Hello and welcome to the Discourse. "The Heresy of Paraphrase" is a significant concept introduced by Cleanth Brooks, a prominent figure in the New Criticism movement.
“The Heresy of Paraphrase’ refers to a paradox suggesting that it is impossible to paraphrase a poem because paraphrasing removes its form, which is an integral part of its meaning. The term was coined by Cleanth Brooks in the last and eponymous chapter of his book The Well Wrought Urn published in 1947.
Cleanth Brooks is a well-renowned literary critic associated with the school of New Criticism, his books, including Understanding Poetry, and The Well Wrought Urn offer important aspects of the literary theory of New Criticism. The Well Wrought Urn is a collection of 11 critical essays in which Cleanth Brooks explains the importance of close reading while analyzing different poetic works without giving any credence to the historical context and authorial intent. The first chapter introduces and explains the Paradox as an essential element of poetic language. In the eleventh and final chapter, Brooks clubs all the previous 10 essays and suggests the final paradox as the ‘Heresy of Paraphrase’ and states that the meaning of a poem consists precisely in what is not translatable. Poetic meaning is bound up with the particular disposition of the words—their sound, rhythm, and arrangement—in short, with the “sensory embodiment” provided by the poem itself. To alter that embodiment is to produce either another poem (and therefore another meaning) or something that is not a work of art at all, and which therefore lacks completely the kind of meaning for which works of art are valued. Hence no poetry is translatable, and critics cannot do better than to point to the objective features of the poem that most seem to them to be worthy of attention.
What is the worth of Paraphrasing then?
It may appear ironic because, in the previous ten essays, Brooks simply paraphrased the well-known poems to offer their meanings as per his analysis. However, Cleanth Brooks is not saying that paraphrasing is wrong or should be avoided. What he is saying is it is wrong, a heresy, to assume that paraphrasing can offer the meaning of a poetic work. He rejects the traditional ways of analyzing poetic works which include paraphrasing a poem and relating it to the historical context and social setup of the period in which the poem was written, along with the biographical background of the poet or author and his intent while writing the poem. According to Cleanth Brooks, ‘Traditional way of analyzing a poem is misleading. It suggests that poems are just statements. But poems are complex and ambiguous. Yet, paraphrase can be used as a reference. It is only an initial state or the first step to predict the move of the critic and not the end of criticism.’
What Brooks means is that when we read a summary or paraphrase of poetic content, we do not actually reach the meaning of the poem itself, rather we encounter the meaning that the critic who paraphrased or summarized the poem is trying to expound. We can predict the move of the critic by that paraphrase but not the actual meaning of that poem that has been analyzed and summarized.
The inseparability of Content and Form:
The German Philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in his work ‘Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art’ 1832 says that
Our sensuous appreciation of art concentrates upon the given “appearance”—the “form,” which holds our attention and gives to the work of art its peculiar individuality. Because it addresses itself to our sensory appreciation, the work of art is essentially concrete, to be understood by an act of perception rather than by a process of discursive thought. At the same time, our understanding of the work of art is in part intellectual; we seek in it a conceptual content, which it presents to us in the form of an idea. One purpose of critical interpretation is to expound this idea in discursive form—to give the equivalent of the content of the work of art in another, nonsensuous idiom. But criticism can never succeed in this task, for by separating the content from the particular form, it abolishes its individuality. The content presented then ceases to be the exact content of that work of art. In losing its individuality, the content loses its aesthetic reality; it thus ceases to be a reason for attending to the particular work of art that first attracted our critical attention. Content is, therefore, inseparable from form, and form in turn inseparable from content.
Distinguishing between Content and Form:
Brooks develops the same idea in his essay and says that while the content of the poem is that part that is paraphrasable, the form of the poem is the organic whole or organic unity of the poetic work, it is the whole unblemished meaning of the poem. The content of a literary work offers the idea of what is it about in the simplest sense. However, Form represents the complexity of the poem.
Cleanth argues that a truly great poem isn't merely a collection of parts, but a unified whole where every element—image, metaphor, rhythm, structure, and meaning—works together harmoniously. Each element contributes to and enhances the overall effect, creating a complex interplay where the parts are inseparable from the whole, and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Brooks believed that a poem's meaning isn't explicitly stated but rather emerges from the intricate interaction of these elements. However, when we paraphrase it, we may offer the content but will fail to offer the form that is not paraphrasable.
To Be Or Not to be
Let us understand the idea of heresy of paraphrasing through the example of William Shakespeare’s famous soliloquy ‘To be or not to be’ from Hamlet.
One can offer the content of Hamlet simply as it is the story of a young Danish prince who returns home to avenge his father’s death at his uncle’s hands. This is the content of Hamlet. However, the form of Hamlet is a much bigger thing and it is not paraphrasable.
We can say that Hamlet is written in blank verse, but that is just a part of the structure. We may also mention the figures of speech used by Shakespeare in the play, however, that too doesn’t represent the form of Hamlet. Form is not a mere collection of metaphor, rhyme, meter, or structure, rather, it is the organic amalgamation, organic whole, or organic unity of the work that makes it unique. Each word, metaphor, simile, rhyme, and meter of the work along with the plot is contextualized and related to the other parts of the work and loses its meaning if separated.
The phrase "To be, or not to be" encapsulates a profound existential dilemma. It reflects Hamlet's deep internal conflict about existence and the nature of life and death. This complexity cannot be fully captured in a simple paraphrase. The irony embedded in Hamlet's contemplation is crucial to understanding the emotional weight of the soliloquy. The phrase itself is not just a question; it carries layers of meaning that arise from Hamlet's situation, his thoughts on mortality, and the moral implications of his choices. If one were to paraphrase this line, the poetic form, including its rhythm, sound, and emotional resonance, would be lost. The beauty of Shakespeare's language and the specific choice of words contribute significantly to the overall impact of the soliloquy.
The tension between the form (the structure and sound of the words) and the content (the philosophical questions being posed) is essential to the poem's meaning. This tension is diminished when the soliloquy is reduced to a mere summary.
Brooks illustrates the Paradox of Paraphrase that while a paraphrase might convey a similar rational meaning, it fails to capture the complexity and nuance of the original work. The emotional and aesthetic experience of the poem is irreplaceable.
Books says that paraphrasing a poem can lead readers to look for logical coherence where there aren't any. He also says that paraphrasing can lead to misconceiving metaphors and meter. He further says that critics should focus on the role of language in a poem and how it expresses ideas. He also says that critics should resist reducing a poem to a simple narrative or didactic message.
So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the concepts of Literary theories and Criticism. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!
No comments:
Post a Comment