How to Read a Poem

by Terry Eagleton

Lucid, entertaining and full of insight, How To Read A Poem is designed to banish the intimidation that too often attends the subject of poetry, and in doing so to bring it into the personal possession of the students and the general reader.


Offers a detailed examination of poetic form and its relation to content.

Takes a wide range of poems from the Renaissance to the present day and submits them to brilliantly illuminating closes analysis.

Discusses the work of major poets, including John Milton, Alexander Pope, John Keats, Christina Rossetti, Emily Dickinson, W.B. Yeats, Robert Frost, W.H.Auden, Seamus Heaney, Derek Mahon, and many more.

Includes a helpful glossary of poetic terms.

Genres: Poetry, Nonfiction, Literary Criticism, Criticism, Literature, Literary Fiction, Reference

192 pages, Paperback

First published October 20, 2006

About the author

Widely regarded as England's most influential living literary critic & theorist, Dr. Eagleton currently serves as Distinguished Professor of English Literature at the University of Lancaster and as Visiting Professor at the National University of Ireland, Galway. He was Thomas Warton Prof. of English Literature at the University of Oxford ('92-01) & John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester 'til '08. He returned to the University of Notre Dame in the Autumn '09 semester as Distinguished Visitor in the English Department.

He's written over 40 books, including Literary Theory: An Introduction ('83); The Ideology of the Aesthetic ('90) & The Illusions of Postmodernism ('96).
He delivered Yale's '08 Terry Lectures and gave a Gifford Lecture in 3/10, titled The God Debate.

Reviews

[Gabriel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me ha encantado definitivamente. Que mira que no soy de leer poemas y aún así con este señor me ha dado ganas de ponerme a la tarea. Me estoy replanteando seriamente eso de que la poesía y yo no podemos ser amigos con este libro.

[Mohammad Ranjbari · Rating 5 out of 5]

تری ایگلتون، دراغلب آثار خود این نکته را به اثبات رسانده است که اکتفا به یک متن (اعم از شعر و نثر) در یک قالبِ تعریف شده و یقینی، موجبات کژاندیشی و یا محروم ماندن از حقیقت را مهیا می‌کند. «چگونه شعر بخوانیم» در واقع کتابی‌ست راهنما بر این حقیقت که: «چگونه به ارتباط شعر با فرهنگ پی ببریم و بر اساس این کلیت به خوانش شعر بپردازیم».

برای رسیدن به این منظور، چند راهکار و چند مؤلفه وجود دارد. «...زبان پلی‌ست که این دو را به هم وصل می‌کند. زبان رسانه‌ای‌ست که در آن فرهنگ و مقولات فرهنگی -صناعات ادبی و جامعۀ بشری- به خودآگاهی می‌رسند؛ در نتیجه، نقد ادبی گونه‌ای حساسیت نسبت به غلظت و پیچیدگی رسانه‌ای‌ست که موجودیت ما را رقم می‌زند. نقد ادبی فقط با پرداختن به موضوع خاص خود می‌تواند به نحوی ریشه‌ای در سرنوشت فرهنگ به مثابۀ یک کلیت دخیل شود.» (29) در تاریخ ادبیات و جریان غالب نقد ادبی خود ما در سدۀ اخیر، این عامل همیشه نادیده گرفته شده است. در شروع قرن و با ظهور نشریات و جریان‌ها، ادبیات پابه‌پای فرهنگ پیش رفت و منجر به پیدایش بارزترین تجددهای ادبی شد. اگر کلیت فرهنگ و اجتماع، بر اندیشه و اندیشۀ حاکم در چارچوب ادبیات غلبه نداشت، این دورۀ ادبی نمی‌توانست آن‌چنان پربار باشد. برخلاف این دوره، می‌توان ادبیات بعد از انقلاب را مثال زد. فرهنگِ گسیخته و فرمایشی‌شده، نتوانست سایۀ خود را بر سر ادبیات نگاه دارد. این سخن را به نوعی دیگر هیلیس میلر، در «پیرامون ادبیات» بازگفته است: «ادبیات به مفهوم اول، یعنی در مقام یک نهاد فرهنگی، عبارت است از شکل خاصی از ادبیات به مفهوم دوم آن که مشروط به تاریخ است. ادبیات به مفهوم دوم آن عبارت است از قابلیت فراگیر شدن کلمات یا نشانه‌های دیگر برای درآمدن به صورت ادبیات، یا به صورتی که بتوان نام ادبیات بر آن نهاد.» (هیلیس میلر، 1384: 24)

ایگلتون، نگاه وسیعی به ادبیات و بیش‌تر از آن، به کارکرد ادبیات دارد. او ادبیات را در متن جامعه و از طریق نمودهای تولید شده (شعر) بررسی می‌کند. توافق بر سر آن‌چه آن را شعر می‌نامیم باید با احتیاط انجام بگیرد. او گریزی زیبا به مناسبات جهان مدرن می‌زند. «تاریخ» و «پیشینۀ ذهنی» در نزد خوانندۀ مدرنی که با شعر رو در رو می‌شود، از بین رفته یا تضعیف شده است. «در دنیای بینش‌های گذرا و وقایع آنی تاریخ مصرف‌دار، هیچ‌چیز آن‌قدر نمی‌پاید که ردی عمیق بر حافظه به‌جا بگذارد، ردی بر حافظه که تجربۀ اصیل نیازمند آن است.» (39). وقتی بر «تجربۀ» خواننده از شعر اتکاء کنیم، خواهیم دید که امر تجربه چیزی‌ست به دست‌آوردنی. چیزی حاضر که در انتظار تحت تصرف قرار گرفتن است.
ایگلتون، ابتدا به تحلیل و کالبدشکافی زندگی می‌پردازد، تا نخست، جای خالی ادبیات و شعر را آشکار سازد. زندگیِ محصور شده در «گفتار»های کلیشه شده و هدف‌دار. عصیان بر علیه این شرایط زبانی‌ست که نیاز به شعر را محسوس می‌کند. «دشواری انگشت‌نمای نوشتاری مثل شعر تا حد زیادی ناشی از مخالفت شعر با مصرفِ زیادی آسان و دم‌دستی بود. شعر، در عوض، ما را به درون چیزی پرتاب می‌کند که تی. اس. الیوت «درگیری طاقت‌فرسا با کلمات و معانی» می‌نامد. هایدگر این حالت را آفرینشِ شعر در زبان می‌نامد: «شعر، زبان را به عنوان کارمایۀ موجود به‌کار نمی‌گیرد، بلکه شعر، زبان را ممکن می‌سازد، پس باید گوهر زبان از گوهر شعر فهمیده شود.» (فلکی، 1378: 21)

یکی از تحلیل‌های برجستۀ ایگلتون مربوط به بخش فرمالیسم است. خود من به این حقیقت ساده توجه نکرده بودم که فرمالیسم در واقع جریانی رادیکال است. یک دید منفی نسبت به زبان و در ادبیات در کارکردهای عادی و روزمرۀ آن. {فرمالیسم} «گونه‌‌ای زیبایی‌شناسی منفی‌ست که شعر را نه با هیچ‌یک از خصوصیات مثبتی که می‌تواند نشان دهد، بلکه با تفاوت یا انحرافش از چیزی دیگر تعریف می‌کند. امر شاعرانه را چیزی تعیین می‌کند که در آن نشاطی برنمی‌انگیزد، یعنی وابسته به خود واقعیت ازخودبیگانه‌ای‌ست که در تقابل با آن قرار دارد. این نظریه... به این اشاره دارد که خلاقیت در هیچ بخشی از زبان و تجربۀ هر روزه یافتنی نیست؛ خلاقیت بیش‌تر در انحصار هرآن چیزی‌ست که در برابر زبان و تجربۀ روزمره مقاومت کند.» (88)

مباحث اختصاص‌یافته تا نیمۀ کتاب، مربوط به شناخت و ماهیت شعر است. ایگلتون سعی دارد تعاریفی از شعر ارائه بدهد که دامن آن را از بسیاری نظریات سلیقه‌ای غلط بپالاید. نظر او این است که شعر هرگز نمی‌تواند تجسد ببخشد و یا این‌که نمایندۀ شیئی باشد. «شعر در کشمکش تحمل‌ناپذیر خود با کلمات و مفاهیم، هیچ‌گاه نمی‌تواند حضور کامل تجسد را تحقق بخشد... زبان با جلب توجه ما به محدوده‌هایش، و در نتیجه به آن‌چه که از این محدوده‌ها فراتر می‌رود، می‌تواند حقیقت را به اشاره به ما بفهماند؛ یا می‌توان گفت، شعر با تعدیل خود می‌تواند بصیرتی منفی در باب حقیقت ارائه دهد؛ ولی در دنیایی گمراه شده، شعر نمی‌تواند به حقیقت تجسد ببخشد.» (101) «اگر کلمات «تبدیل» به چیزهایی شوند که بر آن‌ها دلالت می‌کنند، در کل به کلمه بودن خود خاتمه می‌دهند. کلمات در مادی‌ترین حالت خود، در درون اشیایی که قرار است به آن‌ها دلالت کنند، محو می‌شوند... «مغالطۀ تجسدی» به‌جای تحسین نیروی زبان، بی‌اعتمادی پنهان به آن را بازتاب می‌دهد. تنها وقتی کلمات دیگر خودشان نباشند و با مصداق‌هایشان یکی شوند می‌توانند حقیقتاً بیان‌گر باشند.» (102). منتقدی دیگر (کروچه) ماده را همان احساسات می‌داند: «هنر عبارت از تجلی ماده است در صورت (شهود) ماده، عبارت است از عواطف و احساسات.» (کروچه، 1393: مقدمه)

فصل چهار کتاب، بحثی بسیار مهم و ضروری را پیش می‌کشد. چگونه خواندن شعر با توجه به دو بُعد فرم و محتوا. ایگلتون با ذکر چند مؤلفه و چند نمونۀ شعرِ مناسب، به ارتباط و هم‌چنین ناسازگاری فرم و محتوا اشاره می‌کند. 1- معنای فرم، 2- تقابل فرم و محتوا، 3- فرم به مثابه محتوای متعالی، 4- شعر و اجرا، 5- دو نمونۀ آمریکایی: تحلیل شعر مشهور رابرت فراست «گذر به بیشه در غروبی برفی» و همچنین شعری از امیلی دیکنسون، بسیار زیبا و استادانه است. ایگلتون با ذکر عناصر فرمی، لحن، مضمون، تاثر و حالات بیانی این دو شعر، خوانشی درخشان از این شعر داشته است. (پیشنهاد می کنم علاقه‌مندان حتماً این دو شعر و تحلیل‌اش را بخوانند: صص 156- 164).
فصل پنجم، اصلی‌ترین بخش کتاب است با موضوع «چگونه شعر بخوانیم؟» مؤلف یازده عاملِ دخیل در خوانش شعر را مطرح می‌کند: 1- ذهنی بودن مقولۀ نقد 2- معنا و ذهنیت 3- لحن، فضای حسی و زیر و بم 4- شدت و گام 5- بافت 6- نحو، دستور زبان 7- ایهام 8- علائم سجاوندی 9- قافیه 10- ضرب‌آهنگ و وزن 11- تصویرپردازی.
با اندک تغییر و منطبق‌سازی، می‌توان چهارچوب نظری این کتاب را بر ادبیات فارسی نیز اِعمال نمود. مباحثی که برای خوانش شعر کلاسیک و از آن بیش‌تر برای شعر معاصر و جریان‌های مدرنِ ادبی، بسیار ضروری می‌نماید.

از متن:

«شاعران گاهی به‌طرز عجیبی دربارۀ معنای آثارشان کند ذهن‌اند. مثلاً ت.س.الیوت زمانی سرزمین هرز را نوعی غرغر موزون توصیف کرد، هرچند احتمالاً داشته ما را فریب می‌داده. این موضوع در عین حال به این خاطر است که وقتی زمانی از براونینگ دربارۀ معنی یکی از شعرهایش سؤال شد، جواب داد که در زمان نگارش آن شعر «خدا و رابرت براونینگ هردو می‌دانستند؛ حالا فقط خدا می‌داند!» (167)

1400/01/23


منابع:
فلکی، محمود (1378)، «سلوک شعر: نقد و تئوری شعر»، تهران، انتشارات محیط: چاپ اول
کروچه، بندتو (1393)، «کلیات زیباشناسی»، ترجمۀ فؤاد روحانی، تهران، انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی: چاپ دهم
هیلیس‌میلر، جوزف (1384)، «پیرامون ادبیات»، ترجمۀ علی‌اصغر بهرامی؛ تهران، نشر نی: چاپ اول

[Ali Ahmadi · Rating 4 out of 5]

شعر یک بیانیه‌ی اخلاقی تخیلی و نوآورانه‌ است که در آن به‌جای چاپگر یا واژه‌پرداز، این شاعر است که تصمیم می گیرد سطرها کجا به پایان برسند.

تعریف ایگلتون از شعر در فصل دوم، خلاقانه و ساختارشکن و در عین حال دقیق و دربرگیرنده است. او حرفی از وزن و قافیه نمی‌زند (که قرن‌هاست بسیاری از شعرها بی‌وزن و بی‌قافیه‌ اند). آهنگ، تصویرگری، نمادگرایی و دیگر آرایه‌های ادبی هم ملاک او نیستند (که این‌ها را در نثر پروست، وولف یا کنراد هم می‌بینیم). چیزی که می‌ماند همان محل پایان گرفتن هر سطر است که به نظر خواننده‌ای که با نثر خو گرفته چیزی دلبخواهی و تصادفی‌ست، اما در واقع مهارتی طریف است که مهم‌ترین تفاوت شعر و نثر را می‌سازد. البته نویسنده بعد‌تر منظورش را از اجزای دیگر تعریفش یعنی اخلاق، تخیل و نوآوری زبانی هم بیان می‌کند.

در فصول سه و چهار، دغدغه‌ی کتاب روشن کردن تفاوت فرم و محتواست. آیا آن‌طور که در دهه‌های اخیر و نقد نوی ادبی گفته می‌شود، این دو از اساس یکی هستند و هر تلاشی برای جدا کردن‌شان بیهوده یا خطرناک است؟ گرچه ایگلتون درهم‌تنیدگی این دو مفهوم را غیرقابل انکار می‌داند، اما از نظرش افراط در یکی دانستن‌شان هم خیانتی به شعر است. رشته‌ی افکارش را می‌توان اینطور خلاصه کرد: شعر قد علم کردن زبان است در مادی‌ترین شکلش، در برابر زبانی که تبدیل به ابزار شده و نامرئی. یا نوعی انقلاب دال در برابر مدلول. زبانِ ابزاری باید نامرئی باشد تا بتواند ورای خودش به پیام و هدفی اشاره کند. شعر یعنی همین زبان به خودش جسم و جانی بدهد تا دست‌وپاگیر شود و خودش را اولویت دیده شدن کند و نه پیام را. اما آیا این یعنی یکی شدن زبان و معنا؟ مثالش را با مصراعی معروف از منوچهری می‌زنم؛ «خیزید و خز آرید که هنگام خزان است.» بیشترمان از دوران مدرسه به خاطر داریم که واج‌آرایی خ و ز در این مصراع (و بیت) چطور در راستای تصویرسازی از فرود برگ‌های خشک پاییزی و رفتن‌شان به زیر پاست. گرچه فراوانی این مصوت‌ها تنها بخشی از فرم است، اما اگر برای ساده‌ شدن قضیه تصور کنیم که فرم شعر چیزی متفاوت از محتوایش نیست، یعنی گفته‌ایم «خ ز خ ز خ ز» چیزی ��یست جز همان برگ‌هایی که می‌ریزند و زیر پا خش‌خش می‌کنند. و این نوعی دیگر از برگشتن به همان زبان ابزاری نامرئی‌ست. فقط این بار به جای ساختار معنایی جمله، ساختار آوایی ماهیت انضمامی‌اش را از دست می‌دهد تا به چیزی ورای خودش اشاره کند و در همین حال است که زبان شعری دوباره نحیف و مخفی می‌شود.

ایگلتون برای توضیح مفهوم مدنظرش از یوری لوتمان کمک می‌گیرد. نشانه‌شناسیِ ساختارگرایانه‌ی لوتمان، متن (و شعر) را مجموعه‌ای از سیستم‌های آهنگی، وزنی، آوایی، معنایی و غیره می‌داند که همه در کنار هم فرم شعر را می‌سازند. این سیستم‌ها در تنشی دائمی با یکدیگرند. می‌توانند هم را تقویت کنند یا هر کدام به سمتی بروند و ساز خودشان را بزنند. و شعر خوب می‌تواند در هر کدام از این دو حالت (که در حقیقت دو سر یک طیف هستند) قرار بگیرد و نمایانگر جدالی از فرم و محتوا باشد. مثلن زمانی که شاعر طبیعت را به آهنگی آرام و با فراز و فرود‌های به‌جا توصیف می‌کند، اما کلماتی که انتخاب می‌کند هیچ شباهتی به کلمات یک شاعر آداب‌دان تحصیل‌کرده ندارند، بلکه زمخت و روستایی‌‌اند، یا آنکه میان هر چند سطرِ بلند با طولی مشابه، سطری کوتاه قرار دارد که ضربه‌ای ناگهانی به لحن پُرسکون شعر وارد می‌کند.

فصل پنج با سوالی کلیدی آغاز می‌شود: آیا نقد و معنا چیزهایی ذهنی و سابجکتیو نیستند؟ جواب نویسنده به عنوان یک نظریه‌پرداز و منتقد آکادمیک منفی‌ست، اما با توضیحات و تبصره‌هایی خواندنی. و بعد می‌رود سراغ مهم‌ترین اجزای شعر: لحن و فضا، شدت و سرعت، بافت، معنا، دستور زبان و علائم نگارشی، ابهام، قافیه، وزن و تصویر.

با این که تا اینجای کار هم مثال کم نبوده اما فصل آخر به طور کامل به خوانش چهار شعر با موضوع طبیعت، از چهار دوره‌ی ادبی متفاوت اختصاص دارد.

پ.ن.
فصل اول بحثی تئوریک‌ست در این باره که چرا نقد ادبی در دوران پسانظریه هنوز زنده است. و این که چطور می‌توان در نقد و خوانش دقیق، راهی برای پیوند زدن ساحت خصوصی و عمومی زندگی یافت. یا به عبارتی دیگر چطور می‌توان رتوریک — در معنای کلاسیک یونانی‌اش که هم دانش تحلیل متن بود و هم استفاده از آن برای اقناع و جدال یا انتقال پیام — را پس از قرن‌ها زنده کرد.

پ.پ‌.ن.
کتاب قبلی با وجود لحن خشک و آکادمیکش، باز هم مقدمه‌ای‌ خوب برای خواندن این کتاب بود. اما اینجا زبان ایگلتون تا حد خوبی دردسترس و همه‌فهم است و متن پر است از مثال‌هایی از زندگی روزمره و شوخی‌هایی ویژه‌ی خودش، و دامنه‌ی موضوعی گسترده‌تر از شعر و نظم.

[Alberto Villarreal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Esperaba una revelación que nunca llegó. Se vende como un libro que ayudará a entender la poesía para los que son grandes lectores y también para los que apenas se interesan en la poesía, pero no encuentro aquello que dice vender.

[Liam Guilar · Rating 1 out of 5]

When I first read this book I thought It was a parody along the lines of Frederick Crews' “The Pooh Perplex”. Read as parody it is an exhilarating, rollicking read and laugh aloud funny in places. How’s this for a parody of an over simplified reading:
“The speaker of the poem resorts to industrial imagery (Hammer, Chain, Furnace, Anvil) to express his sense of the formidable flourish of life”.

Or of a critic who knows he’s on dodgy ground ducking for cover:

“there is no particular rhyme or reason in the selection of these pieces, no obvious connections between them and no special significance in the fact that they are about nature. They simply provide convenient texts to scrutinize.”

Imagine the fun Eagleton could have at the expense of any writer he didn’t like who tried on that kind of argument.

So if this is parody, six stars: it’s brilliant.

If it’s meant to be taken seriously there should be some kind of negative rating. “How to Read a Poem” is a disappointing performance and I can only wonder what the editor and publisher were thinking when they published it. Talk about the author function at work.

Eagleton argues that the art of reading poetry is dead, for which he blames English teachers, and sets out to show his audience how to do it his way. He doesn't teach: he performs. The book has six chapters. No bibliography, no suggestions for further reading. This is itself is a major flaw, suggesting the author thinks the book is sufficient to itself. (Although there are numerous footnotes directing the reader to other works by Eagleton. And to "Seven types of Ambiguity", of which some parts of the book are an acknowledged summary). The final chapter has four sample readings which demonstrate how to read a poem the Eagleton way.

They are worth the price of admission for an English teacher if only to show the practical difficulties of expecting your students to be able to do this. However, the logic of the book is that the other chapters should provide the information necessary to the readers so they could make such readings. Or at least have some idea of what is involved in making such a reading.

They don't.

The way poetry is used in high school and university curricula has changed dramatically over the past twenty years. Driving that change has been a (not always well-informed) enthusiasm for what is often described vaguely as "literary theory". (The give away is always the singular “theory” as though it were some univocal field marked by consensus.)

Whereas literary criticism outside the classroom might once have dealt with questions of literary merit, asking why a particular poem or poet was worthy of attention within the context of the art form, today's student is more likely to be asked about the text's ideology, about who is marginalized or silenced, about representation or the discourses at work or the ideology encoded in the text. Whether you think this is a good thing or not it's an inescapable fact.

It comes as some surprise therefore to find that Professor Eagleton (call me Terry), author of "An Introduction to Literary Theory" (which if not rendered suspect because of the author’s obvious bias is now out of date. See his “After Theory”) should be publishing a book which begins by lamenting the disappearance of "literary criticism". According to him, content analysis has replaced careful reading in our schools and the "literariness" of the texts has been ignored.

Eagleton is aware that after the first paragraph many of his readers (including anyone who has taught English in Qld) will be framing a sentence which begins: "But this is the direct result of the vogue for literary theory. We’ve been hammered with discourse analysis to the point where trying to explain how poem works as poem has become utterly pointless”. However, while he acknowledges the objection, he trivializes the argument and a few sneers and some irrelevance later, he has avoided the issue. Later in the book he will claim to have "discussed the objection". This is one of the book’s least endearing characteristics. Eagleton is very good at demolishing his opponents through ridicule. Often he’s very funny but it’s the laughter of cronies in a pub, not someone setting out a carefully argued case. Stephen with a pint: not Stephen in the library (see footnote).

This is not a convincing start, but the book still manages to go down hill. For Eagleton's cause to appear valid he has to prove that if you are interested in the ideology of the text, (which is really all he’s interested in) detailed "literary criticism" will allow you to arrive at conclusions content analysis cannot achieve. The irony here is that he's probably right, but he's unable to give a convincing demonstration of his own argument. He launches into a detailed reading of half a poem by Auden. The fact that he only quotes half the poem isn't reassuring but in keeping with what feels like a general intellectual dishonesty that hangs over the whole book.

He compares a “content analysis” with his own detailed reading. His "content analysis" is so obviously oversimplified, that his attempt at close reading isn't convincing. Nor is it that "close". Although he begins with a discussion of syntax he is soon slipping into a practice where he can make statements like: "Behind the work lurks the view that each of us is the private possessor of our own experience, eternally walled off from the sensations of others." How does he make that connection? And what makes it valid? He never explains. The poem itself disappears into what Wimsatt and Beardsley would have called a "private reading". Again and again there is the sense of the poem being conscripted to do service as part of a pre-formed argument. (The final reading of Edward Thomas's poem is another obvious example). One criticism of overtly theorized approaches, that they result in an instrumentalist approach to literature, seems to be borne out in almost everything Eagleton does in this book.

If Eagleton's opening chapter is unconvincing, the rest of the book is far too inconsistent to be effective. The book claims to be for the general reader and the student, but to suppose both have the same needs and ambitions where poetry is concerned is bizarre. Eagleton's readings of his chosen poems require a reference library and unlimited time. The amount of knowledge they require, not just in terms of historical and cultural information, but about the poet and the poem, is probably only available to university professors who get paid to produce such things and students who are trying to please their professors.

The tone is inconsistent, sliding from explicit statements which the author doesn't deign to explain: "It is not the kind of piece you could vocalize very successfully in standard English" (I think I could, so I need the writer to explain "successfully") to coy fence sitting: "The reader may find the comment genuinely perceptive or just a more subtle version of the kind of criticism that claims to hear the cut and thrust of the rapiers...." at the moment when a student might well want a direct answer to the question: is this too much or too little.

He’s prepared to waste a chapter hammering out a one sentence definition of what is a poem. "Waste", because the contexts in which the student and the general reader encounter poems make the need to classify them improbable, and irrelevant because the definition is never referred to again in the book. His definition is neither provocative nor useful. It manages to exclude so many types of poetry that you don't need to do Eagelton's characteristic maneuver and find an extreme exception and dwell on it until the reader has forgotten that the idea is valid for the majority of cases...nor is it integrated into his readings, since all his examples are from canon central. He isn't quite so ready to define the purpose of criticism. It obviously isn't about literary merit, the idea of asking "Why Shakespeare not Greene". Eagleton's version is highly combative. He has opponents, and you're supposed to know who they are and enjoy the snide digs. You’re supposed to share his prejudices. He overuses the first person plural as a positioning technique.

What is bizarre about his third chapter is that he expends ink trying to justify political criticism by conscripting Aristotle, Johnson, Coleridge Etc as precursors. As he would say: people have been torturing each other’s for centuries, it doesn't validate the practice. It seems strange here that Eagleton is so keen to justify a purpose that doesn't need justifying. If you really want to read poems for their ideological content...get on with it. It’s one way of reading a poem...what he needed to do in a book called "How to read a poem" is theoretically ground and explain his reading practice, not his reading purpose.

While he's prepared to lug the reader through yet another `witty' synopsis of the history of rhetoric, and summarize and demolish Russian Formalism (hardly news) he doesn't see the need to make his own reading practice explicit, or, more importantly, to defend it theoretically. And this is probably one of the book's major disappointments. Given what the man knows, I was hoping for some kind of original synthesis. While a "four steps to a reading" approach is probably undesirable, some kind of paradigm would have been useful.

The four sample readings would seem to suggest that "how to read a poem" is read everything the poet has written, read his (sic) biography, read the history of the time the poem was written in and then sit in judgment on the poem's ideology. The last bit is crucial for Eagleton. Criticism is a political activity. Though this raises the question of why you need to pay attention to the punctuation when you're really just there to prove the poet didn't agree with whatever political/moral/ideology you espouse. Or why you only use poetry by "great poets" when any text would do. Or why you're bothering with poetry at all.

Eagleton never stops to explain where the line between "reading in" and "reading into" exists or what constitutes genuine context. Reading this book “New Historicism” and/or “Cultural Materialism” might never have happened. History and The Poem are separate entities the critic brings together as on objective act of ideological ‘analysis’. Over the past thirty years of so it’s been generally shown that fictive texts like poems aren’t passive reflectors of general attitudes but exist in a web of negotiation, circulation and exchange with other texts. Eagleton ignores this.

Context is not a given, but something that has to be teased out. Eagleton, following the Marxist ideal of accounting for the text by historicizing it, ignores his own previous statements about how subtle that needs to be to be convincing. The need to contextualize may explain why the poetry used in the book is so conventional, and mostly written by dead white males. You could be forgiven for thinking that there had been no criticism of poetry for the last fifty years or so, and no poetry written since the nineteen seventies. Women don't seem to write poetry, experimental poetry stopped with T.S. Elliot and all poems are written in very traditional forms and mostly Standard English. If you're interested in how to make sense of Geoffrey or Selima Hill, or J.H Prynne, let alone “Language” poetry or the works of the great modernist tradition in English Poetry this book is not for you. It's stranded in a late seventies classroom.

Eagleton wants to believe that form is ideological. But he stops after stating the obvious: the heroic couplet is probably linked to a culture that liked order and balance. Here, or elsewhere, he never explains what you do with such observations. This is where his call for a return to literary criticism breaks down. He never seems to consider that poets reject or choose form from those available to them, for reasons that may not be ideological in the political sense. When Keats describes the "rocking horse of the heroic couplet" his rejection has more to do with form and rhythm and sound than ‘politics’. Keats’ reason is poetical. Literary. However, for Eagleton everything is ideological. Ironically this makes identifying anything specific as ideological a waste of time, since everything is.

Overall then a disappointing book. Vastly uneven and often ill considered. The final chapter is worth reading as a demonstration of one way of reading poems. The two theory chapters provide interesting, often thought provoking generalities which are not integrated into the rest of the book. And probably the book’s most glaring fault is that both its choice of "poetry" and its version of literary criticism seems stuck in the nineteen seventies.

[Joel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading poetry can often feel like visiting a modern art gallery: I look at a few pieces, trying to understand and, losing interest, move on to something else. For both I am sorely in need of a guide. While art galleries have these in abundance if you're willing to wait for a tour - I never am - there's a lack of such guides for poetry. Thankfully, Eagleton has stepped into fill the void. In this short work he takes the reader on a tour of the history, theory and mechanics of poetry, pausing occasionally to spend two or three pages on a close reading of a masterwork. Such a book has the potential to be a tedious rehash of high school English, but Eagleton's charm and his insights into the chosen poems are so captivating that I was sorry to leave his company. This book works well as a guide to the uninitiated, like myself, but I suspect the more experienced would find much to profit from as well.

[Abril · Rating 4 out of 5]

AL FIN. Muxa errata, hasta la mitad me gustó mucho después fue todo lalala pasa que no me coparon los poemas que eligió para ejemplificar (salvo el de las ciruelas I LOVE POEMA DE LAS CIRUELAS). Después de tantos años de formación académica el único que puedo leer y entender es a Eagleton :/ Es un capo para sintetizar conceptos mucho muy difíciles, EL GLOSARIO DEL FINAL? el verdadero poesía for dummies

[Graham Wilhauk · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had to read select chapters of this book for my lit theory class. Let's just say that for every piece of genuine and decent insight on poetry this book has, there were about four or five pieces of insight that drove me up a wall. Let me just conclude by me yelling this to the author:

STOP THINKING DEEPLY ABOUT HOW TO READ AND INTERPRET POETRY AND APPRECIATE IT AS AN ART FORM AND NOT AS A PUZZLE.

Thank you.

I am giving this one a 2 out of 5 stars.

[Francisca · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un ensayo para prestar atención por todo lo que puede proponer un poema (escrito). Me ha faltado algo más de arte y no tanto vocabulario tecnicista, pero está bien.

[Esteban Galarza · Rating 5 out of 5]

El libro se presenta como un manual académmico para no académicos con el fin primero y último de abordar el análisis de la poesía.
Parte todo de la necesidad del teórico marxista de darle entidad a la poesía en las aulas, ya que ve que cada vez se enseña menos y se la estigmatizó como pura imaginería (de un modo peyorativo). Eagleton considera que en la poesía se encuentra la base de la iideología imperante y que en la historia de la poesía (y los poetas) se encuentra la clave para entender el mundo en el que vivimos y en el que vivieron nuestros antepasados. La poesía viva debe hacernos mejores personas y no solo regodearnos en sus imágenes y recursos retóricos.
El libro es exquisito y generoso de principio a fin: tanto desde la escritura como del contenido de los capítulos. Eagleton se propone escribir un libro para la mayor cantidad de lectores posibles, no solamente para la academia y en esto se separa de su maestro Raymond Williams, a quien leí y siempre me costó a pesar de tener estudios universitarios en esa rama. Inclusive se muestra pedagogo al recomendar leer los últimos capítulos antes si no se tiene mucha lectura previa de la teoría dura.
No es el primer libro que leo de Eagleton y después de tan gratificante lectura de seguro no será el último. Y me arriesgo a decir que considero que el texto será un clásico de la teoría literaria en algún tiempo.
Lo recomiendo a todo aquel que le de curiosidad la poesía o quiera tener una lectura más concienzuda de lo que se escribe. Además incluye al final un pequeño glosario de términos para mejorar aún más nuestro vocabulario con respecto a los recursos poéticos.

[Ai Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this a lot, though I think it needs quite a bit of reorganization. Or at the very least: this is not as straightforward as How to Read Literature felt. I can see someone picking this up and putting it aside quickly because it takes several chapters, including a whole chapter on Russian Formalists, to get to the material “how” of reading a poem. As a person who has read Eagleton’s other literary studies books, I think it fit in nicely (sure wish the Formalism chapter existed in Literary Theory: An Introduction!) into that larger collection of work.

All of that said, I did once again learn a lot, and I think the strongest chapters probably are the last two, where he stops kind of retreading previous ground (if you’ve read his others books—if you haven’t, it’s all new!) and gets into the meat of things. He suggests reading the chapters out of order, but I wonder why it was this specific order he went with. Still good, solid explanations, funny, just not my favorite of Eagleton’s.

[Alonzo Caudillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Este libro es una conversación divertida, exigente y lúcida con Terry Eagleton debido a la perspicacia con la que explica los entramados textuales de un poema, critica ciertas formas ingenuas de analizarlo, su interconexión con otros niveles de análisis y continuamente ejemplifica de maravilla cada concepto a cada paso que da. Es de un gran aprendizaje y es verdad que cada libro de Terry que leo me hace admirarlo mucho más. Vale totalmente la pena tanto para personas interesadas en general por la poesía y quienes quieren ahondar en sus formas de analizarla.

[[ J o ] · Rating 1 out of 5]

Misleading title. You read a poem using your eyes and whatever it is that makes your heart go boom.

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 1 out of 5]

Literary criticism has quite a bad press among certain circles, and I confess to be myself a bit wary of it. As much as I like the insights it can offer, when dissecting texts like coroners would a corpse these people indeed tend to, more often than not, go overboard with dry analysis if not complete wild fancies. An invite like here on 'how to read a poem', made not by a poet but by a literary critic like Terry Eagleton therefore had me a bit on edge although curious.

To his credit the author himself is well aware literary criticism can be labelled -as he himself puts it-'bombast, hot air, specious manipulation'. Funnily enough then , he starts this whole book by a defence of his field, those roots he traces back to that noble exercise: rhetoric. It's a nice endeavour, but then so what?

Then follow an attempt to define poetry through a discussion of Russian Formalism and, beyond, the work of Yury Lotman. It's interesting, but I must say a dry and circumvallated way to finally arrive at what is, strikingly, a rough and imperfect definition:

'Poetry is language organized in such a way as to generate certain effects, and to this extend it has much in common with everyday speech. One difference, as we have seen, is that everyday utterances usually skim over the flavour and texture of words in order to achieve their ends; whereas in poetry, one of these ends is precisely the exploration of words in themselves. This is how poetry can be rhetorical without being crudely instrumental.'

'If a piece of writing had no striking verbal effects at all, and no moral insights, then it is doubtful we would call it a poem.'

Obvious, isn't it? Obvious and certainly not very helpful. And that, that is exactly the problem with such a book. It's unnecessarily too circumvallated, to state obvious things, that are not helpful. Now don't get me wrong!

I love his take on how to fully engage with a poems via an holistic approach encompassing both form and content, those interplay -in harmony or at loggerhead- is the core of poetical effects. Discussing it all, Terry Eagleton can indeed here again throw some punchy insights. But, considering his target audience are (as I assume, in any case) people willing to fully engage with the deeper meaning of poetry while not having a clue on how to go about it, I don't think such intricate yet given babbling will serve as an easy way in. The numerous examples he gives might read like boring and unengaging school homework. Worst, among all poets available to really nail his point he choose... the elitist and hard to read T.S. Eliot! The tools could have been handed down otherwise than in such a pompous way.

Or could they?

I mean, was the goal of the author here to enrich and educate novice poetry readers or, show off his abilities to dissert on even the most challenging poems of the English canon? I wonder, and that's a point going beyond this book alone and Terry Eagleton per se to touch at literary criticism as a discipline. Here we are, going full circle. Yes, literary criticism can be rich in interesting and punchy insights. Yet, left into the sole hands of academics who are not poets themselves it tends to turn condescending, self-indulgent, and arrogantly showy. Ouch!

Who was the first to admit that literary criticism could be perceived as 'bombast, hot air, specious manipulation'? Well...

[Blanca Berjano · Rating 3 out of 5]

'Los poetas, como los niños, producen sonidos por el placer de hacerlo. La poesía es una forma superior de balbuceo'.

Algunas partes resultan difíciles de entender y pasan desapercibidas si no se tiene un alto nivel de inglés y no se está acostumbrado/a a leer poesía en inglés original (desde el neoclasicismo en adelante). Aunque la traducción viene en el texto, se pierde la explicación de lo que es la materia de las palabras, su textura, tono, cadencia, ritmo...

[Andreea · Rating 3 out of 5]

Informative, maybe a touch too disorganized. Way better than Practical Criticism, though.

[Naleendra Weerapitiya · Rating 4 out of 5]

(****1/2)
How does one glean the most of a poem ? Did the poet only have the obvious meaning in his mind when he wrote his verses ? How do I as the reader get as close to the sentiments of the poet as I possibly could ? Besides this, what are the theory of Literature, Technicalities (if you will ) involved in writing poetry ? This has been one of the nagging problems, I've experienced when reading poetry. It was obvious that I was not "getting it all", when I realised that I don't derive the same pleasure from reading certain poets, as much as I do when reading others. Hence it was with much interest, and haste that I started reading this book once becoming aware of its' presence.



So how does one read Poetry, as per Eagleton ?


"Isn't it part of the very definition of poetry that absolutely nothing is out of place, that no word is idle or superfluous, that every element conspires with every other to form an integrated whole ?"


Setting out to speak about "The Functions of Criticism" on chapter One, the author starts in a foreboding tone, as he finds fault with the present trend in criticism, which dives into content analysis, disposing the language like "a kind of disposable cellophane", disregarding that, that the very language used is "constitutive of its ideas". Here, Eagleton means language in all "its material density" - the language used, its tone, the metre. Guiding us through a detailed historical journey from the age of Rhetoric ( when it was synonymous with persuasive speech and a good education ), to modern times, describing what came to be known as literature - the most "privileged species" of which was poetry- with the author keeping up his foreboding tone that "literary criticism is in danger of breaking faith with its origins in classical rhetoric". The author, draws a parallel between the death of experience ( death of man, as per post-structuralists ) with the deathliness, epitaph-like air of unchangeability in poetry. Yet in this decay of experience, radicals like Walter Benjamin, saw the germ of new birth. A whole new poetics was possible, with Eliot's Wasteland, showing modern life's' new set of experiences. In places, Eagleton shows his sense of humour in combination with what he wants to get across. For example, winding up the chapter pointing out the essence of Imagination so essential for critics, he says:

"Literary Critics live in a permanent state of dread - a fear that one day some minor clerk in a government office, idly turning over a document, will stumble upon the embarrassing truth that we are actually being paid for reading poems and novels. This would seem as scandalous as being paid for sunbathing or having sex."


The most misleading thing about this book is its' title. The blunt title couldn't be further suited from the writing style that Mr. Eagleton has employed, in describing his chosen topic. He utilises chapter two, to formulate an answer for another blunt question - What is Poetry ? He starts with an all-inclusive safe, albeit minimalist answer and develops upon it. "A poem is a fictional, verbally inventive moral statement in which it is the author, rather than the .... word processor, who decides where the lines should end". He develops this to define poetry as a moral statement - meaning morality as being about behaviour in general and not good behaviour in particular. He draws relationship between poetry and fiction - meaning to "remove from its immediate empirical context and put it to wider uses". Yet he stresses that poetry is necessarily non-pragmatic, unless the area of its pragmatism is in the rising of emotions in the reader. The chapter concludes by stressing on the role that Language per se plays in poetry (i.e. "poetry is writing which flaunts its material being rather than modestly effacing it before the Holy-of-Holies of meaning."). Yet for all the importance that the author stresses on the language, he finishes off the chapter saying that, "it is not a question of experiencing the word rather than the meaning, but of responding to both of them together, or of sensing some internal bond between the two."


Chapter three ( The Formalists ) is a very interesting one, with the author dwelling extensively on how The Formalists look at poetry in particular. Starting with the analysis that Literariness infers a self-conscious use of language, in contrast to a transparent one. Going further then, they identified that Formalism is the poetics of an alienated society ( "'Anaesthetic', which means 'unfeeling', is the opposite of 'aesthetic', a word which originally refers not to art but to sensation and perception ), and implied "that creativity is nowhere to be found in everyday language and experience." Eagleton focuses particular on the ideas of Yuri Lotman, who identified each of the formal aspect as a system, and poetry as an interplay between these system of systems. The Aesthetic effect then is result of conflict between these semi-autonomous systems. Eagleton doesn't conclude the chapter before he warns us of the incarnational fallacy. The incarnational fallacy revers words as densely populated objects which actually contain the characteristic of the object they represent. These are the instances when Eagleton let's himself go on a tangent, trying to drive his point home, resulting in a lengthy discussion by itself. For example this fifteen page chapter devotes six pages to this "incarnational fallacy" - very interesting by itself upon reading, but almost not tangible and a difficult area to comprehend on a first reading. ( I did a googling of these two terms and all hits pointed to our good professor )


In The next chapter, "In pursuit of From", the author begins with the inseparable relationship between Form and Content, although they are different entities. It is stressed that although in daily life we see through the signifier, to take note of the signified, in poetry it is a combination at play. In fact it is not essential that they work in unison, Eagleton notes before beginning to explore the play between Form versus Content.

He highlights the child-like rhyme vs. the complex imagery of Blakes' Tyger.
Instances of elaborate form concealing the lack of content ( 'A Refusal to Mourn the Death by fire,...- Dylan Thomas ),
The form which suggests a sense of detachment from the content (Wasteland - T.S. Eliot),
The rapidity of heroic couples against an imagery that makes the linger on in each line ( Lamia - Keats ) and,
also how heroic forms can be put to good use for distancing feeling (Mary Montagus' The Small Pox).

Next Eagleton demonstrate how Form can be used to transcend Content.

The demonstration begins with Shakespeare - on how the images randomly modulate across a wide range as Cleopatra laments' Anthony's death ;
on how Yeat's disproves the very tragedy he speaks of, in "Coole Park and Ballylee".
The author then captures Yeats, giving the impression of wandering off, after starting with a feel of a metaphysical theme, only to end up going after a rabbit ( The Man and the Echo ).
The author examples Yeats yet again, focusing on the rapidity and the expectation in the young, of the tone, in the first stanza of "sailing to Byzantium", whereas the supposed theme is the dying generation - an example of the form and content working against each other.
Derek Mahon's poem "A Disused Shed in Co. Wexford" is then shown as an example of how an analogy is used successfully ( a helpless set of mushrooms in a shed is being used to represent the unfortunate fate of concentration camp victims. )

Still in the same chapter the poet offers a detailed insight on what is performative contradiction using examples from Auden, Eliot, John Donne etc. He illustrates this more extensively using Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening". He explains how contrary to the content which speaks of the mood to move on, even the very rhyme pattern suggests of taking a step back for every two steps forward.


Chapter Five of this book carries the title of this book. It begins by exploring as to how subjective Criticism, is. He points out that even in form, there are only a few objective aspects that critics can agree on ( rhyme, metre, and what it says literally), while the majority of the aspects are subjective. He takes as an example the poem "Porphyria's Lover"by Robert Browning, and coins the line "And yet God has not said a word!" - as to whether it was said in a scornful tone towards God,or whether it was in a tone of resentment. The use of connotations in poetry, within margins of plausibility is discussed, before digging deep to explore the nuances of Tone, Mood and Pitch - the definitions of these are of import.

"Tone means a modulation of the voice expressing a particular mood or feeling....mood, which the dictionary defines as a state of mind or feeling... the pitch of a poetic voice, meaning whether it sounds high, low or middle-ranging."

He shows us how enjambment as a device could be used to pace up verses (e.g. Shelly's Ode to the West Wind ). He defines texture of a poem as how it weaves various sounds into palpable patterns, the effect of sharp consonants in contrast to sibilant sounds. He uses such examples as Edward Thomas' "Old Man" and Yeats' "Coole Park and Ballylee", to portray the effect of syntax and punctuation, and T.S. Eliots' "Whispers of Immortality" to demonstrate how grammar can function as a poetic device. Ambiguity, by nature of poetry being an important part of its' makeup, is reflected upon too. Examples to show this are Philip Larkin's Days, Shakespeare's 138th sonnet. Speaking of rhyme an important observation is made:

"Perhaps because modern life is felt to be somehow dissonant, a good many poets begin to abandon the use of rhyme as we enter the modern age," and goes on to show the use of para-rhymes, "words which almost chime in unison but don't quite", using Wilfed Owen's "Insensibility". A fine detail of contrast between Rhyme and Metre is next detailed:

"Metre is a regular pattern of stressed and unstresed syllables, whereas rhythm...means the irregular sway and flow of the verse, its ripplings and undulations as it follows the flexing of the speaking voice."

This all important chapter, is concluded by speaking a little about Imagery, and how similes and metaphors play a role there, and how thus, Imagery needn't infer a visual variety with regard to poetry.


This wonderful book ends with close critical analysis of "Four Nature Poems". The various ingredients that were explored are applied as appropriate in these four poems, to make this close reading exercise a success. Upon this exercise of close reading, the reader if patient cannot help but being awe struck by what these poems hold withing its verses. The two poems that most took my fancy (so much so that I now have a good mind to explore their other works) was Edward Thomas' Fifty Faggots and Wordworth's "The Solitary Reaper".


This then, is by no stretch of imagination a book to be "also" read, in spare time. This is a project or an exercise of application to glean the most out of. And it is a book to be returned, into the very midst of the pages, once read from end to end, to recall some of the finer points of discovering how poetry work, and dwell on the nuances which are very likely to be missed by a less observant reader - the implication being that the practice of being observant when reading poetry is a lesson to be learned, taught by a fine, albeit by a florid teacher as Eagleton. To his credit it is unlikely that Eagleton has left any characteristic, trait or ingredient of poetry "non-discussed". Yet it is not by a long shot, "Poetry for Dummies", with a clear cut list of instructions on "How to Read Poetry". This is a journey, that the reader has to be patient enough, to make with her teacher, practice some, and return repeatedly to truly appreciate the Art.

[Oleksandr Fediienko · Rating 2 out of 5]

Змарнований час. В ідеалі це мав бути чітко структурований посібник про те, як розбирати вірші. Я розумів, що мої очікування очевидно завищені, але сподівався знайти тут бодай щось. Натомість найбільше тут було порівнянь. Уявіть ядерного фізика, який на пальцях намагається пояснити дитині курс ВНЗ і вдається до аналогій. Але в цій книзі вони не додають цінності. Замало конкретики. А коли автор наводить чиїсь рядки, де поезія порівнюється (і тут!) з конем, якого осідлав ще Гомер, то пише, що, на жаль, образність цих рядків зіпсована, бо, бачте, не зрозуміло, про якого Гомера йде мова…

[Hermes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recomendado. Con ejemplos claros nos enseña a leer y entender la poesía. Interesante, fácil de entender y muy bien explicado.

[Nino Kipiani · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mi Eagleton favorito, el comentarista. <3

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Compared to Terry Eagleton’s How to Read a Poem, Thomas Foster’s How to Read Poetry Like a Professor feels like an elementary school primer. That’s because Eagleton is a literary theorist and critic, so How to Read a Poem is a pretty dense read. In fact, the first three chapters are entirely about literary theory. I enjoyed Eagleton’s approach, even if it sometimes (often) went over my head.

I also feel like I got more out of Eagleton’s book than Foster’s. Eagleton spends the first few chapters talking about what it means to analyze a poem, as well as what makes a poem a poem. From there he dives into the three remaining chapters which teach you how to read a poem. Or, rather, Eagleton shows you how a virtuoso literary critic analyzes poetry. Because here’s the thing: While Foster’s book was perhaps too simplistic in its approach to reading poetry, Eagleton’s is maybe too advanced. It’s like going to a batting cage with Hank Aaron. Sure, he’ll show you how to swing the bat, how to have a proper stance, how to keep an eye on the ball -- and afterward you’ll be able to make a few solid hits in the cage. But then Aaron steps in and just wallops ball after ball. That’s a bit what it’s like to read this book.

If you’re a complete newbie to the world of poetry, I think Foster’s How to Read Poetry Like a Professor is a great starting point. But if you’re already familiar with poetry and aren’t afraid to wade into the murky waters of literary theory, then Eagleton’s How to Read a Poem -- while challenging -- is definitely the more rewarding experience.

[Francisco · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una lectura muy recomendable. Me gusta la poesía, cada vez más pero siento que es difícil entenderla sin una pauta y el libro ayuda bastante a dos cosas: A entender qué es la poesía y a leerla. O sea, el libro a mi entender sí cumple lo que promete su título.

El autor trata de desmitificar a la crítica literaria y también a la poesía. Muchas veces pensaba en la poesía como un significado envuelto en papel celofán o en una bolsa de nylon llamada "florituras literarias" (él no las llama así, eso se llama "forma" o elementos literarios). Lo que explica Eagleton es que esa forma no es un envoltorio y no está ahí sólo por su belleza sino que tanto forma como contenido van entremezclados, entonces al leer poesía no podemos disociar una cosa de la otra. Y lo que explica a lo largo del libro es el por qué y desglosa esta forma con ejemplos.

El libro está acompañado de muchos poemas. Los poemas que emplea para ejemplificar son poemas en inglés así que vienen traducidos pero siempre con el original, entonces aunque se entiende el mensaje, es preferible entender los poemas en inglés, si no la forma se pierde o parte de ella.

He leído poesía, a veces me ha gustado, a veces me he frustrado un montón pero siempre me quedo con un análisis de contenido y en ello creo que me he perdido la mitad de todo lo que he leído y creído entender. Creo que es un aporte para cualquiera que quiera leer poesía y sacar algo de provecho de su lectura.

[Jenni · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just started this -- one of my profs recommended this when I told her that I'm teaching literary theory to my Honors Brit Lit kiddies (she uses it in her Romantics class). More of a review later, but my initial reaction is positive. ** Update: Mary was right -- what an engaging and helpful book! This really helped me rethink how to teach lit crit and poetry (which the kids totally rocked, by the way!!).

[Benjamin Fasching-Gray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Denser than what I usually read, I had to take this a few pages at a time and think about it. I've probably already forgotten most of it. But it is a real pleasure just to listen to Terry Eagleton's voice in my head as I read it. He has a good sense of humor and I share his sympathy for the Irish and the working class. It's especially fun, of course, when he goes on the attack against some poet everyone is supposed to like.

[Christy · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the interest of full disclosure, I feel obligated to note that I did not read the whole book--I skimmed large parts and read parts more carefully. It's not bad and could be fairly useful, but it's not all that great.

[Kieran Pringle · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very self-indulgent writing. Was hoping for a layman, rather than an academic introduction as this was how it was billed. Felt more like the author was trying to impress me with his wit and intellect more than he was trying to help me enjoy poetry

[Holly · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read a chapter of this as part of my English degree (the long reading lists), and found it extremely thought-provoking. His words are inspiring and I intend to read more of Terry Eagleton’s work!

[Trent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Notes for my own reference.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(Not a review)
Indispensable Sections:
Sections 5.1 - Is Criticism Just Subjective?, 5.7 - Ambiguity, 5.11 - Imagery, 6.2 - Wordsworth

In the same way that the limits of empiricism rest on the inability of humans to conceive of things outside of their senses and intuitions - these senses and intuitions are governed by socially constructed behaviour, customs, and meanings. We cannot help but share meanings with others, and this forces us into an epistemological standpoint. Yes we can point out that it is merely a social construct but we at the same time cannot deny the meaning of the constructs that is thrust upon us whether we like it or not. Our brain, once again, is limited, this time by it’s own inability to reject meaning from phenomena, and thus to force one into a position of socially constructed knowledge. We operate in this realm of knowledge because we have to. We don’t have a choice.
It is like the psychological trick discussed in Inception, where one says, “Don’t think about a red elephant”, and anyone who takes in the message is forced, by their own mind, to imagine the elephant

What if there are various kinds of epistemological foundations? It is not just language but other social customs that govern our knowledge of the world. Human epistemology is steeped in inescapable social constructions.

Poetry circumvents social custom to stretch the meaning of language. One thing starts to mean another (honey vs. sex) and form and tone and mood become more telling of the story. Everyday language by contrast focuses very heavily on content. Poetry breaks down language (social custom) to tackle knowledge from a new angle. It broadens the communicative horizon.

Language registers to us on an unconscious level. It is made apparent to us before we are apparent of it.

Mimetic fallacy

Those who disregard poetry or the abstract. Those who do so are not interested in pushing the boundaries or testing the limits of language. They are comfortable in their utility-approach to language and communication. They do not wish to examine form - only focusing purely on content. Is this Freud’s mistake too? A Freudian slip is usually suggested based on what someone says as opposed to how they said it or in what context. Is it possible that the way someone says something is just as revealing as what they say? Why is there such widespread skepticism of form? Is it merely because we grew up in an age where content ruled all?

Horrible and nasty people get away with being horrible and nasty by abusing form. I used to think it didn’t matter how people said things - only whether what they said had rational legitimacy. But now I see that the way they say something affects how the content is to be taken. Moreover, the way they say something reveals their position more than the content does.

At the same time, speaking with frustration does not automatically invalidate the point someone is making. There has to be a balance between content and form.

[Edward · Rating 3 out of 5]

Explaining how to read a poem seems to be an irresistible attraction for writers, I suppose, because it has so many facets to it. Reading prose seems self-explanatory with the only difficulty being knowledge of vocabulary. But poetry is different, more of a specialized skill with many more items to consider. That being said, Eagleton, a literary and social critic has written a fairly clear commentary, free from confusing literary jargon.

Eagleton begins with a chapter on literary criticism which he considers to be somewhat of a dying art, but one that he finds necessary to understand and appreciate poetry . In one sense he thinks it acquired a a dubious reputation in the 20th century by insisting that every part and word of a poem is necessary to form a perfect whole. Sounds good, but it makes a poem into a deathlike artifact, a carefully prepared corpse in a coffin.

My impression is that the author would prefer to approach a poem more loosely and allow for a greater amount of randomness and irregularity, more reflective of the uncertainties of modern life.

Eagleton has a long section, maybe the hardest to follow, on the difference between form and content. They’re not easy to separate but he emphasizes out that poetry exploits the resources of language more intensively than most of our everyday speech and usage, and returning to his “loose” idea, he likes to compare poetry to a way of seeing meaning take shape as a practice than always seeing it as a finished product where content and form can be easily differentiated.

Practical users of language tend to see it as a window where words and their meanings point beyond the clear glass to specific concepts. Poetic use of language, on the other hand, to speak in metaphorical terms, “wrench words from their senses so that their sounds and textures can be relished more fully. Poets . . . show how the density and refraction of the glass, its flaws and scratches, actually give shape to what they see through it.”

Scientific and legal language aims to restrict the meaning of words while on the other hand poetic language proliferates and expands the meaning of words, at the expense of precision. To use specific terms, there are “signifiier” words there are “signified” words. With signifiers (legal and scientific language) we look past the words to what they mean, but with signifieds (poetic language) the words are focused and turned back on themselves. Now this my go on simultaneously, so that in any poem the signifiers and signified will be mixed together and the reader has to pay close attention.

These are a few general comments on Eagleton, much of the book taken up with examples of poetic techniques for focusing language on itself ( tone, syntax, punctuation, ambiguity, rhyme, meter, imagery, to name a few) and then with poems that exemplify rhe use of these resources. It’s not a book to be skimmed, but if you’re interested in a more careful reading of poetry, Eagleon’s ideas are worthwhile.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is a Carl Sagan quote about how in order to make an apple pie from scratch, you'd first have to invent the universe. Terry Eagleton's How to Read a Poem takes a similar tack toward its title mission. Before you really parse poetry, you have to get through a lot of literary theory first.

I'm not sure how much fault I can lay at the book's feet and how much I ought to claim, given I came in with preconceptions. I expected something meant to demystify an often poorly-taught subject. I expected analyses of form and prosody and how minor changes in spacing and diction can have profound impacts on a poem's meaning. Eagleton does do that, but he does so much table setting that the chapter titled "How to Read a Poem" doesn't occur until page 100; I'd have preferred it closer to 1.

Before that, he includes chapters and subchapters such as "The End of Criticism?" , "Poetry and Pragmatism", "Form as Transcending Content", and "The Semiotics of Yury Lotman". I'm not saying these can't be fascinating subjects, but they require the book to have a different title or a clearer mission statement from the get-go. It is my fault for mistaking this for a book on craft. It is his fault for thinking the way this book is structured and written would make poetry less intimidating.

Passages of this would make good assigned college reading. Eagleton is still a sharp and insightful writer and literary theorist. Garbage ambassador, though.