City Eclogue is one of the most difficult pieces of writing I have ever been assigned to read. More difficult than Thoreau, than Shakespeare, than any piece of abstract spirituality search because it literally made absolutely no sense to me. I read for purpose and found none. I read for rhetorical prowess and discovered interesting use of diction but relatively unremarkable writing.
I will admit that his syntax is...interesting. I understand why we study it in creative writing, because it most definitely is creative. However, where does the line get crossed from creative into meaningless. I understand the goal. He wished to portray his home city, Pittsburgh in a light that he felt was correct.
His style of writing provides quick glances at ravaged streets, busied lives of people and animals bustling around a city that was far from beautiful. I feel that his purpose could have been met so much more directly and with more power if he would have just written less abstractly and used his rhetorical skills in a more traditional sense to drive home a true meaning. It is a problem when I, as the reader, have a hard time even understanding the most raw components of his writing. Half of the time I felt as though he was just jumbling words together with random indents.
I'm sure there is much to this piece that I did not understand. Perhaps scholars have studied it deeper and have pried more meaning out of it. It was just frustrating to me because I was looking for a needle in a very large haystack.
I look forward to class discussions in hopes that it sheds more light on City Eclogue!
No comments:
Post a Comment