing not done, way. M |
||
|
MOCindy Member
since 2008-07-30
Posts 73 |
Sometimes a wayward tongue should just be aloud to pound ........ for a full cadence. Talk, talk, talk. Then a fade what is the fade? to deliver the tiny snail inside words from mistaking a short fleshy canal human for the echo of a wide salt basin. Biblical meaning of useful, to bring harmony, nurturing, etc (salt). my guessing read C |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Humm. But what about the "trap set"? Oh, I just read Grinch above, how did I miss that. Drums = Trap set?? I think I must be getting tired. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam: quote: Yes. All "readings" or interpretations have validity, but I think some are better than others for various reasons. For those who are interested, the tiny snail reference was also about the anatomy of the ear. The word cochlea is derived from a word meaning "snail". MOCindy, In simplest terms a "fade" is silence, and in this case, from self exhaustion rather than interference. And I do commend your "listening" skills, though this is a bit obscure.  Stephen |
||
|
MOCindy Member
since 2008-07-30
Posts 73 |
quote: Bony or membrane it is the physical base of sense of hearing. In your poem, I thought that you had meant that whatever people heard. Wild salt basin...does this hint the story of Lot? C |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
MOcindy, The allusion to salt (in biblical terms) is certainly there, but it is closer to the positive references about salt than Lot's poor wife. Music is certainly one image I used. As well as birth, and listening to shells. All in all it is about how prattling words reflect what is (or is not) inside. It is also about what is sometimes the best reaction to them. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: So when I said: ""wayward" and go for the idea of "gossip" - i.e the harmful repeating of slander and lies" I wasn't a million miles away from the "prattling words"? Still, your explanation helps to explain why I was having a problem with interpretation I think. This is one of those poems where the title bears the reponsibility of providing a key to what is going on. "Echolalia" as I understand it is the repetition of sounds made by another - an "echo" therefore of another person's vocalisations. I can see where you are coming from with the word "reflect", as in an echo reflecting, but for me using the term echolalia in the context of an analogy of gossip reflecting somebody's inner character doesn't quite work. It works better as a portrayal of "reaction" (i.e. what you say is the other element of the poem), but not as an echo of what is inside. After all in this specific medical condition the sounds are articulated by one being i.e. externalized, and then mirrored by another separate being. Even if you stretch it and accept a person's external persona as one entity and the same person's inner persona as another entity it doesn't work so well, as the external person is really merely giving expression to the internal person. I suppose what I'm saying is that I'm struggling with the concept of someone echoing themselves, the idea of someone echoing their own thoughts is odd. The phrase "she echoed his thoughts" is common and fits with the idea that an echo normally requires a third party or thing, be it another person or a cliff face. Anyway, for what it's worth, I guess that's why I was having problems. quote: You mean, as in "some animals are more equal than others" !  M |
||
|
MOCindy Member
since 2008-07-30
Posts 73 |
or: sometimes, We have to allow us to hear loud, loud earthly sound. Then the quietness after that will let us know that they were merely human voice, not God words. Is this the "better" reading? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Moonbeam, Hearing one's own echo is quite easy if the acoustics are just right. But your Gossip perspective would certainly be included in what I called "prattling". Though I may differ from you in one respect about Gossip, since I'm pretty sure that repeating Gossip can also be a reflection of one's own character. Taking pleasure in the defamation of other people doesn't always hold the innocence of detached parroting. The animals analogy is not quite close, since I don't think any animal is necessarily "better" than another, but intentionally different (metaphysically speaking), and subsequently treated differently. Also animals are not a reflection of some more objective reality, the way an "interpretation" or "reading" may be. Try thinking "book report". Some are better than others. I appreciate your commentary on this poem, and I'll give what you say more thought. How it would translate into better poetry I'm not sure yet. Though I'm not sure the poem is exactly as I want it to be. MOCindy, I think that is a very good reading. Hopefully the poem conveys the thought of self correction after silence gives way to reflection. Stephen |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Stephen I'm with you totally on the gossip/prattling point. I guess I was agreeing that repeating of gossip can be a reflection of character. It was the actual choice of Echolalia as the title that I was questioning. It started me looking down a slightly different track to that you intended I think. But then in view of what I write below, I wonder if that matters. I think it does, if my own interpretation doesn't satisfy me. But then that's why we make our honest assessments in CA isn't it? As for the animals thing. I was being semi-frivolous. Your comment about "better" interpretations reminded me of the famous quote from George Orwell's "Animal Farm", the novel which satirises Russian communism. I suppose there is a serious point though, The animals' (specifically the pigs) attempts to level the farmyard denizens to a common denominator (as communism attempted to do), is doomed to failure, in the same way as one might argue that a poet who sends his poem out into the world and then attempts to impose his own single interpretation on it would equally fail. A poem imo has a life and character of its own, just as every individual being (animal and human) does. And more complexly, just as a living entity Z behaves differently in its interaction with other living entity A as opposed to B, so a poem will produce a different reaction in person A as opposed to B. The writer may be entitled to say that A's interpretation is "better" than B's, but whether the writer's articulated opinion should be given any greater weight that B's is a moot point I think. He releases the poem, just as a store keeper releases a bagel. If the buyer of that bagel then eats it with strawberry jam as opposed to raspberry, is the store keeper entitled to say: "Oi, zat's MY bagel, I made it, you vill eat eet wiz razperry jams or not at all"? Now I've made myself hungry! M PS Oh my goodness! Please tell me you're not comparing a poem with a book review!! ....................................... Later thoughts: On further reflection one of my favourite passages in the Bible sheds further possibilities on this: I Kings 19:11-12 11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: 12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. And also: John 3:1-8 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The play on "deliver" as in either "rescue from" (sin and materiality) or as in "birth" (into spiritual understanding) also slots in here nicely. There's still something not quite working for me though. It's kind of frustrating not being able to nail it. M |
||
|
MOCindy Member
since 2008-07-30
Posts 73 |
Moonbeam is very right on this poem reading. I totally agree with him. So, Stephen, you have made the good bagel. We certainly can bake it into bagel-chips and enjoy greatly of it, right? No matter what, we'll say, good bagel!! Are you bothered by readers' different interpretation of your poem? Then, where came the "better" reading? Do you mean that one's reading is more close to your original intention? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Seeing as I am not at all clear yet what my "reading" of this poem is, I am not quite sure what precisely you are agreeing with MOC. |
||
|
BROTHER JOHN Member
since 2006-04-06
Posts 386 |
Dear Stephnos, Your poem has created alot of response. Your poem is a riddle. You did alot of research on this. I have learned from the comments on it. I, too, live in Georgia. I live south of Covington. BJ |
||
|
MOCindy Member
since 2008-07-30
Posts 73 |
quote: A poem is allowed to have different interpretations without the agreement of the author. Or you have not got it after Stephen clearlessly explained it? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: I don't think Stephen clearlessly explained it all, if by that you mean that he clearly explained it. And whether he did or didn't is somewhat moot as I just spent some time in my post above making precisely that point, using the shopkeeper and the bagels as an example (which you clearly read but did not "get"), I find it difficult to understand how you reach the conclusion that I do not get it. But just to be clear, I haven't formed a set opinion on what this poem means, perhaps I never will. That happens sometimes. |
||
|
MOCindy Member
since 2008-07-30
Posts 73 |
Dear Moonbeam, I understand what you said. I was thinking about this poem after my last post. Poet might just write down his instant feelings but I was trying too much to get a significant meaning out of it. C |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
