11-18-2015, 08:56 PM
i don't think this is controversial at all. is there a argument for the liberal use of abstract nouns, adjectives, and adverbs? maybe. let's see if we can't make it controversial.
firstly, and possibly only (i haven't thought this through), poetry isn't simply a case of painting mental pictures. lines can be composed simply for sound, in which case, it depends on the motives of the poet whether they use 'beauty' or 'daffodils', and i don't think it is necessarily lazier one way or the other. furthermore, is it not also one of the aims of poetry to use words in unusual ways? even in the example you have offered [a garden filled with daffodils and spring] spring, an abstract noun, is being used like a concrete noun. it sounds a bit strange, but also satisfying. no doubt the first line is improved with the addition of the concrete 'daffodil', but it is the use of the abstract noun 'spring' that makes this line remotely interesting, and elevates it beyond the mere description of a scene: a garden filled with daffodils.
following on from that, certain abstract nouns are more abstract than others (note the difference between 'silence' and 'love'). in which case, 'beauty' is non-specific, general. the line 'the beauty of her smile' allows for a subjective interpretation; that is, one will simply imagine a smile which we personally find beautiful (this also suggests that abstract nouns never simply name things, they do generally evoke an image-just not a universal one); pretty lazy, i suppose, saying something like 'oh, you figure it out'. however, the word 'spring' is far less abstract; there is an inter-subjectivity that goes further than the individual case. it comes with specific sights and smells and tastes, etc. of course, these are still subjective, but there is also a shared experience of spring which the author is aware of when choosing to use this word.
er... yeah, well, i have lost my enthusiasm for the fight. fuck it. abstract nouns suck.
firstly, and possibly only (i haven't thought this through), poetry isn't simply a case of painting mental pictures. lines can be composed simply for sound, in which case, it depends on the motives of the poet whether they use 'beauty' or 'daffodils', and i don't think it is necessarily lazier one way or the other. furthermore, is it not also one of the aims of poetry to use words in unusual ways? even in the example you have offered [a garden filled with daffodils and spring] spring, an abstract noun, is being used like a concrete noun. it sounds a bit strange, but also satisfying. no doubt the first line is improved with the addition of the concrete 'daffodil', but it is the use of the abstract noun 'spring' that makes this line remotely interesting, and elevates it beyond the mere description of a scene: a garden filled with daffodils.
following on from that, certain abstract nouns are more abstract than others (note the difference between 'silence' and 'love'). in which case, 'beauty' is non-specific, general. the line 'the beauty of her smile' allows for a subjective interpretation; that is, one will simply imagine a smile which we personally find beautiful (this also suggests that abstract nouns never simply name things, they do generally evoke an image-just not a universal one); pretty lazy, i suppose, saying something like 'oh, you figure it out'. however, the word 'spring' is far less abstract; there is an inter-subjectivity that goes further than the individual case. it comes with specific sights and smells and tastes, etc. of course, these are still subjective, but there is also a shared experience of spring which the author is aware of when choosing to use this word.
er... yeah, well, i have lost my enthusiasm for the fight. fuck it. abstract nouns suck.