Trying to work out whether my gradual non scholarly groping for poetics is coherent will come off weird. Trying again to move on: my process: keep the narrative outside content so that the former is out of focus. I think I noticed something again
What’s INTERESTING about this is how in editing the above as desired I seem to have stumbled on another claim I have complete conviction in: that due to ‘narrative tension’ and ‘structural resolution’ grammar (which I know very little about) alone dictates collage, or fragmentation (not just meaning). I won’t argue, and there is a lot more to a poem and its interpretation.
My tentative yet rushed conclusion is that it is a poem’s appearance of newness and negation always – if a narrative collage – involves its use of grammar (so we can say that in The Waste Land, cruelty as a general quality is quite sensibly thought to breed “lilacs”, I assume loss, yet, because e.g. he uses the superlative, ‘cruelest’, the speaker might also suggest his unreasonableness: it negates itself).