The Second Coming

[grumbler]

I love that poem, but I am not at all comfortable trying to "figure out what it means" beyond what it says to me.

And that is rather vague and uneasy - not at all well defined.

I think the poem works best when applied.

[grumbler]

Don't poems mean only one thing?

That is all too often true of modern "poetry," but not of much of the classical stuff.

[PDH]

Don't poems mean only one thing?

That is all too often true of modern "poetry," but not of much of the classical stuff.

"Poetry - pfffft"  (The reaction I got, along with rolled eyes, from a student when I assigned the first poem this semester)

[Malthus]

Don't poems mean only one thing?

Yeah - the most common meaning is as follows: "The chick is hott but an amateur poet. Not worth attempting to fuck. Will make me read her poetry, which I will have to fake enjoying.

Just. Cannot. Do. It." 

[PDH]

I am pretty sure poems are written now with random line stops just to piss off Ank (who has been writing such poetry for years).

[Martinus]

Well, Yeats is neither a Greek nor an Egyptian. He is a modern poet. He is going to be syncretist, and it's a mystical / symbolic poem. You seem to expect him to describe his visions with a scientific precisions.

You are the one trying to be concrete here. I am trying to retain the symbolism, and describe how his poem could be applied as a bit of prophecy,to help students understand how a guy like Hitler could come to power.

You think it worth mentioning that you think Yeats must have been referring to a sphinx.  I point out that he wouldn't have been referring to the good-luck Egyptian version, and you point out (duh!) that Yeats is neither a Greek nor an Egyptian! 

Generally speaking, Marti, you should stay out of conversations like this.

I dare say I have more background in interpreting poems like this than you, but thanks for this personal attack.

What I am saying is that Yeats could have referred to the physical characteristic of the Egyptian sphinx, but meant the symbolic characteristics (malicious, enigmatic) of the Greek sphinx. Considering it is a piece of mystical, revelatory poetry, you seem to be operating under a false assumption that this has a single, precise, non-ambiguous meaning.

It's like you are applying your very annoying, nit-picking personality trait, to the concept of poetry interpretation, which couldn't be farther from that attitude you exhibit. You must be an extremely tedious person to talk to, and a complete waste of space as a teacher.

[Malthus]

Don't poems mean only one thing?

That is all too often true of modern "poetry," but not of much of the classical stuff.

"Poetry - pfffft"  (The reaction I got, along with rolled eyes, from a student when I assigned the first poem this semester)

It pisses me off more than I can express that the sheer amount of crappy art out there in fact turns the kids off of art.

If I was a teacher, I'd see it as my duty to introduce kids to artistic works which would make them realize there is great stuff out there, if they only search for it.

[Malthus]

Now kids, don't get all rough-beast-like in the thread. 

[Martinus]

Don't poems mean only one thing?

That is all too often true of modern "poetry," but not of much of the classical stuff.

"Poetry - pfffft"  (The reaction I got, along with rolled eyes, from a student when I assigned the first poem this semester)

It pisses me off more than I can express that the sheer amount of crappy art out there in fact turns the kids off of art.

If I was a teacher, I'd see it as my duty to introduce kids to artistic works which would make them realize there is great stuff out there, if they only search for it.

You and grumbler should sit down and make a long list of crappy art that the kids would be banned from reading or viewing. You could title it "Entartete Kunst".

[grumbler]

I dare say I have more background in interpreting poems like this than you, 

I dare say you have no clue as to which of us has more background in poetic interpretation, but it doesn't surprise me at all that you would claim superior knowledge.   

What I am saying is that Yeats could have referred to the physical characteristic of the Egyptian sphinx, but meant the symbolic characteristics (malicious, enigmatic) of the Greek sphinx. 

You cannot steal my point, sorry.

Considering it is a piece of mystical, revelatory poetry, you seem to be operating under a false assumption that this has a single, precise, non-ambiguous meaning.

You are actually describing your position, not mine.  You are the one falsely assuming that Yeats is unambiguously referring to a sphinx.  I am saying that if he is referring to a sphinx, it isn't the Egyptian good-luck idea of the sphinx.

It's like you are applying your very annoying, nit-picking personality trait, to the concept of poetry interpretation, which couldn't be farther from that attitude you exhibit. You must be an extremely tedious person to talk to, and a complete waste of space as a teacher.

Actually, what I am applying is my unfailing ability to chap your ass when you stick your nose into threads like this and show your ass with comments like the sphinx one.  Your personal attacks and characterization of my work, of course, greatly amuse me (and, i suspect, the rest of the adults here) but, alas for you, I don't play that game.

[grumbler]

You and grumbler should sit down and make a long list of crappy art that the kids would be banned from reading or viewing. You could title it "Entartete Kunst".

You may think banning is a great solution to the problem of "crappy art," but you should avoid projecting your attitudes to others.  I oppose banning any works for any reason, so cannot serve on the banning team you propose.  You will have do the work you were going to assign me  yourself.

[crazy canuck]

I have really enjoyed reading through this thread.  One thing is certain Grumbler.  It is the lucky student that has you as a teacher.

Something that struck me is the use of Christian metaphor - the second coming (usually associated with Christ) - to describe an ancient evil - the beast who's time has finally come (again).  A kind of Anti-Christ who is the enemy of freedom.

Could the Sphinx be the symbol of ancient totalitarian regimes that are coming again?

[garbon]

One thing is certain Grumbler.  It is the lucky student that has you as a teacher.

Yeah, learn this interpretation of a poem that isn't want the poet intended. Yay!

[grumbler]

I have really enjoyed reading through this thread.  One thing is certain Grumbler.  It is the lucky student that has you as a teacher.

Something that struck me is the use of Christian metaphor - the second coming (usually associated with Christ) - to describe an ancient evil - the beast who's time has finally come (again).  A kind of Anti-Christ who is the enemy of freedom.

Could the Sphinx be the symbol of ancient totalitarian regimes that are coming again?

I think that the "twenty centuries of stony sleep" line supports the concept that what is coming is very old, yes.  I am not sure that the whole "body of a lion" and "beast" metaphors are meant to be taken literally as a sphinx.  You could argue, for instance, that the Soviet KGB had the head of a man (Beria) and the body pf a lion (the rather faceless bureaucracy that carried out the KGB's duties), and that the KGB was savage enough to be called "bestial."

[Valmy]

Yeah, learn this interpretation of a poem that isn't want the poet intended. Yay!

So?  The point of poetry is not to guess what the poet intended.