Solipsism and "Pathos vs. Experience"

This response will be an attempt, at best, to understand the purpose of Ashbery’s and countless others’ poetry through a lens created by Altieri. I say an attempt, at best, because I’m still working at understanding some of the rhetoric that Altieri employs. I’m sure that the jargon that Altieri uses is basic for poetic devotees in English master’s or doctorate programs, but in most instances it is new to me.

At one point in his chapter, Altieri describes solipsism and the “pathos vs. experience” battle that Ashbery wages, one that I think most poets fight, as well. My amateur understanding of solipsism is the preoccupation of one with self. This definition defines poetry as well, I believe. At the point of creation, a poet cannot act as another. Even when the poet uses a speaker, which is the case in quite a bit of poetry, the poet cannot view any event or scene as anyone but himself. He can make a valiant effort to see through another’s eyes, but those eyes are ultimately those of the poet himself. In “Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror,” Ashbery highlights this difficulty. Francesco looks through the mirror at himself to paint the self-portrait. Poetry, like this artist’s process, is always a reflection of self. No matter what the poet is attempting to communicate, he’s calling the shots, thus reflecting something about himself. Toward the end of the poem, Ashbery writes:

This thing, the mute, undivided present,

Has the justification of logic, which

In this instance isn’t a bad thing

Or wouldn’t be, if the way of telling

Didn’t somehow intrude, twisting the end result

Into a caricature of itself.

This illustrates the issue perfectly. A poet may have something to say, but the

process of turning that something into words on a page will inevitably “twist” the original intention. At the end of the poem, however, I become confused with the speaker’s request for Francesco to withdraw his hand. The speaker starts by saying that “Aping naturalness may be the first step/ Toward achieving an inner calm/ But it is the first step only….” So, in this instance, describing nature in the best way possible is the first step of the poet. But then the speaker calls this convention kindling and begs Francesco—this would also be directed toward other artists I assume (according to Ashbery’s explanation of his pronouns in Altieri’s chapter)—to remove his hand from the picture, no longer shielding the art or welcoming viewers. So this seems to be Ashbery asking for the removal of the poet in poetry. Before this point, he has spent the entire poem discussing the inability to take the poet out of the poetry, but then he makes this request. It seems that, although he describes the problem and asks this question, he gives no real solution.

This solipsistic nature of poetry thus sparks the “pathos vs. experience” conflict. I doubt that any poet would want to arouse pathos in his readers but rather incite the same experience that he has had. But, creating this effect seems to be inherently contrary to solipsism. The more solipsistic a poem, the less any reader other than the poet will be able to have that exact same experience because, alas, much like poets can see only through their eyes, readers can read only through their own.

Hopefully this hasn't been just a rehashing of Altieri. Reading over my response, I think it's more just my mental workings in writing.