FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2945503504> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2945503504 startingPage "220" @default.
• W2945503504 abstract "There is some critical consensus that Blake's The Fly has an ironic sting in its tail. A rough sampling of the criticism indicates a large range of such irony: Pagliaro's reading finds a merely conditional visionary defeat for the poem's narrator; Bloom reads a more destructive critique of the pious consolations of an orthodox Christianity; and Wagenknecht proposes a nihilistic final stanza that critically parodies syllogistic reasoning by demonstrating its effects as a heap of bodies at the end of the poem.(1) But I shall argue instead that it is we who are in danger in any encounter with the poem and that this danger originates not in the poem but in ourselves. I shall also propose, however, that the grammar of the poem, along with its formal identity as part of a chapbook, can enable us to recognize our destructive and ultimately self-destructive complicity in the text. It is in my emphasis on the agency of a reader, invoked by the poem, that the difference between my argument and the previous criticism consists. I. There is, perhaps expectedly, more critical agreement about the poem's plot than there is about the consequences and significance of its events: the fly always gets to die, and in the rest of the poem it is understood that the narrator's attempt to identify with his victim is variously complicated according to the degree of irony thus read into it. It is, however, this very stability, constituted by a critical consensus about the plot, that I shall challenge by the version of reader-response criticism that follows. While virtually all critics of the poem have stabilized its plot by declining to consider their own agency in this project, I shall develop the notion of stylistics, formulated by Stanley Fish, to reflect on both my own reading agency and on that of a critical consensus concerned to deny, or at least to ignore, its own complicity in the drama of this poem. My working notion of an affective stylistics will, however, differ from Fish's version by sidestepping the fairly received objection that Fish's reader never learns from his or her own experience. Jolted into self-recrimination by a disruption of its syntactic expectations, Fish's reader then approaches the next sentence, and then the next, and so on, without any suspicion that the moral lesson of the preceding sentence is about to be taught again. Since I focus here on a single lyric rather than the large narratives that Fish analyzes, I do not face the problem of an incredibly sustained credulity. But even if my reading practice were applied to the whole corpus of Blake's Songs, the problem would still not occur, both because this collection is considerably shorter than, say, Paradise Lost and because each lyric, unlike each sentence in Milton's epic, presents a different dramatic situation. Differently situated in each poem, my reader is taught a lesson that is contextually distinct. Since this lesson, staged chiefly by the genre of the chapbook, entails an exercise in reading just as much as it enjoins the exertion of moral discrimination, Blake's Songs seems proleptically to invite a version of such criticism. Despite the supposed stability of this poem's plot, the death of the fly and hence the narrator's culpability for it are highly contingent upon how we read the first stanza. What the narrator admits is that he has brushed away the fly's summer's play.(2) Either this admission is a soothing circumlocution for an act of destruction or it is an innocent account of how the narrator merely repelled, accidentally or otherwise, the fly's activity. To convict the narrator on the basis of his self-incrimination, we must first undergo a little jury selection. Virtually all the critics of this poem have established the murder by supplying the body themselves. But did they really get it from the text when the text itself does not definitively state that a death in fact occurred? In order to answer this question about whether the narrator or the reader is the dominant agent in this first stanza, we must, since the extent of the narrator's malefaction is suddenly at issue here, decide how much agency the narrator and the fly possess relative to one another. …" @default.
• W2945503504 created "2019-05-29" @default.
• W2945503504 creator A5054521316 @default.
• W2945503504 date "1996-06-22" @default.
• W2945503504 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2945503504 title "Who Didn't Kill Blake's Fly: Moral Law and the Rule of Grammar in 'Songs of Experience.' (William Blake)(Rhetoric and Poetics)" @default.
• W2945503504 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W2945503504 type Work @default.
• W2945503504 sameAs 2945503504 @default.
• W2945503504 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2945503504 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2945503504 hasAuthorship W2945503504A5054521316 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConcept C1370556 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConcept C164913051 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConcept C167651023 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConcept C2779975665 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConcept C556248259 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConcept C7991579 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConceptScore W2945503504C105795698 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConceptScore W2945503504C124952713 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConceptScore W2945503504C1370556 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConceptScore W2945503504C138885662 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConceptScore W2945503504C142362112 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConceptScore W2945503504C164913051 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConceptScore W2945503504C167651023 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConceptScore W2945503504C27206212 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConceptScore W2945503504C2779975665 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConceptScore W2945503504C33923547 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConceptScore W2945503504C556248259 @default.
• W2945503504 hasConceptScore W2945503504C7991579 @default.
• W2945503504 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2945503504 hasLocation W29455035041 @default.
• W2945503504 hasOpenAccess W2945503504 @default.
• W2945503504 hasPrimaryLocation W29455035041 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W131048006 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W177991467 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W1980367473 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W1983717952 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W1991504163 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W2061399693 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W2098473425 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W230754296 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W2314101289 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W2316450736 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W2317074111 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W233083350 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W2463495125 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W2562234847 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W2586538358 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W2595626623 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W275189451 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W2760771378 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W3167729401 @default.
• W2945503504 hasRelatedWork W8972615 @default.
• W2945503504 hasVolume "30" @default.
• W2945503504 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2945503504 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2945503504 magId "2945503504" @default.
• W2945503504 workType "article" @default.