I think this platitude, first stated as such by William Carlos Williams is one of the most important things for budding writers to recognize. When W.C.W. wrote "No ideas but in things", he was reminding us that all the conceptual, abstract ideas that flow through our minds and through our pens and onto our pages have their root cause in tangible objects. Because of this, rather than writing to someone about "love", "freedom", "speed", or "beauty", concepts that are understood but intangible, one should write about the physical objects that suggest these abstract ideas to the reader, therefore creating poetry/prose that both plays on the intellectual thought of the reader AND on the reader's physical senses. Take one of W.C.W.s most famous poems as an example: The Red Wheelbarrow So much depends upon A red wheel barrow Glazed with rain water Beside the white chickens Every individual part of this poem has its basis in a concrete, tangible image, and yet from the first line we are given to believe that each of these physical objects (wheelbarrow, water, and chickens) are somehow incredibly important to something. It is that intangible "something" that W.C.W. is leading us to in The Red Wheelbarrow that is the IDEA which has its root in THINGS. I know this concept has influenced me heavily in my poetry and my prose, as I constantly strive to "show, not tell". What do you all think of this? Can physical objects always contain and create the abstract ideas one desires to write about? Or are there times where this standard falls short, does not function? Any response to this rather dry and mechanical post would be appreciated! I want to create an interesting discussion surrounding one of my most valued personal poetic ideals. Thanks, -V
i love the idea of tangling an abstract idea with a common physical object. it's always proved effective in poetry epically. I defiantly value the style of writing though To be told something is only to see something To be shown something is to understand something
well there are always times where this will fall short, as our language is a poor conductor of true creativity, but the tangible is the most important part of writing. if an author "tells" a reader, the reader can dispute the author. if an author "shows" a reader, the reader has no choice but to observe. Charles Baxter has a book called "Burning Down the House" and he says that how a character percieves scenery, setting, physical objects around them indicates their mood, their beliefs, their attitudes toward their situations. Baxter also says that by using pathetic fallacy and personifying that same scenery, setting, physical object, an author can intensify the mood. the tangible is always credible. in poetry this especially applies. a poem cannot stand up if it is based on nothing concrete.
skyfire, i'm with you 100%, and Baxter's book is a great. his explanation of mood/pathetic fallacy is particularly good, taught me more than I learned in many of my college fiction writing classes. and you are absolutely write when you say a poem cannot stand up if it is based on nothing concrete: the concrete image creates the foundation on which the rest of the poem (sound, syntax, logic, etc) are built. without the concrete image, the poem will fall to pieces.
