Thoughts on "Objectivist Lamp"

As the object was the point of interest for Carl Rakosi, so "Objectivist Lamp" is my point of interest this week.

On a first reading this poem seems exceptionally simple. Rakosi devotes twelve lines to the description of an ivory lamp with a "batik lamp shade" (L. 10-11) that rests on top. Significantly, this description is not made in comparative or contrasting terms. While the lamp is described as if it has hands and a breast this is owing to the fact that it is a female figurine. Rakosi does not attempt to invest the lamp with any definition outside direct description.

The structure of this poem is in line with these thematic issues. The inter-locking lines of the poem are a physical representation of the "hand crossed" (L. 5) figurine that the lamp is styled after. In the same way that the ivory woman holds the illuminating light bulb, the poem holds the illuminating title "Objectivist Lamp". The poet uses the structure of the poem to highlight the importance of the singular item that is described throughout.

Each of these issues underline the now useless division of form and content in the modernist and post-modernist period. While we can identify different formal and thematic techniques, their results are inextricably linked and impossible to separate. Although many have questioned the worth of such objectivism as art, it is hard to conceive of a poem that more closely captures every aspect of its object.

By adapting Rakosi's direct approach, literary criticism could create a more coherent and useful accompaniment to literature.

-The English Student

Deconstruction, not Destruction

Although it is an old theory, the idea of 'deconstruction' as posited by Jacques Derrida and others still has worth today.

'Deconstructionism' deals with the idea that there are no overall theories that can properly encapsulate existence. This school of thought came as a reaction to theorists who believed that literary texts are examples of unifying constructs that create understanding. These theories were pushed further with hypotheses that claimed that language itself was without any universal meaning and is a hollow construction that belies true existence.

These theories have often been derided for being elitist and abstract. On the surface, it is very easy to believe methods of deconstruction to be out of touch with common literary practice and common human existence. After all, by claiming that there is no universality in relation to literary texts, one can be seen to ignore the common tropes and form that are latent in countless instance of literature. It seems that we should take a slightly less extreme approach to criticism if we are going to engage with the theories of Derrida.

Indeed, it is important to make the distinction between 'deconstruction' and 'destruction'. We must not completely ignore all aspects of a text, but instead we should reduce them down to their basic form. The value of 'deconstruction' is that it attempts to make room for contrasting theories while looking for an underlying trope common to them all. Instead of forcing writers and texts together, sparing use of 'deconstructionist' approaches will allow a critic to identify the foundations of these texts rather than create a hollow amalgamation of the issues they deal with.

In this way, 'deconstruction' should be identified as another useful band in the spectrum of literary criticism.

-The English Student