The Ever-Evolving Canvas: Exploring the Problem of Meaning in Modern Poetry

‘There is a magic made by melody:

A spell of rest, and quiet breath, and cool

Heart, that sinks through fading colours deep

To the subaqueous stillness of the sea,

And floats forever in a moon-green pool,

Held in the arms of rhythm and of sleep’ (Bishop 214).

Poetry, as elucidated by T. S. Eliot, ‘is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion;’ it operates not as a conduit for individual temperament, but rather as a vehicle for its transcendence (Eliot, “Tradition and the Individual Talent” 54). This sophisticated medium, characterised by its complex web of linguistic nuances, frequently surpasses the confines of conventional verbal expression. The intricacy inherent in poetry manifests not solely within its syntactic framework, but also in its capacity to encapsulate profound sentiments and cogitations within a condensed structure. An apprehension of poetry, thus, necessitates an exploration into the recesses of one’s emotional intelligence, analogous to the incremental peeling of layers from an onion, each unveiling novel dimensions of meaning and perspective. The poet’s utterances function akin to a prism, refracting a singular intellectual impulse into a kaleidoscope of affective states. It is within poetry’s inherent ambiguity that its allure resides, as it possesses the capacity to elicit varied interpretations among disparate audiences. This multifaceted quality, coupled with its profundity, renders poetry an intellectually rigorous yet intrinsically gratifying subject of inquiry. Comprehending poetry extends beyond mere lexical decryption; rather, it necessitates a sojourn into the sinuous complexities of the human psyche, thereby divulging the myriad hues of human experience. The assertion posited in this essay regarding modern poetry’s inclination towards problematizing meaning and interpretation delineates its proclivity to contest conventional paradigms of literary comprehension. Modern poetry frequently eschews linear narrative structures and unequivocal significations, instead embracing ambiguity, intricacy, and a plethora of conceivable interpretations. Contemporary poets frequently exhibit a penchant for linguistic experimentation characterised by innovative and unorthodox methodologies, notably embracing fragmentation, disjunction, and non-linear narratives. These techniques serve to challenge conventional archetypes of poetic interpretation, thereby complicating traditional notions concerning the form and communicative function of poetry.

Eliot, a seminal figure within the realm of modernist literature, is celebrated for his pioneering utilisation of language and form, a practice that intricately complicates notions of significance and comprehension. His poetic corpus, epitomised by works like The Waste Land, is distinguished by its dense intertextuality, intricate imagery, and a structure marked by fragmentation. C. K. Stead, in his book New Poetic: Yeats to Eliot mentions that ‘the poem was attacked as “meaningless;”’ and that ‘so many “explanations” of Eliot’s poetry have only moved in orbit about their subject, emitting faint signals about its outer atmosphere’ (Stead 130). He goes on to exaggerate how ‘it is [many] years since The Waste Land appeared, and in some ways, we are still helpless before it’ (Stead 130). His analysis describes the poem as ‘the end product of successive movements against abstractable poetic discourse’ and ‘the justification of the Symbolist enterprise’ (Stead 131). A notable instance of this assertion can be discerned in the introductory verse of Eliot’s poem, ‘April is the cruellest month, breeding/ Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing/ Memory and desire, stirring/ Dull roots with spring rain’ (Eliot, “The Waste Land” 1-4), which stands in stark contrast to the optimistic depiction of the month of April in Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, wherein April is extolled as a harbinger of rejuvenation and merriment. Eliot’s deliberate subversion of this conventional trope serves to complicate the established association between springtime and regeneration, thereby challenging prevailing notions of seasonal symbolism. These stylistic choices collectively foster a resistance to facile interpretation, thereby beckoning readers to actively participate in the process of unravelling layers of meaning. Eliot’s conceptualisation of poetry underscores the notion that the psyche of a seasoned poet serves as a meticulously honed conduit through which peculiar or multifarious sentiments are permitted to amalgamate in novel configurations. Central to his belief is the contention that all meritorious poetry comprises elements that even elude the comprehension of its creator, drawing upon mnemonic reservoirs imbued with symbolic resonance whose precise import remains inscrutable, gesturing toward profound emotional depths that elude direct scrutiny. This vantage posits that the poet, too, may not possess exhaustive insight into the semantic contours of their oeuvre. In his address to the National Book League in 1953, Eliot expounded upon the poetic process as a journey wherein the poet remains unacquainted with their thematic destination until it is articulated. He postulated that the poet ‘is oppressed by a burden,’ the articulation of which offers cathartic release (Eliot, “The Three Voices of Poetry” 18). The resultant verses, constituting the poem itself, serve as a form of exorcism, purging the poet of this existential affliction. This creative endeavour transcends mere communication, serving instead as a means of alleviating acute psychological disquietude. In this fashion, Eliot’s poetry beckons readers to undertake a more participatory and discerning mode of engagement. It impels us to interrogate our presuppositions, interrogate our entrenched biases, and navigate the complexities and ambivalences inherent within the human condition. The problematization of meaning within Eliot’s verse, or the sphere of modernist poetry for that matter, far from constituting an impediment to comprehension, emerges as an enticement to explore, interpret, and ultimately, to craft our own interpretative frameworks.

Elizabeth Bishop’s literary development was notably influenced by the works of T. S. Eliot. Their interaction culminated in a pivotal interview held at Vassar College in 1933. According to

James Longenbach, in her essay “Dimensions for a Novel,” Bishop articulated a distinct aspiration to depart from the conventions established by modernist predecessors. Central to her approach was the adaptation of Eliot’s notion of ‘tradition’ to the framework of literary composition. In response to Eliot’s assertion that ‘the existing order is complete before the new work arrives’ and that for a new order to emerge, ‘the whole existing order must be… altered’ (Eliot, “Tradition and the Individual Talent” 71), Bishop paralleled this concept, as observed by Longenbach, that the linear progression of narrative undergoes a continual process of ‘constant readjustment’ (Longenbach 474-75). This contention indicates that Bishop perceived tradition not merely as a static corpus of texts, but rather as a dynamic phenomenon perpetually influenced by fresh contributions. Through her idiosyncratic analysis of Eliot’s essay, Bishop conveyed an understanding of the interpretation of literary works as an ongoing endeavour, susceptible to diverse viewpoints. Elizabeth Bishop’s poetic opus embodies a multifaceted array of subtle significances and intricate elucidations. Renowned for its scrupulous attention to detail and its distinctive amalgamation of the individual and the universal, her poetry offers a captivating examination of semantic complexities. This essay will now scrutinise Bishop’s verse, elucidating how it complicates notions of meaning and interpretation through its utilisation of precision and detail, perspective and subjectivity, memory and nostalgia, intertextuality and allusion, as well as uncertainty and ambiguity. 

Bishop’s biography serves as a rich repository of insights delineating the intricate interplay between her personal milieu and philosophical underpinnings, both of which have profoundly shaped the thematic weaving of her poetry. Born in 1911 amidst the backdrop of Worcester, Massachusetts, Bishop’s nascent years were characterised by a palpable sense of bereavement and geographic dislocation, motifs that would later manifest as recurrent leitmotifs within the fabric of her verse (Millier xi-xiii). Her adeptness in transmuting idiosyncratic experiences into archetypal verities stands as a testament not only to her prowess as a versifier but also to her distinctive approach towards the ontological quest for meaning. Engaging with Elizabeth Bishop’s writing is akin to being transported to the precise locales and temporalities she evokes. She skilfully directs our attention to the minutiae of each scene, as if guiding us through a microscopic examination where every detail is laid bare. This immersive experience goes beyond mere observation, fostering a heightened sense of presence alongside the poet herself. Bishop’s persistent call of heightened awareness propels readers towards a state of acute perception, where the clarity achieved borders on discomfort, reminiscent of an overpowering luminance.

Bishop demonstrates a propensity for free verse despite occasional forays into structures forms such as the sestina and villanelle, as evidenced in her collected works. The Fish, notably, eschews any adherence to a predetermined rhyme scheme or metre. The poem’s lines maintain a consistent length, characterised by brevity. This uniformity imparts a sense of deliberate control, a quality Bishop consistently endeavours to uphold in her craft. The concise nature of the lines serves to parcel out the methodical delineation of detail within the poem, lending it the semblance of an extensive, descriptive inventory, all encapsulated within a single stanza. This meticulous attention to detail serves to complicate the process of deriving meaning and interpretation. The poem’s vivid descriptions, filtered through the lens of the speaker’s subjective perception, create multifarious images that lend themselves to diverse interpretations. The fish, for instance, is described with such intricate detail – ‘his brown skin hung in strips/ like ancient wallpaper;’ ‘he was speckled with barnacles/ fine rosettes of lime/ and infested/ with tiny white sea-lice’ – that it transcends its literal depiction, assuming the role of a complex metaphor embodying concepts such as nature, adversity, resilience, and perhaps even the poet herself (Bishop 42). The speaker’s emotional fluctuations towards the fish, articulated through elaborate descriptions, vacillate between admiration, empathy, and reverence, thereby adding layers of depth to the poem’s meaning. The speaker evinces a profound sense of admiration in the fish’s presence. Notably, the term ‘awe’ encapsulates a blend of fear and fascination. As the fish struggles for ‘the terrible oxygen’ with its ‘frightening gills,’ the speaker experiences a surge of adrenaline tinged with trepidation (Bishop 42). Moreover, the poem’s intricate imagery juxtaposes elements of beauty with decay, blurring the boundaries between life and death, triumph and defeat, as well as attractiveness and repulsiveness. This juxtaposition of opposing forces complicates the interpretive process, challenging conventional dichotomies and urging readers to delve into the text’s complexities. Was the fish’s decision to let itself be caught by the speaker influenced by the fish’s awareness that the speaker would eventually release it? The unexpected denouement, wherein the speaker opts to release the fish, further complicates interpretation by subverting the conventional narrative of triumph and conquest. As the poem concludes, ‘like medals with their ribbons/ frayed and wavering/ a five-haired beard of wisdom/ trailing from his aching jaw,’ we are left wondering whether the speaker saw the fish as too human to kill or was just too afraid to kill it (Bishop 43). 

In The Armadillo, the speaker’s perspective and subjectivity of interpretation intertwine, complicating the poem’s meaning and inviting readers to engage in a multifaceted analysis. The poem begins with a seemingly objective depiction of an annual event, St. John’s Day as clarified by Bishop in her letters to Robert Lowell, ‘the time of year/ when almost every night/ the frail, illegal fire balloons appear’ (Bishop 103), setting the stage for a narrative that is both personal and universal. The ‘frail’ and ‘illegal’ fire balloons serve as a poignant emblem of fleeting allure and latent peril, encapsulating the speaker’s mixed sentiments toward them. In her correspondence with Lowell, Bishop reminisces about her recollection of observing the procession of balloons during St. John’s Day, as well as the evenings preceding and following the event, as they gracefully ascended the mountain toward her residence. She notes the peculiar phenomenon of these balloons inducing a ‘special draught,’ necessitating the installation of a sprinkler system on the roof. Despite this practical inconvenience, Bishop acknowledges the aesthetic allure of the balloons, expressing ambivalence with the phrase, ‘one’s of two minds about them’ (Muldoon). This ambivalence becomes palpable through the speaker’s intricate portrayal of a ‘glistening’ armadillo, depicted as ‘hastily, all alone’ leaving the scene, ‘rose-flecked, head, tail down’ (Bishop 104). This portrayal imbues the creature with human-like qualities, eliciting empathy from the reader. Such subjective rendering of the armadillo complicates the poem’s meaning, prompting readers to scrutinise their own preconceptions and prejudices.  Additionally, Bishop’s decision, as discussed in her conversation with Howard Moss, to italicise the final stanza remains somewhat unelaborated upon by both Bishop and Moss. 

‘Too pretty, dreamlike mimicry!

O falling fire and piercing cry

And panic, and a weak mailed fist

Clenched ignorant against the sky! (Bishop 104)

The rationale behind the use of italics for the concluding stanza is left open to interpretation. Italics, as a typographic device, can convey various meanings, such as emphasis, foreign language phrases, definitions, or the inner workings of a character’s thoughts. In this instance, it serves as a byzantine purpose, encompassing elements of all these functions. Muldoon highlights the retention of the final exclamation mark, suggesting that it was purposely left ‘as if to emphasise that emphasis isn’t the main business of the italicisation’ (Muldoon). The notion that the last stanza possesses a distinct quality is noteworthy. It seems to exist as an entity separate from the rest of the poem, akin to ‘an organ that has somehow been harvested and transplanted into the body of this text’ (Muldoon). Deciphering the implications of this italicised stanza remains subjective, contingent upon the reader’s unique experience with the poem. 

Bishop’s most well-known work, One Art, operates with a multi-layered deceptive guise, wherein its outward appearance of conversational lucidity belies the intricate structure of the villanelle form. This juxtaposition between apparent simplicity and underlying complexity engages the reader in a subtle dance of comprehension. The poem’s initial impression of ease, conveyed through its casual tone and fluid diction, belies the profound emotional resonance embedded within its verses. Bishop adeptly navigates this dichotomy, gradually unravelling a narrative that belies a deep-seated concern for each enumerated loss. Furthermore, the poem’s ostensibly transparent facade gradually gives way to a more introspective engagement with the reader’s own experiences of loss. Through its seemingly unassuming demeanour, One Art subtly compels its audience to confront their own vulnerabilities, drawing them into a contemplative dialogue with the text. This reflective engagement serves to underscore the universality of loss, transforming the poem into a mirror through which readers may confront their own emotional landscapes. The speaker of the poem undertakes a deliberate strategy of emotional detachment as a means of coping with loss. This practice of what she terms the ‘art of losing’ can be interpreted as an extrapolation of a common parental admonition urging kids to adopt a broader perspective, look at the bigger picture, when faced with adversity. Each assertion that a loss does not constitute a ‘disaster’ reflects the speaker’s conscious effort to transcend the immediacy of personal anguish and adopt a more encompassing viewpoint. Nevertheless, as the speaker progresses to assert that the departure of her beloved does not qualify as a catastrophe, she finds herself increasingly distanced from her own history and experiences. The expansive vista of the ‘big picture’ becomes overwhelming, suggesting that complete immunity from life’s tribulations necessitates a complete disengagement from its emotional intricacies. The purported mastery of the art of losing thus reveals itself to be an elusive goal, highlighting the inherent challenges of navigating the complex terrain of human emotions unscathed. The themes of memory and nostalgia intertwine to create a complex narrative that problematizes conventional notions of loss and acceptance. The repeated assertions ‘the art of losing isn’t hard to master’ serve as a mantra, a desperate attempt to convince herself and the reader of the ease with which one can navigate loss. Yet, the poem’s progression reveals the inherent difficulty and pain associated with letting go. In an article that discusses the poem alongside the psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, Rafael Campo and Elisa New chew over the end rhymes that -

‘...repeatedly chant “master/disaster, master/disaster,” creating a baseline of reassurance and the dialectic of a psyche finding its way through loss. But the aspiration to mastery leaves room for a lot of anxiety. Many readers hear a kind of hysteria in the poem, with its rhythm revving up as it ruminates on vulnerability in the face of mortal threat…’ (Campo and New)

This analysis further elucidates the thematic depth of the poem, contextualising it within the contemporary milieu marked by the pervasive influence of a pandemic and the profound experiences of loss therein. In grappling with Bishop’s ostensibly optimistic tonal register, readers confront a dissonance that evokes anxiety and a sense of hysteria, emblematic of the discord between the poet’s intended message and the emotional response elicited from the audience amidst their collective struggles with existential uncertainties engendered by the pandemic paradigm. 

‘Even losing you (the joking voice, a gesture

I love) I shan’t have lied. It’s evident

The art of losing’s not too hard to master

Though it may look like (Write it!) like disaster’ (Bishop 178).

Here, nostalgia creeps in, as the speaker clings to memories of a loved one while acknowledging the inevitability of their loss. The tension between memory and acceptance is further heightened in the closing lines. This admission reveals the speaker’s reluctance to fully let go, marked by the subtle interjection ‘Write it;’ a discernible rupture in her previously maintained demeanour of assurance and levity. This pivotal moment represents a departure from prior iterations within the poem, wherein the speaker sustains a veneer of composure. The deliberate exertion required to pen the word ‘disaster’ on this final occasion serves as an emblem of the poet’s inherent humanity and susceptibility, thereby drawing poignant parallels between her emotional journey and the universal human experience. 

One Art operates on a dual thematic plane; initially, the titular significance can be gleaned from the inaugural line, suggesting that the sole artistry at play pertains to the adept handling of loss. Yet, upon closer examination of the poem’s intricacies, it becomes evident that the art of writing is also subtly intertwined within its fabric. Hence, these two fundamental experiences, the act of losing and the act of crafting poetry, become entwined. The titular ‘one art’ amalgamates notions of loss, the process of navigating through loss, and the articulation of such experiences through the medium of verse. For instance, the insertion of hyphens between the following lines in The Fish,

‘– the frightening gills,

Fresh and crisp with blood, That can cut so badly –’ (Bishop 42)

momentarily detaches the reader from the broader thematic context addressing the fish’s plight. This strategic employment of punctuation serves to emphasise the salient physical characteristics of the fish, prompting a reflective pause within the reader’s sympathetic engagement with the fish. Throughout the poem, the poet recurrently employs hyphenation, as exemplified yet again in the lines ‘that from his lower lip/ – if you could call it a lip –’ (Bishop 43). In this fashion, Bishop induces a momentary pause within the poem, inviting the reader to partake in the poet’s cognitive processes, compelling the reader to conjure vivid mental imagery, thereby enhancing the immersive quality of the poetic experience. 

The examination of the arbitrary application of italicisation within the final stanza of The Armadillo has been previously deliberated, wherein it instigates a disorienting encounter for both the reader and the critic endeavouring to discern the intentionality behind such a manoeuvre by the poet or within the poem itself. In One Art, we observe the deliberate manipulation of punctuation with the intervals between phrases expanding progressively throughout the poem. This structural technique appears to reflect the speaker’s increasing urgency to reconcile herself with the inevitability of loss as she seems to begin to lose herself in the grief. Remarkably, the auditory experience of these punctuational breaks mirrors the irregular cadence of one’s breath when endeavouring to suppress emotional distress, akin to the onset of tears. Bishop astutely harnesses commas, parentheses, and hyphens to imbue the text with heightened tension, anxiety, and ambiguity, thereby crafting a nuanced portrayal of human emotion. The strategic deployment of such syntactic elements serves to infuse the poem with an air of authenticity and relatability, blurring the boundary between author and reader. Consequently, readers find themselves confronted with the stark reality of their own vulnerabilities, as they empathise with the sentiment expressed within the text. This paradoxical interplay between precision and ambiguity not only complicates the process of meaning-making but also enriches the interpretative experience, elevating the poem to a realm of unparalleled poetic profundity.

This essay’s exploration of modern poetry through the lens of T.S. Eliot and Elizabeth Bishop unveils a rich tapestry of complexity, ambiguity, and profound emotional resonance. Through their respective works, these poets challenge conventional paradigms of literary comprehension, inviting readers on a journey of introspection and interpretation. Eliot's groundbreaking utilization of language and form in poems like The Waste Land exemplifies a deliberate subversion of traditional narrative structures, leading to a multiplicity of interpretations that beckon readers to actively engage with the text. Moreover, Eliot's conceptualization of poetry as a form of catharsis, wherein the poet serves as a conduit for inexplicable sentiments, resonates deeply with the human experience of grappling with existential uncertainties and emotional turmoil. His belief in the inherent ambiguity of poetic meaning underscores the notion that interpretation is a collaborative endeavour between poet and reader, with each participant bringing their own unique perspectives and experiences to the table. Similarly, Elizabeth Bishop's poetic oeuvre embodies a meticulous attention to detail and a nuanced exploration of memory, nostalgia, and the human condition. Her adeptness in transmuting personal experiences into universal truths speaks to the enduring relevance of her work, as readers find themselves drawn into the intimate landscapes she so vividly depicts. Whether through the vivid imagery of The Fish or the poignant reflections on loss in One Art, Bishop's poetry invites us to confront our own vulnerabilities and embrace the complexities of the human experience. Throughout this essay, we have delved into the intricacies of modern poetry, exploring how poets like Eliot and Bishop problematize meaning and interpretation through innovative language, form, and thematic depth. Their works serve as a testament to the enduring power of poetry to evoke profound emotions, challenge entrenched assumptions, and illuminate the complexities of the human psyche. In the end, as readers navigate the sinuous complexities of Eliot's The Waste Land or immerse themselves in Bishop's lyrical landscapes, they are reminded of the transformative potential of poetry to transcend language and connect us to deeper truths. It is through the act of interpretation, of peeling back the layers of meaning and unravelling the mysteries of the text, that we come to appreciate the full extent of poetry's magic—a magic made not by melody alone, but by the indelible imprint of the human spirit on the written word. As we close the pages of this essay, let us carry with us the profound insights gleaned from our exploration of modern poetry. Let us embrace the ambiguity, celebrate the complexity, and cherish the beauty of language that binds us together in our shared quest for meaning and understanding. For in the words of Eliot himself, ‘We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time’ (Eliot, "Little Gidding").

Works Cited

• Bishop, Elizabeth. The Complete Poems 1927-1929. Farrar Straus Giroux, 1984, New York.

• Campo, Rafael, and Elisa New. “The Art of Losing—Three Poems for the COVID-19 Pandemic.” JAMA Network, 11 Dec. 2020,              jamanetwork.com.eux.idm.oclc.org/journals/jama/fullarticle/2774325.

• Eliot, T. S. “Tradition and the Individual Talent.” The Egoist, 01 Sept. 1919, pp. 54-55.

  --- The Three Voices of Poetry. University Press for the National Book League, 2019, Cambridge. --- The Waste Land and Other Poems. 1st ed., Faber & Faber, Limited, 2002.

• Longenbach, James. “Elizabeth Bishop and the Story of Postmodernism.” Southern Review, 28.3 (Summer 1992), pp. 469-84.

• Millier, Brett C. Elizabeth Bishop: Life and the Memory of It. University of California Press, 1992, Berkeley.

• Muldoon, Paul. “Fire Balloons: The Letters of Robert Lowell and Elizabeth Bishop.” Letter Writing Among Poets: From William Wordsworth to Elizabeth Bishop, Edinburgh Scholarship Online, 18 Jan. 2018, https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748681327.003.0014.

• Stead, C. K. “ The Poetry of T. S. Eliot.” New Poetic: Yeats to Eliot. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2005, ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ed/detail.action?docID=1749007.