Defining Poetry

After reading “how To Recognize a Poem When You See One,” by Stanely Fish I immediately thought about how it related to our class discussion on genre. Fish is trying to show us that poems are categorized by a lot more than the language of the poem itself, you have to look at all the underlying features involved as well. One very important feature is the meaning of the words, “In addition to specifying significances for the words of the poem and relating those significances to one another, the students began to discern larger structural patterns.” (Rule #5) I feel that anyone that knows about the basics of poetry should know this rule, because it is so elementary. All poets have meanings behind the meaning, the trick is can you figure it out?
Fish wants relates to Chandler by the mere fact of categorizing. He categorizes everything, and I believe that you should have to. He gives the example of several different poets and shows one very simply way of categorizing them, “It was noted that of the six names in the poem three--Jacobs, Rosenbaum, and Levin--are Hebrew, two--Thorne and Hayes--are Christian, and one--Ohman--is ambiguous, the ambiguity being marked in the poem itself (as the phrase goes) by the question mark in parenthesis. This division was seen as a reflection of the basic distinction between the old dis-pensation and the new, the law of sin and the law of love. That distinction, however, is blurred and finally dissolved by the typological perspective which invests the old testament events and heroes with new testament meanings. The structure of the poem, my students concluded, is therefore a double one, establishing and undermining its basic pattern (Hebrew vs. Christian) at the same time. In this context there is finally no pressure to resolve the ambiguity of Ohman since the two possible readings--the name is Hebrew, the name is Christian--are both authorized by the reconciling presence in the poem of Jesus Christ. Finally, I must report that one student took to counting letters and found, to no one's surprise, that the most prominent letters in the poem were S, O, N.” (Rule #5) While this is a very simplistic way of categorizing, it is also a very important way. Many writers and poets who are religious tend to use their religion in their writing, either consciously or subconsciously. You write about what you know and these men know religion.
In Fish’s writing he talks about classroom and the social conventions involved, one example that he gives is a person raising his hand and the meaning that is behind it. He shows us that people know what is trying to be said while nothing is being said at all. A perfect example I found that can relate to this is traffic lights. Our society would be lost without them, there would be constant accidents. While no one has to tell you what the signals mean, you just learn them over time. You see a green light and no one has to tell you, “you can go now,” you just know.
I found Fish’s writing very interesting, but a little dragged on. I feel he could’ve shortened it a bit but all and all I thought it was very insightful.