Re-routing the essay

I'm starting to believe I never properly learned to formulate questions. As I've honed my ideas for this critical analysis essay, I've struggled to pose decently thoughtful questions. Here are my recent thoughts - feel free to offer suggestions.

My original idea for the essay focused on Emerson's concept of Poet as seer, a "sovereign . . . [who] stands on the centre" (725). I was - have been - drawn to Emerson's concept of transcendence. That is, his assertion that Poets are sent into the world as "the only teller of news" (726). I questioned who gave the Poet such authority. What allows him to perceive other-worldly Truth? How is he able to transcend the body, the present life? (Is it a learned skill or an intrinsic perception?) Those questions led to others: is an 'author' one who transcends? Emerson writes that the true Poet "shalt not know any longer the times, customs, graces, politics, or opinions of men, but shalt take all from the muse" (738). A poet isn't concerned with context, but with the eternal value of Truth. Reject the world, he seems to say; or, better yet, transcend it. Thus, is transcendence superior to contextual relevance? That is, is transcendence what makes an author an author? How does an author relate to context?

However, as I reread Emerson's essay "The Poet," my original questions expanded. I'm reminded that Emerson, because he believes that the Poet has a divine responsibility to represent untainted Truth (to transcend the world), seems skeptical of reading. He asserts that "language is the archives of history . . . a sort of tomb for the muses" (731). Expression, as contained in poetry - images and tropes, loses meaning because, though it once represented brilliance, now exists lifeless, as "fossil poetry" (731). He asserts that nature is the superior poetry, for it "baptizes [it]self" (731) and doesn't need another to name it; in this way, it always preserves its transcendent meaning. Reading others' works, however, does nothing for revealing Truth. It is too limited, to confined to context, too contained in the individual. Instead, he seems to suggest that one must seek out one's own revelation, not rely upon another's. Furthermore, Emerson states outrightly that the Poet's obligation is to say and articulate, not to hear and absorb. (Or, the Poet is to hear and absorb Truth for himself, not hear and absorb other mortals' perceptions of Truth.) He writes of the "accidency and fugacity of the symbol" compared to the "stability of the thought" (730). Language, though Poets wield it, limit transcendence. Reading others' poetry, therefore, isn't necessary for understanding. Rather, one should 'read' the universe for understanding.

Considering that Emerson believes that "adequate expression is rare" (725), reading is unessential to understanding. Why waste one's time reading other's poorly-expressed pseudo revelations?

I've always been taught that reading is a valuable exercise, essential if you want to be educated. "Leaders are readers,"a speaker once told us at a youth conference. And I've agreed with them.

Ok, so here's my attempt at an enthymene that may or may not show up in my paper: I used to believe that Emerson's skepticism of reading was unmerited, but, after reading Annette Kolodny's essay "Dancing Through the Minefield ," I have come to see that limiting reading - or filtering reading or practicing discernment/skepticism of reading - can prevent us from being manipulated by the ones Emerson calls the "umpires of taste" (724). Kolodny suggests that undiscerning reading limits our tastes and restricts us to the approved canon.

Thoughts on the matter:

-If Kolodny argues that our present thought shapes and changes our perceptions of the past, then, as Emerson might have concurred, our own Truth - our personally-sought revelations - becomes the valuable item, not the present expressions - poetries - of that Truth. (2154) We transform text into "more current and recognizable shapes" (2154). In this way, thoughtful and selective reading positively shapes our perception of Truth.

- Kolodny writes that reading, though it can be "constantly relearned and refined" (2155), often isn't; therefore, it often leads readers into stagnation. When reading habits become fixed, they no longer serve their purpose in providing variations - continuing revelations - on the same text. Emerson probably feared the stagnation, too. Why read and grow dependent on old perceptions?

- Both Kolodny and Emerson imply that reading impacts the thought processes; it is not a passive act. Rather, it instructs the reader in how one should think. It is not mere absorption. Reading shapes our perceptions of both the past and the present. Therefore, one should read cautiously, with discernment.

- Kolodny writes, "We read well, and with pleasure, what we already know how to read" (2156). Learning the canon - the code - limits us, teaches us to limit ourselves to exclusive, circular, single-definition repertoire. Readers must be receptive to new reading languages - not just the canonically-acceptable ones - and not limit one's self to the gatekeepers' tastes.

Where am I going with this? Central to this issue is the question of reading the power it wields. Both Emerson and Kolodny assert that it wields great influence; Emerson, therefore, is skeptical of it entirely, and Kolodny advocates expansion of its territory ('read everything you can, even works outside the canon,' essentially). Both, however, seem to strive toward a similar purpose: pursue individual revelations of Truth. Emerson seems to avoid (?) reading to focus on individual, unique perceptions of Truth. Kolodny seems to expand reading to individually arrive at a more holistic perception of Truth. I argue that Kolodny's solution offers a true Poet the opportunity to 'entertain the possibility that different readings, even of the same text, may be differently useful, even illuminating" (2161); this potential illumination makes reading worthwhile.

I think I just re-routed my essay. Any thoughts?