SUMMARY OF CLEANTH BROOKS’ ‘IRONY AS A PRINCIPLE OF STRUCTURE’

EXPLANATION OF THE TITLE: In the essay ‘Irony as a Principle of Structure’, Cleanth Brooks argues that meanings of universal significance which literature encodes in texts are suggested through the device of irony which the poet shows in the structure of a poem.

This emphasis on structure as a device to convey meaning is important. In the ancient classical criticism Aristotle placed a great deal of importance on the structure of plot. It is through the element of structure that unity is created in a work of art through which ideas are expressed. The text as an ‘autotelic’(autonomous) artifact, something complete within in itself, written for its own sake, unified  in its form and not dependent on its relation to the author’s life or  intent, history, or anything else. The formal and technical properties of work of art matter most.

Brooks therefore argues that the overall unity of parts creates ironic tensions. This underlying structure is invisible but is the actual structure of the poem and not the divisions of stanza.

PLANT ANALOGY TO EXPLAIN ORGANIC QUALITY OFPOETRY:

Brooks states that poetry has an organic quality which produces ironies and explains this by means of an analogy. He suggests poetry is like a plant, with a fixed and definite organization(like roots, stalk, leaf), a structure which is complete and useful.

(Semantic Value of each word in the poem): A poem, like a plant, relies on all its component parts for life; there is a fundamental arrangement within a poetic creation which depends upon interrelationships. Words are the individual building blocks of a poem, and like the cells of a plant, each must be considered individually as being important to the structure.

(The Context out of which meaning evolves): Each word is understood according to the words which surround it. It is the relationship between each of these words which creates a context out of which meaning evolves. Brooks terms the relationship between the component parts of a poem as the pressures of context.  Just as the cells of a plant rely on adjoining cells for water, nutrients and energy, so in poems, words rely on surrounding words for their meaning. It is the structural, organic unity of the parts which allows for the production of meaning. This is brought about through the pressures of context.

(Elements of Plot Vs Words): The significance of words to the structure of poetry in Brooks’ essay finds a counterpart – the importance of the elements of the plot. In order to be significant, a work must be a whole, that is, it must have a beginning, middle and an end, according to Aristotle. These parts are akin to the words in a poem in Brooks’ theory because in a likewise manner they display a unity. For example right from the beginning of the poem the meaning of the whole depends on the deliberate placement of each of the elements of poem and the organic relationship between those parts.

Contextual Ironies(tension) a key to Meaning?

Brooks claims irony is produced by the pressure of context and proceeds to explain these pressures in a poem. These pressures define the relationship between the components of a poem which are the words that produce meaning.

Irony is the tension between multiple meanings of a word(ambiguity in meaning caused by connotative aspect of language), meanings which are pressured by the presence of surrounding words and the situation in which they are said.

Brooks compares poetry to drama in order to describe how pressures of context produce irony: i.e., what is said is said in a particular situation and by a particular dramatic character. Because there is always a speaker who narrates a poem, and in a setting for that narration, words will never exist in isolation, and must be considered in relation to, as affected by, their context. For Brooks, context forces ironies, which are the key to meaning. A successful poem has its structure dependent on the tensions produced by context. It is in these fusions that harmony exists and it is in the tensions that meaning exists.

CONTEXT AND PLANT ANALOGY:

Therefore meaning is the product of contextual pressures in Brooks’ view. Context which is really the relationship between the parts of the poem creates the unity of the poem through its pressures. The end(blossoms) of the action should grow naturally out of the beginning(roots) and middle (stalk) if we continue to understand the argument in terms of Brooks’ plant metaphor that affirms the organic nature of poetry.

METAPHOR VS IRONY:

Brooks finds specific, concrete particulars a must for the form of a poem. The particular become the units or metaphors and references. Brooks claims that metaphors, even as they risk obscuring larger themes, are absolutely necessary because direct statement lends to abstraction and threatens to take us out of poetry altogether whereas indirect statements appeal in a poem. Brooks finds poetry an effective vehicle for conveying meaning instead of concrete language the poetry creates metaphors which instead of giving us abstract thoughts leads us to ideas in an indirect manner. Poetry takes human beings as its subject (if for no other reason than because language which is its structural element is a human device. It attempts to make explanation of the human condition in terms of causes and effects of human actions.

Thus the elements of structure are metaphors and symbols which make the meaning in a poem according to Brooks. Irony and plot function similarly to create meaning through indirection; both refuse direct statement of abstract ideas. Both rely on an organic unity of parts to produce universal truths. So meaning is inherent to the structure of the artifact.

Brooks begins the essay by stating that the modern poetic technique is a rediscovery of the metaphor. The metaphor is so extensively used by the poet that it is the particular through which he steps into the universal. The poet uses particular details to arrive at general meanings. But these particulars must not be chosen arbitrarily. This establishes the importance of our conventional habits of language.

Now the question that can be raised is that the poet does not say things directly. It is as if he is taking a risk by not saying things directly but only through metaphoric language, indirectly.

Direct statements take the reader out of the zone of poetry. A metaphor says things partially and obscurely, yet it makes the text poetic rather than a direct statement which makes the text unpoetic.

Therefore, metaphor means indirection, an principle. It is a principle of poetic writing, there is a vital relationship between, an organic relationship between particular images and statements.

This kind of a relationship between the idea and the metaphor is described by Cleanth Brooks as an ‘organic relationship’. That is to say the poem is not a collection of poetic images and beautiful passages, but a meaningful relationship between object and idea. So by merely arranging many poetic images one after another do not result in a poem. Brooks says that all the elements of a poem are related to each other, not as blossoms lying next to each other in a banquet, but as blossoms related to other parts of a growing plant. The wholeness of the poem through its details is the flowering of the whole plant.

Giving another example, Brooks says that a poem is like a drama. The total effect proceeds from all the elements in the drama. So also in a good poem the total effect proceeds from all the elements of the poem. There are no superfluous parts in a good poem.

Therefore the parts of the poem are related to each other organically and related to the total theme indirectly. From this we can conclude that context is very important. So it is not just the idea and the metaphor being related organically and the whole poem linked internally through all its elements, but the context in which the connection between the idea and the metaphor or analogy is made. What is said in a play, as in a poem, is said in a particular context and it is this context that gives the words their particular meaning. Here Brooks takes the example of two sentences from Shakespeare’s ‘ King Lear’. The first line that he quotes is “Ripeness is all”. Brooks says such a philosophical statement gathers import because of particular context in which the dramatist places it. So also when Lear repeats the world “Never” again and again five times, the same word said over and over again, having the same meaning, nevertheless becomes especially significant because the playwright places them in a context where the words gather richness of meaning. The context endows the particular word or image or statement with significance. Statements which are so charged with meaning become dramatic utterances. Images charged with incoming become symbols. This is how context makes an impact upon the meaning of words. In other words, the part or particular element of a poem is modified by the pressure of the context. For example, if you meet friend who has won a lottery prize and say “What a rain of fortune!” in the particular context of the situation, the words have a specific meaning. For example, when everything in a situation has gone wrong and the person says, “This is a fine state of affairs!” What he really means is quite the opposite of what is being said. The actual state of affairs is very bad. But by sarcastically saying, “This is a fine state of affairs!” and perhaps with the use of a particular tone of vice a ironic statement is uttered. Even if the tone is not changed in any particular way, the mere words “This is a fine state of affairs!” when everything is at its worst, results in heavy irony.

A DISCUSSION OF THE CONCEPT OF IRONY IN THE ESSAY:

Irony takes many forms. In irony of situation, the result of an action is the reverse of what the actor expected. Macbeth murders his king hoping that in becoming king he will achieve great happiness. Actually, Macbeth never knows another moment of peace, and finally is beheaded for his murderous act. In dramatic irony, the audience knows something that the characters in the drama do not. For example, the identity of the murderer in a crime thriller may be known to the audience long before the mystery is solved. In verbal irony, the contrast is between the literal meaning of what is said and what is meant. A character may refer to a plan as brilliant, while actually meaning that the person thinks the plan is foolish. Sarcasm is a form of verbal irony.

Irony is of many kinds: tragic-irony, self-irony, playful, mocking as gentle irony. Irony may be defined as the conflict of two meanings which has a dramatic structure peculiar to itself: initially, one meaning, the appearance, presents itself as the obvious truth, but when the context of this meaning unfolds, in depth or in time, it surprisingly discloses a conflicting meaning, the reality, measured against which the first meaning now seems false or limited. By encompassing this conflict in a single structure, irony resolves it into harmony or unity.

There are other statements which hold their meaning as it is, inspite of the context in which they occur. For example, “Two plus two is four”. In any situation this statement would mean the same. The sentence denotes a meaning; it has denotative value.

On the other hand, can notations are important in poetry, even philosophical generalizations bear the pressure of the context. Their relevance, their rhetorical force and meaning cannot be divorced from the context in which they are embedded. This is the reason, why according to Brooks, modern critics tend to use the term irony so much when they discuss poetry. To Brooks irony is an important structuring principle which holds the meaning of the poem together. Reading a line in a poem in its proper context gives it its particular meaning, its ironic content. Again Brooks underlines the importance of the pressure exerted by context. To make the point, he gives one more example. The critic takes a line from Mathew Arnold’s ‘Dover Beach’. The speaker says that the world “Which seems to lie before us like a land of dreams….hath really neither joy nor love nor light.” Now this may seem a statement of truth for many readers and they would have no difficulty in grapping its meaning as they see it.

Brooks says that the most straightforward irony amounts to the obvious warping of a statement by the context. But since it is a principle of structure that makes poetic coherence possible, it must be capable of somewhat more subtlety. The pressures of the context may not always be obvious or crude, but still, says Brooks, we are dealing with the informing principle of irony.

In sum, ‘irony’ in the sense of “pressures of the context” is for Brooks the main way in which a literary object dynamically develops its own structure, its own “meaning, evaluations, and interpretations” without the need for aid from ordinary or ‘denotative’ language, history, biography, or other outside sources of meaning.

However some other readers may consider it false. If we try to prove it we will only end up rising very perplexing philosophical questions. This will lead us away from the poem. For, the lines are justified in the poem in terms of its context. The speaker is standing with his beloved and looking out of the window at the sea. The moonlight has thrown a deceptively white sheet of colour over everything. Listening to the roar of the waves as they ebb and flow the speaker makes this philosophical observation. This is the only way that the statement can be validated. The brunt of the statement cannot be validated by a committee of experts in sociology as physical scientists or philosophers.

Brooks raises the question how the statement can be validated. He answers it in the following way. He suggests that the reader remember the advice of T.S. Eliot who says that we should assume the question whether the statement seems to be that which the mind of the reader can accept as coherent, mature and founded on the experience outlined within the poem. In other words, we have to raise the question if the statement grows properly out of the context which it is said, whether it is ironical and loaded with contextual meaning or whether it is merely sentimental, affected and shallow. Brooks says that Eliot’s text is what I.A. Richards describes as ‘Poetry of Synthesis’ this kind of a synthesis shows a stable context on which meaning plays in many ways. Irony and possibilities of meaning depend on context. Context does not grow out of irony.

Brooks lists out a number of reasons for the use of irony in modern poetry:

·        There is a general breakdown in belief and to the modern mind does not accept universal statements of truth.

·        There is a depletion and corruption of language itself.

·        The growing consumption of popular arts has corrupted both belief and taste.

·        The modern poet is burdened with the task of rehabilitating a drained and tired language.

·        The task of qualifying and modifying a language is burdened upon the poet.

Brooks contains the critic to remember that the modern poet is addressing a public who have already developed a taste for popular and commercial art. So by using irony the modern poet succeeds in bringing both clarity and passion into his evoke of art or the poem. Here Brooks gives the example of Randall Jarell’s poem ‘English Air Force’ as an example of success of this sort. This poem is full of many possible meanings. Each meaning is voted and no one meaning cancels out another meaning. This poem which is about the Air Force men holds apposing meanings in the context of the poem. On the one hand the poet talks about the essential justness of man and on the other he uses the image of Pontius Pilate who washes hands in blood:

“…Shall I say that man \ Is not as men he said a wolf to man?\ Men wash their hands, in blood, as best they can: \ I find no fault in this just man.”  The poem dramatizes the situation of the fighters during the ever so accurately, both as puppies and woolens as stanza show that the poem goes behind the eloquent presentation by the poet to the very matrix or source from where all our understanding and beliefs begin. This function is in Brooks opinion, what good poetry does.

Finding its proper symbol, defined and redefined by the participating metaphors, the theme becomes a part of the reality in which we live, an insight growing out of a concrete experience. Without making any abstract generalization the poem makes a statement of truth.

So we may conclude that statements in poetry qualified by the context in which they occur. In poetry, therefore statements get their viable by virtue of their context.

SUMMARY OF F.R.LEAVIS’S ‘POETRY AND THE MODERN WORLD’

TITLE:   Strictly speaking ‘bearings’ is a nautical term and F.R. Leavis’s ‘New Bearings in Modern Poetry’ is the treatment of the making of poetry.

REASONS FOR DECLINE OF POETRY IN MODERN WORLD:                                                                                                     F.R. Leavis feels that today’s modern world does not understand art. Since very little of ‘contemporary intelligence’ concerns itself with poetry, Leavis says poetry matters little to the world. People are fooled to believe that there is a great deal of interest and talent by the colossal anthologies. Leavis sarcastically rebuffs that anthologists are no better than the layman. Leavis does not agree to the view that what is floated as anthologies is nothing but the contemporary understanding of poetry. He reasons out that (i) there are no serious standards and (ii) no loose tradition is alive (iii) the publisher’s lack of critical temperament, and very importantly the writers are never more than superficially interested in writing poetry therein making the present Age unfavourable for the growth of poets.

Leavis rebuffs the assumption such as these anthologies about good and bad poetry as ridiculous. Setting loose his sarcasm, he says for most part the poetry is not bad, but beyond it, it is dead, as it is barren and in the first place was never alive. Here the writers claim to have been writing good poetry, when in reality they are producing artificial flowers.

TRADITION AND POETICALITY:                                                                                                                                               The number of potential poets born varies from Age to Age as literary history might lead one to suppose. Leavis is against such compartmentalization of poets and lays emphasis on the ‘talent’ of the poet. Though anything can become material for poetry, every Age has its own preoccupations and assumptions regarding ‘the poetical’.

Leavis placed the poets on an entirely new pedestal. What varies is not who is born? Or the mood of the given Age, but the use made of talent. A genuine poet is a man who possesses a sense of adequate mind – a kind of prophet with unusually sensitive, unusually aware, more sincere and more himself than the ordinary man can be: capacity for experiencing and communicate. Poetry matters because of the kind of poet who is (i) is more alive than other people (ii) more alive in his own Age and becomes as I.A. Richards says “He is the point at which the growth of mind shows itself”.

Leavis attacks the Victorian poetical ideal which suggests that the nineteenth century poetry rejected the ‘poetical’ and instead showed a separation of thought and feeling and a divorce from the real world.

Leavis never believed that judgement and evaluation are mechanical procedures, a matter of bringing up an array of fixed rules to the literary text. In practice, however, he had an idiosyncratic liking for a set of measures.

F.R.LEAVIS’S CONCEPTION OF INTELLIGENCE:

The connotative associations of the term ‘intelligence’ are much harder to delineate , even with the aid of contexts and demonstrations. Indeed, the term ‘intelligence’ runs althrough the works of Leavis. The problem is that Leavis’s paradigmatic terms are so thickly interrelated that they don’t exist in isolation and a priori.

The conception of intelligence on many occasions is conjoined to ‘sensibility’. What Leavis intimated by ‘intelligence’ here was confirmed by his description of certain features of metaphysical poetry. In the tradition founded by Donne, it was assumed that a poet should be a man of distinguished intelligence and that he should bring into his poetry the varied interest of his life “What is that distinguished intelligence\varied interest?” Placed in sharp contrast to the nineteenth century preoccupation with the creation of a fanciful dream, it is ‘wit, play of intellect, stress of cerebral muscle.”

Intelligence then is characterized by a heightened sense of consciousness. It is not only the application of rigorous thinking to the text itself, but also an ardour effort of our conscious mind to note and register what is going on in our response to literary texts.

Intelligence did not debar intuition; it actually covered all varieties of the act of knowing; intelligence is the genius, intuition and discourse – there is no need then to demand another irrational faculty ‘intuition’ value would turn to reason and intelligence for guidance.

Leavis conception of ‘intelligence’ does include an admiration of Arnold’s Hellenic ‘authority of reason’, and an effort to transcend immobilized personal preferences. Leavis then asserts that when one is in the grip of the poem “one’s whole being, including one’s basic attitudes and habits of thought and valuation is involved.