Poetic Thickness

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)
7 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the experience of a poem qua poem is an experience of poetic thickness, i.e. an experience in which poetic form and poetic content are inseparable. I present a critical analysis of A. C. Bradley’s ‘Poetry for Poetry’s Sake’ lecture in Section 1, indicating both the strengths and weaknesses of his conception of resonant meaning. Section 2 draws on subsequent work by I. A. Richards and Peter Lamarque to advance my account of the relationship in question, poetic thickness, understood as a demand made of a poem rather than a property discovered therein. In Sections 3–6 I discuss four objections to form-content unity from Peter Kivy: perfect circularity, ubiquitous unity, the sugar-coated pill tradition, and the defence from tradition. I show that all these objections fail against poetic thickness. I conclude that the experience of a poem qua poem is indeed an experience of thickness, and that poetic thickness is therefore a necessary condition of poetry.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)49-64
JournalThe British Journal of Aesthetics
Volume54
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2014

Fingerprint

Poetics
Thickness
Poem
Unity
Poetry
Conception
Critical Analysis
Form-content
Poetic Form
Circularity
I. A. Richards

Cite this

McGregor, Rafe. / Poetic Thickness. In: The British Journal of Aesthetics. 2014 ; Vol. 54, No. 1. pp. 49-64.
@article{77286e8822d843ae96e12117f28c66be,
title = "Poetic Thickness",
abstract = "The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the experience of a poem qua poem is an experience of poetic thickness, i.e. an experience in which poetic form and poetic content are inseparable. I present a critical analysis of A. C. Bradley’s ‘Poetry for Poetry’s Sake’ lecture in Section 1, indicating both the strengths and weaknesses of his conception of resonant meaning. Section 2 draws on subsequent work by I. A. Richards and Peter Lamarque to advance my account of the relationship in question, poetic thickness, understood as a demand made of a poem rather than a property discovered therein. In Sections 3–6 I discuss four objections to form-content unity from Peter Kivy: perfect circularity, ubiquitous unity, the sugar-coated pill tradition, and the defence from tradition. I show that all these objections fail against poetic thickness. I conclude that the experience of a poem qua poem is indeed an experience of thickness, and that poetic thickness is therefore a necessary condition of poetry.",
author = "Rafe McGregor",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayt048",
language = "English",
volume = "54",
pages = "49--64",
journal = "British Journal of Aesthetics",
issn = "0007-0904",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

Poetic Thickness. / McGregor, Rafe.

In: The British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 54, No. 1, 01.01.2014, p. 49-64.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Poetic Thickness

AU - McGregor, Rafe

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the experience of a poem qua poem is an experience of poetic thickness, i.e. an experience in which poetic form and poetic content are inseparable. I present a critical analysis of A. C. Bradley’s ‘Poetry for Poetry’s Sake’ lecture in Section 1, indicating both the strengths and weaknesses of his conception of resonant meaning. Section 2 draws on subsequent work by I. A. Richards and Peter Lamarque to advance my account of the relationship in question, poetic thickness, understood as a demand made of a poem rather than a property discovered therein. In Sections 3–6 I discuss four objections to form-content unity from Peter Kivy: perfect circularity, ubiquitous unity, the sugar-coated pill tradition, and the defence from tradition. I show that all these objections fail against poetic thickness. I conclude that the experience of a poem qua poem is indeed an experience of thickness, and that poetic thickness is therefore a necessary condition of poetry.

AB - The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the experience of a poem qua poem is an experience of poetic thickness, i.e. an experience in which poetic form and poetic content are inseparable. I present a critical analysis of A. C. Bradley’s ‘Poetry for Poetry’s Sake’ lecture in Section 1, indicating both the strengths and weaknesses of his conception of resonant meaning. Section 2 draws on subsequent work by I. A. Richards and Peter Lamarque to advance my account of the relationship in question, poetic thickness, understood as a demand made of a poem rather than a property discovered therein. In Sections 3–6 I discuss four objections to form-content unity from Peter Kivy: perfect circularity, ubiquitous unity, the sugar-coated pill tradition, and the defence from tradition. I show that all these objections fail against poetic thickness. I conclude that the experience of a poem qua poem is indeed an experience of thickness, and that poetic thickness is therefore a necessary condition of poetry.

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayt048

DO - https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayt048

M3 - Article

VL - 54

SP - 49

EP - 64

JO - British Journal of Aesthetics

JF - British Journal of Aesthetics

SN - 0007-0904

IS - 1

ER -