uncanny cant

When music orders poetry analysis adds something to, does not explain away, the experience of the poem. But in these poems:

  • quotation only is nomadic;
  • rhyme is tonally out of focus;
  • cadence is forgettable;
  • etymological analysis changes nothing;
  • line breaks are unobtrusive;
  • narrative does not develop;
  • diction seems settled;
  • shape is natural;
  • expression is undermined;

analysis adds nothing, 

A The poem’s music is a “non-thing”, grotesque1, and the reader suppresses the experience, the non-thing, so making it “taboo”2, when they analyse the poem. The reader may ignore poetic analysis and reasons – the need for radical art to begin again, that is too large for form3 – and consider it a “debased grotesque”3, unpack the poem’s meaning as something separate from its experience, creating some kitsch paraphrase. 

B. Or they may try to think the taboo music with “the entire energy of the soul”4, when what was grotesque becomes “sublime”4. As taboo, the poems we suppress are “egotistically sublime”, Wordsowrthian non-poems.

C. When repression of that egotistical sublime fails, when we can’t avoid their Wordsworthian parallels, the poems will return as a second text undermining their impulse toward a new poetry: they are then experienced as “the psychological grotesque”5.

D. But, in so far as and for as long as the reader is still then searching for the “whole”, still reading, that will be “the reign of the senses”6.

Due to the poems’ non-music (A), under analysis (B) sensuous content seems grotesque (D) and opposed to language and new poetry (C).