Yeah I agree, Emily wasn't reclusive because there was something wrong with her, it was a choice. Emily has an intelligence that was pure genius. The people around her didn't understand her brilliant imagination. Emily could have been a great scientist. Heck she could have been a lot of things, she was amazing. Emily was deeply sensitive and she was very attached to people. I don't think she cared what gender someone was. She probably liked men and women in an intimate way. Charyn was exactly right when he said her family was blind to her genius because she was a woman. Her dad bragged about her brother because of his gender and ignored her. Emily was a wallflower.
Wonderful! Thanks for sharing this with us. Just like when Miles Davis didn't touch the trumpet for five years, when he picked it back up he still had his unique voice. This is very inspiring for those of us who are creative but lay fallow for whatever reason, and fear we have lost what we once had. The voice is always there waiting for us.
Watching this again...I just have to say, Martha Washington played a HUGE part in the life and success of George. She feared little and advised him in many ways and on any matters.
To begin with, I'm a big Dickinson fan. However, many readers tend to emphasize the biography, her personal eccentricities, to label her a genius, without examining the work carefully. The fact is that, like many great poets, she was seldom great and had quite a few weaknesses. First, she was extremely inconsistent; one would have to flip at least every 15 pages of her collected works before stumbling on a satisfying poem. Many poems end too abruptly, without sufficient development of thought or theme. She certainly benefits by a careful selection. I think that about 150 or 200 poems would suffice; they might merit a 5 star rating. Second, she's repetitive, the repetitions being simply paler versions of the stronger poems. One can see that clearly especially where the theme of erotic loss is concerned (for example). Third, while dashes are powerful when used at key moments, when introducing surprising associations or developments, they have to be used with discrimination. If they're employed too often or indiscriminately, there's less surprise; they adversely affect the flow of a poem. Excessive use weakens the effect. I don't necessarily object to what some of the early editors did for her poems. One could call the versions "conventionalized", but in many instances the editing helped the flow of her poems, while retaining much of their strangeness. Moreover, while she often showed daring, there's much in the weaker writing that's extremely clumsy and amateurish. The lack of clarity stems from insufficient skill, not because the thought is just way too complex to be expressed otherwise. A truly great writer can express complex thoughts lucidly, while being playful, inventive, and ambiguous. I'm not suggesting that there can't be great obscure poetry, for there are distinguished examples in the 20th century. But it takes even greater skill to be both lucid and deep. Fourth, she continuously employs the hymnal form of Isaac Watts, without variation or experimentation. I'm willing to concede that it's not exactly a weakness, since (at her best) she treats the form extraordinarily well and because, in terms of theme and thought , she DOES show range as well as tremendous cognitive originality. That partly compensates for the limitation of form. Fifth - another limitation - she hasn't shown us that she can tell a great story with multiple characters in the way that, say, Robert Frost has. The latter poet has shown that he could write both great short poems and long narrative ones. One may object at this point by saying that Emily simply wasn't playing that game, but I think that the fewer limitations a poet has, the better are his/her claims to greatness. Sixth, although I'm no big supporter of Yvor Winters, he may have had a point when he stated that Dickinson often suffered lapses of taste or good judgement.
"In many instances the editing helped the flow of her poems, while retaining much of their strangeness." While perhaps this is conventionally right, I think the dashes and capitalization actually exhibit how she intended the flow to be, which is why I'm not a fan of those edits myself.
ONLY "about 150 or 200 poems would suffice; they might merit a 5 start rating." I would consider that high praise. After all, how many of us humans do anything "5 star"? Also to mention the extraordinary talent of Dickinson in negative contrast to the pedestrian Frost is rather strange.
@@deirdre108 Frost was frequently pedestrian, but at his best he has shown us that he could write both great short and long narrative poems. Consider "Home Burial" (a long narrative poem), then short lyrics such as "The Most of It" and "Design". All 3 are superb. As always, we judge poets by their best works.
I think that this question of sexual identity is only something that would be of interest in Western countries. In mainland China, college age women do walk arm in arm or holding each other's hands, as do young men with other men. These young people use this habit as sign of friendship, and it has nothing to do with real sexual identify.
This is a very different perspective on Emily than the traditional one, thank you for that. I think Jerome's advice on reading her letters is good, especially to get more insight into her life and work.
Pre-1955 editions of her poems are public domain. However, they were cleaned up, given titles, and messed with in order to make them "presentable." Prof. Thomas H. Johnson, working with Harvard, spent years working on a definitive edition of her complete poems. It took years of research to prepare them for publication. We're talking about comparing different variants, showing different poems with side-by-side, deciding a chronology of them, printing them in the order in which they were written, showing how her poems has been tampered with in earlier publications, and so on. I think Harvard has the right to control the use of what they published after all the time, cost, and effort that was put into it.
TheStockwell. That's understandable. So, an open source database should be available as well. Organization doesn't equate to ownership. If this author is willing to do extensive research and organization he should have that right.
TheStockwell I'll come over to your house and balance your checkbook and make it tidy. Afterwards I'll have you sign over your accounts to me. Fair enough
TheStockwell And I'll do it without any general consensus from you or your spouse. If someone is to take under such a project, it should be a labor of love
Old man writers from the Bronx always have the sickest outfits....compare this amazing pocketed vest/jacket thing with Delillo's slick as hell pocket-jacket when receiving the Library of Congress prize in 2013.
If I Knew Emily Dickinson in her time, she would have wrote that poem wild nights about me. Emily was so passionate and sweet. We would have made great lovers.
"Scholars can't agree" 🤔 That's ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW! Human beings know very little! Wallowing in the sticky quicksands of introspection. Everytime Literature farts..... A Thousand souls are stricken! 📃📃📃😬😷😬😷😬😷💋⚡🤕
Arrogant man. Had to stop watching. Of course it's ridiculous that a male such as himself should try to enter her soul and mind. Off with his head...said the Queen.
A mí me parece que este hombre es un poco lesbofóbico. Y no hay manera de escribir sobre Emily sin tomar en cuenta la relación con Susan Gilbert. Y por supuesto que Emily no era “andrógina”, era una mujer que quería ser libre. No escribía como hombre y como mujer, decir eso es muy misógino.
Yeah I agree, Emily wasn't reclusive because there was something wrong with her, it was a choice. Emily has an intelligence that was pure genius. The people around her didn't understand her brilliant imagination. Emily could have been a great scientist. Heck she could have been a lot of things, she was amazing. Emily was deeply sensitive and she was very attached to people. I don't think she cared what gender someone was. She probably liked men and women in an intimate way. Charyn was exactly right when he said her family was blind to her genius because she was a woman. Her dad bragged about her brother because of his gender and ignored her. Emily was a wallflower.
oh the age old, woman could do so much more if it weren't for the male patriarchy that keeps them all down..
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 LOL! Right? Those mean ol' men!
This video was very enlighntening.
@@capitalizingcapitalist1202 She would not rely on that excuse or complaint. She was way beyond all of that.
It is OK for a novelist to take any voice that feels right to them.
Wonderful! Thanks for sharing this with us. Just like when Miles Davis didn't touch the trumpet for five years, when he picked it back up he still had his unique voice. This is very inspiring for those of us who are creative but lay fallow for whatever reason, and fear we have lost what we once had. The voice is always there waiting for us.
I never go with critics on anything whenever they bash anything or one it makes me want to read what they are bashing and usually end up liking it.
This man's take on Dickinson...is very refreshing. I must read her letters ! Thanks Mr Charyn.
Inspires me too.
Very engaging and intriguing lecture. I learned much from your presentation, Sir. Thank you !
Watching this again...I just have to say, Martha Washington played a HUGE part in the life and success of George. She feared little and advised him in many ways and on any matters.
Martha is Awesome.
To begin with, I'm a big Dickinson fan. However, many readers tend to emphasize the biography, her personal eccentricities, to label her a genius, without examining the work carefully. The fact is that, like many great poets, she was seldom great and had quite a few weaknesses.
First, she was extremely inconsistent; one would have to flip at least every 15 pages of her collected works before stumbling on a satisfying poem. Many poems end too abruptly, without sufficient development of thought or theme. She certainly benefits by a careful selection. I think that about 150 or 200 poems would suffice; they might merit a 5 star rating.
Second, she's repetitive, the repetitions being simply paler versions of the stronger poems. One can see that clearly especially where the theme of erotic loss is concerned (for example).
Third, while dashes are powerful when used at key moments, when introducing surprising associations or developments, they have to be used with discrimination. If they're employed too often or indiscriminately, there's less surprise; they adversely affect the flow of a poem. Excessive use weakens the effect. I don't necessarily object to what some of the early editors did for her poems. One could call the versions "conventionalized", but in many instances the editing helped the flow of her poems, while retaining much of their strangeness. Moreover, while she often showed daring, there's much in the weaker writing that's extremely clumsy and amateurish. The lack of clarity stems from insufficient skill, not because the thought is just way too complex to be expressed otherwise. A truly great writer can express complex thoughts lucidly, while being playful, inventive, and ambiguous. I'm not suggesting that there can't be great obscure poetry, for there are distinguished examples in the 20th century. But it takes even greater skill to be both lucid and deep.
Fourth, she continuously employs the hymnal form of Isaac Watts, without variation or experimentation. I'm willing to concede that it's not exactly a weakness, since (at her best) she treats the form extraordinarily well and because, in terms of theme and thought , she DOES show range as well as tremendous cognitive originality. That partly compensates for the limitation of form.
Fifth - another limitation - she hasn't shown us that she can tell a great story with multiple characters in the way that, say, Robert Frost has. The latter poet has shown that he could write both great short poems and long narrative ones. One may object at this point by saying that Emily simply wasn't playing that game, but I think that the fewer limitations a poet has, the better are his/her claims to greatness.
Sixth, although I'm no big supporter of Yvor Winters, he may have had a point when he stated that Dickinson often suffered lapses of taste or good judgement.
That's what I thought.
"In many instances the editing helped the flow of her poems, while retaining much of their strangeness." While perhaps this is conventionally right, I think the dashes and capitalization actually exhibit how she intended the flow to be, which is why I'm not a fan of those edits myself.
They said she was a genius they never said she was perfect
ONLY "about 150 or 200 poems would suffice; they might merit a 5 start rating." I would consider that high praise. After all, how many of us humans do anything "5 star"? Also to mention the extraordinary talent of Dickinson in negative contrast to the pedestrian Frost is rather strange.
@@deirdre108 Frost was frequently pedestrian, but at his best he has shown us that he could write both great short and long narrative poems. Consider "Home Burial" (a long narrative poem), then short lyrics such as "The Most of It" and "Design". All 3 are superb. As always, we judge poets by their best works.
Vy interesting, but too short, lecture. I wanted more! - And that the kids didn't ask any questions was depressing.
Great lecture, thank you!
I think that this question of sexual identity is only something that would be of interest in Western countries. In mainland China, college age women do walk arm in arm or holding each other's hands, as do young men with other men. These young people use this habit as sign of friendship, and it has nothing to do with real sexual identify.
Harvard shouldn't own these poems and disallow quotation.
Art and money make as much sense together as a rat befriending a street cat.
Creative works ARE - ignore the critics.
This is a very different perspective on Emily than the traditional one, thank you for that. I think Jerome's advice on reading her letters is good, especially to get more insight into her life and work.
Emily Dickinson " I Felt a Funeral in my Mind" read by David R. Mellor
Harvard owns her poems. Aaron Schwartz martyred himself to do away with perversions of intellectual ownership.
Pre-1955 editions of her poems are public domain. However, they were cleaned up, given titles, and messed with in order to make them "presentable." Prof. Thomas H. Johnson, working with Harvard, spent years working on a definitive edition of her complete poems. It took years of research to prepare them for publication. We're talking about comparing different variants, showing different poems with side-by-side, deciding a chronology of them, printing them in the order in which they were written, showing how her poems has been tampered with in earlier publications, and so on.
I think Harvard has the right to control the use of what they published after all the time, cost, and effort that was put into it.
TheStockwell. That's understandable. So, an open source database should be available as well. Organization doesn't equate to ownership. If this author is willing to do extensive research and organization he should have that right.
Did all the authors (past and present) form a unified agreement that Harvard should organize these works?
TheStockwell I'll come over to your house and balance your checkbook and make it tidy. Afterwards I'll have you sign over your accounts to me. Fair enough
TheStockwell And I'll do it without any general consensus from you or your spouse. If someone is to take under such a project, it should be a labor of love
I smile again thank you
By far the man who understands ED best is Deppman (TRYING TO THINK WITH EMILY DICKINSON)
Thanks, very educational and concise.
Very interesting material and Mr. Charyn
was very entertaining :)
Thank you for this. I disagree with Harvard, how sad one can not quote her fine words.
Old man writers from the Bronx always have the sickest outfits....compare this amazing pocketed vest/jacket thing with Delillo's slick as hell pocket-jacket when receiving the Library of Congress prize in 2013.
Emily seems like one of the people I consider as my idol
Harvard should take a page from MIT's book.
thank you!
Thanks to a great extent of other people her artwork exists.
i wish you would have stopped tapping on the podium,,,,,
wow well done
Nobody wanted to ask this guy any questions, Gee. I wonder why.
Emily would've been profoundly distracted by the incessant pounding on the lectern.
Everyone wants to own Emily.
If I Knew Emily Dickinson in her time, she would have wrote that poem wild nights about me. Emily was so passionate and sweet. We would have made great lovers.
nah ur not sue
@@vivianech1 lmao
"Scholars can't agree" 🤔
That's ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW!
Human beings know very little!
Wallowing in the sticky quicksands
of introspection.
Everytime Literature farts.....
A Thousand souls are stricken!
📃📃📃😬😷😬😷😬😷💋⚡🤕
Opportunism
A bird in a golden cage sings for eternity. DGJ.
They don't want to give her any sexuality at all....then he himself denies her of her bisexuality. Eh can't take him serious after that.
Arrogant man. Had to stop watching. Of course it's ridiculous that a male such as himself should try to enter her soul and mind. Off with his head...said the Queen.
A mí me parece que este hombre es un poco lesbofóbico. Y no hay manera de escribir sobre Emily sin tomar en cuenta la relación con Susan Gilbert.
Y por supuesto que Emily no era “andrógina”, era una mujer que quería ser libre. No escribía como hombre y como mujer, decir eso es muy misógino.
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched …… 32:21