1
Karen
Simecek,
University
of
Warwick
Moral
Understanding
through
Poetic
Experience
In
this
paper
I
will
discuss
how
poetry,
particularly
our
emotional
and
aesthetic
response
to
some
poetic
works
can
play
a
significant
role
in
developing
our
understanding
of
certain
moral
issues.
I
will
argue
that
poetry
when
engaged
with
as
an
artwork,
with
the
same
attention
to
design,
inner
connectedness
and
the
expectation
that
the
work
means
something
beyond
the
literal,
gives
rise
to
a
particular
kind
of
experience.
Part
of
what
creates
this
experience
is
the
way
in
which
we
engage
with
the
poetic
as
well
as
the
representational
elements
of
the
work.
Our
engagement
must
involve
attending
to
the
formal
features
of
the
work
and
responding
imaginatively,
creatively
and
most
importantly,
emotionally
to
the
mode
of
presentation.
It
is
through
our
emotional
responses
to
the
poem
that
allows
us
to
come
to
see
certain
moral
issues
for
ourselves
by
providing
a
distinct
perspective,
which
we
take
part
in,
on
a
particular
subject.
In
illustrating
this
point
I
will
provide
a
reading
of
the
poem
How
to
Kill
by
Keith
Douglas;
I
will
show
that
we
only
come
to
see
the
moral
problem
presented
in
the
poem
through
our
emotional
response,
which
is
produced
by
the
reading
experience;
crucially,
I
will
demonstrate
that
the
moral
problem
does
not
arise
from
a
sympathetic
response
to
the
character
in
the
poem.
Poetic
Experience
Many
works
of
poetry
demand
that
in
order
to
fully
understand
them
we
read
them
in
a
literary
way,
by
attending
to
the
formal
features
of
the
work
in
connection
to
the
representational
elements
and
appreciating
it
as
a
unified
art‐object.
We
must
therefore
grasp
the
poem
as
a
coherent
and
consistent
whole,
which
requires
us
to
have
a
heightened
awareness
of
design
and
to
forge
connections
within
the
work.
In
order
to
understand
a
work
of
poetry,
it
is
not
sufficient
to
merely
grasp
the
content
in
that
form
but
to
attend
to
the
resulting
experience.
It
is
only
through
the
experience
of
reading
and
forging
connections
that
we
are
able
to
see
the
work
as
a
complex,
consistent
and
interrelated
whole.
To
forge
the
necessary
connections,
the
reader
must
be
sensitive
to
the
words,
phrases
and
images
employed
in
the
poem,
respond
to
these
elements,
the
feelings
and
associations
they
evoke
and
have
an
awareness
of
how
these
elements
come
together
as
a
whole.
So
when
reading
we
must
try
to
unify
our
experience
–
what
we
understand
from
the
poem
must
be
in
response
to
this
unified
experience.
An
appropriate
understanding
or
to
be
said
to
have
grasped
the
content
of
the
poem,
one
must
have
considered
all
the
elements
in
the
context
of
the
whole
work.
2
This
experience
gets
us
to
focus
on
certain
aspects,
since
some
words
and
phrases
will
resonate
more
strongly
with
us,
evoking
richer
images
which
have
a
stronger
affect
on
us,
leading
us
to
carry
these
through
the
poem,
connecting
them
with
other
words
(and
their
connotations),
images,
ideas
and
concepts.
Take
for
instance
the
following
poem
by
Selima
Hill:
The
passion‐fruit
resembles
coloured
bruises
rolled
into
a
ball
you
can
suck
The
rhyme
connects
the
first
two
lines
in
meaning,
strengthening
the
image
of
passion
fruits
as
bruises.
The
consonance
of
the
words
‘coloured’
and
‘rolled’
link
the
two
stanzas
together,
so
we
begin
to
understand
the
image
as
something
‘rolled/into
a
ball
you
can
suck’.
All
the
‘s’
sounds
also
suggest
a
connection
between
these
words,
encouraging
the
reader
to
forge
connections
between
the
meaning
of
‘passion’
and
‘bruises’,
arriving
at
something
like
‘passion
can
hurt
and
endure
like
bruises’,
which
we
connect
with
the
completeness
expressed
by
the
second
stanza.
Certain
words
or
ideas
will
resonate
through
the
whole
poem,
affecting
how
we
interpret
and
understand
other
elements
of
the
poem.
In
this
case
it
seems
to
be
the
word
‘bruises’
which
hangs
at
the
centre
and
affects
how
we
understand
‘rolled’
and
‘suck’.
Because
of
this
relationship
between
the
words
we
interpret
rolled
and
suck
as
being
more
aggressive
or
even
violent
actions
which
we
must
endure.
And
of
course,
the
word
‘suck’
suggests
the
erotic,
which
affects
our
understanding
of
the
rest
of
the
poem.
From
this
we
know
we
are
not
merely
talking
about
passion‐
fruits
but
something
else.
As
we
have
seen
in
this
example,
meaning
emerges
from
a
process
of
forging
of
connections
because
it
results
in
appreciating
the
relationship
between
images,
thoughts,
emotions
and
feelings,
in
other
words,
we
arrive
at
a
particular
complex
network
of
associations
which
binds
the
elements
together
allowing
us
to
grasp
the
work
as
a
unified
whole.
What
this
complex
network
of
associations
provides
us
with
is
the
perspective
on
offer
in
the
poem,
allowing
us
to
come
to
see
the
subject
and
themes
from
that
unique
view
point.
I
do
not
merely
mean
the
perspective
of
the
poet
(or
even
hypothetical
poet),
character
or
narrator,
instead
what
is
meant
here
is
a
particular
kind
of
relation
between
the
reader,
their
ideas,
thoughts,
feelings
and
the
ideas,
concepts
and
emotions
expressed
in
the
poem.
It
is
this
particular
network
of
connections
made
that
allows
the
reader
to
take
on
the
perspective
of
the
work,
which
is
getting
us
to
see
something
in
a
unique
way.
When
we
say
‘see
something’
what
is
meant
is
not
necessarily
seeing
the
subject
of
the
poem
in
a
particular
light
but
also,
coming
to
understand
an
idea,
thought
or
concept
in
relation
to
other
concepts.
Seeing
something
in
such
a
unique
way
contributes
to
our
understanding
of
the
work
because
of
the
concepts
we
must
appeal
to
in
order
to
make
sense
of
the
elements
in
relation
to
one
another.
Ultimately
in
understanding
the
work
we
must
be
able
to
grasp
all
elements
(including
those
experiential
elements)
as
part
of
a
coherent
and
consistent
whole.
3
Emotional
Engagement
I
now
want
to
argue
that
part
of
this
experience
must
be
emotional,
that
is,
we
must
read
with
emotion
in
order
to
fully
understand
some
works
of
poetry.
This
involves
responding
emotionally
to
the
experience
which
the
poetic
features
and
the
representational
elements
produce.
On
my
view,
not
engaging
emotionally
will
result
in
a
failure
to
fully
understand
the
poem
because
our
emotional
responses
to
the
reading
experience
help
us
to
forge
connections
across
the
work
and
with
our
own
thoughts,
concepts
and
commitments
relevant
to
the
work.
Engaging
emotionally
is
necessary
in
order
to
forge
some
connections
within
the
work
and
therefore
understand
the
poem
as
a
unified
whole.
In
her
book
Deeper
than
Reason,
Jenefer
Robinson
develops
a
similar
position,
arguing
that
in
order
to
fully
understand
some
works
of
literature
we
must
read
with
emotion.
She
writes
“nothing
else
can
do
the
job
that
emotions
do.
Without
appropriate
emotional
responses,
some
novels
simply
cannot
be
adequately
understood.”
(Robinson,
2007;
107)
On
her
view,
we
engage
emotionally
with
a
literary
work
in
order
to
gain
an
appreciation
and
understanding
of
the
characters
and
their
situations.
To
support
her
claims,
Robinson
gives
an
example
from
Anna
Karenina,
where
Anna
visits
her
son
on
his
birthday
and
takes
with
her
a
parcel
of
toys
for
him.
However,
Anna
is
rushed
out
of
the
house
by
the
servants,
not
giving
her
enough
time
to
give
the
parcel
to
her
son.
Robinson
comments
that
the
reader’s
emotional
response
to
this
episode
in
the
novel
is
“a
way
of
understanding
Anna
and
her
situation.
An
examination
of
the
sources
of
our
emotional
responses
to
Anna
reveal
important
facts
about
Anna
and
her
situation
as
described
in
the
novel.”
(ibid;
109)
Robinson
argues
that
relevant
emotional
responses
focus
our
attention
on
aspects
of
the
novel
that
we
take
to
be
important
to
us.
This
focusing
allows
us
to
develop
a
perspective
from
which
we
interpret
the
work:
“The
emotions
function
to
alert
us
to
important
aspects
of
the
story
such
as
plot,
character,
setting,
and
point
of
view
...
[O]ur
emotions
can
lead
us
to
discover
subtleties
in
character
and
plot
that
would
escape
a
reader
who
remains
emotionally
uninvolved
in
the
story.”
(ibid;
107)
Her
claim
is
that
by
engaging
emotionally
with
a
novel
we
become
in
a
position
to
notice
certain
features,
to
appreciate
their
significance
that
would
otherwise
go
unnoticed.
In
relation
to
works
such
as
Anna
Karenina,
Robinson
argues,
“although
it
might
seem
that
an
unemotional
point
of
view
can
serve
the
same
purpose
as
a
bona
fide
emotional
response,
in
fact
those
who
fail
to
respond
emotionally
to
Anna
won’t
be
focused
on
her
vulnerability
with
the
same
urgency
and
sense
of
its
importance.”
(ibid;
126)
And
so
the
unemotional
reader
would
not
interpret
the
work
from
this
perspective
and
would
fail
to
understand
the
work
as
a
coherent
and
consistent
whole.
Robinson
continues:
“I
might
not
notice
Anna’s
vulnerability
unless
I
respond
with
sadness
and
compassion
to
her.
The
emotions
are
ways
of
focusing
our
attention
on
those
things
that
are
important
to
our
wants,
goals,
and
interests.”
(ibid;
126)
So
on
Robinson’s
view,
we
must
respond
emotionally
to
the
characters
(and
events
in
relation
to
them)
in
order
to
notice
the
features
of
their
character
which
are
relevant
in
forming
a
coherent
interpretation
of
the
work.
4
How
to
Kill
I
agree
with
Robinson
that
the
emotions
do
get
us
to
focus
on
certain
aspects
of
the
work.
However,
I
do
not
think
that
we
are
focusing
on
specific
aspects
of
plot,
character
or
setting
but
appreciating
the
subtleties
of
the
perspective
we
take
up
on
reading
the
poem,
which
may
be
different
to
the
perspective
of
the
character.
So
we
do
come
to
see
something
that
would
have
otherwise
gone
unnoticed
but
what
we
see
is
connections
between
the
poetic
features,
and
the
thoughts,
feelings
expressed
by
the
poem
and
our
own
thoughts,
beliefs,
and
commitments.
I
agree
with
Robinson
that
emotional
engagement
is
sometimes
required
in
poetry
in
order
to
make
sense
of
as
much
of
the
work
as
possible
in
a
consistent
way
but
understanding
a
work
isn’t
necessarily
the
same
as
understanding
a
character.
In
fact,
our
emotional
response
to
some
works
of
poetry
can
show
us
the
importance
of
failing
to
appreciate
the
perspective
of
the
character.
Also,
Robinson
suggests
that
we
respond
emotionally
to
the
way
characters
are
presented
in
a
novel.
However,
in
some
works
of
poetry,
we
can
be
prompted
to
have
an
emotional
response
by
the
poetic
features
of
the
work
and
the
resulting
mode
of
presentation,
which
isn’t
always
connected
to
the
representation
of
a
character.
I
now
wish
to
discuss
the
poem
How
to
Kill
which
highlights
the
issue
with
Robinson’s
view,
yet
still
demonstrates
a
requirement
to
engage
emotionally
in
order
to
fully
understand
the
work.
I
will
then
argue
that
it
is
the
nature
of
our
emotional
engagement
which
contributes
to
our
moral
understanding
of
the
issue
at
the
heart
of
the
poem.
How
to
kill
Under
the
parabola
of
a
ball,
a
child
turning
into
a
man,
I
looked
into
the
air
too
long.
The
ball
fell
in
my
hand,
it
sang
in
the
closed
fist:
Open
Open
Behold
a
gift
designed
to
kill.
Now
in
my
dial
of
glass
appears
the
soldier
who
is
going
to
die.
He
smiles,
and
moves
about
in
ways
his
mother
knows,
habits
of
his.
The
wires
touch
his
face:
I
cry
NOW.
Death,
like
a
familiar,
hears
and
look,
has
made
a
man
of
dust
5
of
a
man
of
flesh.
This
sorcery
I
do.
Being
damned,
I
am
amused
to
see
the
centre
of
love
diffused
and
the
wave
of
love
travel
into
vacancy.
How
easy
it
is
to
make
a
ghost.
The
weightless
mosquito
touches
her
tiny
shadow
on
the
stone,
and
with
how
like,
how
infinite
a
lightness,
man
and
shadow
meet.
They
fuse.
A
shadow
is
a
man
when
the
mosquito
death
approaches.
Although
there
are
two
characters
in
the
poem,
the
sniper
and
the
soldier
who
is
shot,
we
are
not
given
enough
information
about
either
character
or
their
situation.
There
is
little
mention
in
the
poem
of
the
man
killed,
apart
from
in
the
second
stanza
with
the
vague
description
‘He
smiles,
and
moves
about
in
ways/his
mother
knows,
habits
of
his.’
And
with
the
sniper
himself,
we
are
only
presented
with
his
action
of
killing
the
soldier
and
then
his
response,
no
context
is
given
beyond
the
immediate
situation.
Of
course,
at
least
part
of
our
understanding
of
this
poem
must
involve
understanding
who
the
characters
are.
But
we
only
need
to
appreciate
the
relation
they
bear
to
one
another
–
the
killer
and
the
killed.
Further
information
about
them
is
not
needed
to
understand
the
poem;
we
do
not
need
to
attend
to
certain
aspects
of
their
character,
plot
or
setting.
What
is
important
is
that
we
see
the
sniper’s
response
to
his
actions
and
how
his
response
is
bound
to
his
representation
of
the
events.
It
just
so
happens
that
the
reader
may
represent
these
events
differently.
What
is
most
important
is
our
own
emotional
response
to
his
lack
of
emotion.
When
engaging
with
the
poem,
we
do
not
come
to
understand
the
sniper’s
response,
how
it
is
that
he
is
able
to
glorify
the
death
of
the
soldier
even
though
we
may
be
able
to
appreciate
the
aesthetic
quality
of
the
final
two
stanzas.
And
that
is
precisely
why
the
poem
is
interesting.
Our
emotional
response
is
in
tension
with
the
aesthetics
of
the
poem
and
in
tension
with
the
sniper’s
response
to
the
killing.
Our
engagement
with
the
poem
does
not
lead
to
an
appreciation
of
the
character
and
his
situation.
It
may
seem
that
our
emotional
response
is
directly
connected
to
the
way
the
sniper
views
his
actions
but
the
formal
features
of
the
poem
do
much
of
the
work
in
getting
us
to
reject
the
sniper’s
response.
Take
for
example,
the
use
of
enjambment
in
the
poem.
When
we
read
the
words
‘I
cry/NOW’
in
the
second
stanza
we
are
presented
with
polar
emotional
responses
to
the
killing
of
the
soldier.
But
in
order
to
see
the
two
different
responses,
we
must
read
these
words
with
emotion,
in
particular
we
must
respond
emotionally
to
‘I
cry’,
only
then
will
the
enjambment
have
any
effect.
6
The
obvious
but
important
feature
is
the
silence
that
separates
these
words,
which,
in
terms
of
their
literal
meaning,
should
sit
together.
We
read
and
understand
the
words
‘I
cry’
in
isolation
to
begin
with,
since
we
take
a
natural
break
at
the
end
of
the
line.
Reading
these
words
in
isolation
allows
us
to
reflect
on
these
words
only
(our
reflection
is
intensified
because
these
words
act
as
an
emotional
trigger),
suggesting
that
the
sniper
is
upset,
that
his
‘cry’
is
symbolic
of
distress,
compassion
for
the
soldier
who
he
is
about
to
shoot.
The
build
up
to
this
moment
in
the
second
stanza
with
the
description
of
the
soldier,
moving
‘in
ways
only
his
mother
knows’,
shows
us
the
human
side
of
the
soldier,
and
we
are
therefore
lead
to
react
to
the
sniper’s
‘cry’
as
the
correct
response.
Yet
when
we
read
‘NOW’
on
the
next
line,
the
words
‘I
cry’
become
extended
to
‘I
cry
NOW’,
changing
the
meaning
of
‘cry’
from
distress
to
command
(with
urgency).
This
change
in
meaning
negates
the
reading
of
the
previous
line,
leaving
us,
the
readers,
feeling
confused
and
reacting
to
the
sniper’s
response.
We
are
therefore
guided
to
react
to
the
sniper’s
response,
to
question
it.
The
words
alone
cannot
invoke
this
response;
we
only
focus
on
this
change
of
meaning
because
we
are
reading
with
emotion.
Often
we
make
the
wrong
assumption
regarding
what
someone
is
saying
but
it
doesn’t
result
in
such
deep
confusion
and
recoil;
it
is
our
emotional
response
in
this
case
that
makes
the
difference.
Our
response
intensifies
reading
further
in
the
poem;
we
become
increasingly
horrified
at
the
sniper’s
response.
In
the
final
stanza,
the
metaphor
of
the
mosquito
and
the
shadow
does
more
than
just
communicate
the
image
of
the
bullet
travelling
through
air,
it
communicates
the
response
of
the
sniper;
his
fascination
with
the
consequences
of
his
actions,
imagining
it
to
be
a
beautiful
moment
when
the
bullet
‘fuses’
with
the
man.
The
words
‘They
fuse’
suggest
that
the
man
and
bullet
belong
together,
that
his
body
accepted
the
bullet.
The
description
is
of
pure
fascination,
using
words
such
as
‘weightless’,
‘infinite
lightness’,
trying
to
communicate
the
grandeur
of
his
perception
of
the
event.
The
sniper
views
the
killing
as
something
spiritual,
therefore
unburdening
the
responsibility
of
the
destruction
of
another
human
being
from
himself.
He
sees
that
he
has
created
something
new;
he
has
transformed
the
man,
not
killed
him.
Not
only
has
the
sniper
failed
to
show
compassion
at
the
point
of
killing
but
has
inappropriate
responses
to
his
actions,
as
a
consequence
we
do
not
engage
emotionally
with
the
sniper
in
the
final
stanza.
At
the
moment
we
read
the
enjambment
we
are
presented
with
raw
emotional
data
from
our
responses
to
the
effect
produced
by
the
poetic
and
representational
elements
together,
which
allows
us
to
feel
the
moral
tension
at
the
heart
of
the
poem.
Not
only
do
we
recoil
at
the
point
we
feel
the
sniper’s
response
to
be
inappropriate,
we
are
also
responding
to
the
aesthetic
quality
of
the
poem,
which
serves
to
keep
us
focused
on
the
sniper’s
response
and
allows
us
to
enter
into
it
even
though
we
do
not
share
his
interpretation.
7
Moral
understanding
The
divide
between
our
aesthetic
appreciation
of
the
poem
and
our
emotional
response
creates
a
tension
between
the
reader
and
the
sniper;
this
is
a
moral
tension
since
the
reader
is
pushed
to
question
the
character
of
the
sniper
–
has
he
responded
to
killing
another
human
being
as
we
feel
he
ought
to?
This
question
arises
since
we
have
a
different
emotional
response
to
the
sniper
yet
we
are
lead
to
enter
into
his
view
of
the
killing
through
the
aesthetics
of
the
work.
So
as
we
can
see
the
poem
centres
on
a
divide
between
the
character
and
the
reader;
we
take
his
view
of
the
killing
seriously
because
of
the
aesthetic
properties
but
we
recoil
because
we
object
to
the
sniper’s
view.
So
the
uncomfortable
feeling
in
the
poem
which
leads
us
to
the
moral
question
is
generated
by
our
engagement
with
the
aesthetic
quality
of
the
work
and
our
emotional
response.
This
helps
us
to
come
to
see
the
moral
issue
at
the
heart
of
the
poem
from
a
unique
perspective.
The
perspective
is
not
that
of
the
sniper
because
it
is
my
own
emotional
responses
and
commitments
that
are
drawn
in;
these
do
not
belong
to
the
sniper
and
appear
to
be
at
odds
with
the
commitments
and
response
of
the
sniper,
which
is
most
apparent
in
the
final
stanza,
in
his
glorification
and
misrepresentation
of
his
actions.
Also
the
aesthetic
quality
of
the
work
is
produced
by
the
formal
features
of
the
poem
and
are
therefore
also
not
truly
part
of
the
sniper’s
response
but
a
way
of
expressing
his
view.
Our
emotional
engagement
does
not
just
get
us
to
question
the
response
of
the
sniper
in
the
poem
but
also
gets
us
to
see
the
moral
problem
on
a
conceptual
level.
It
is
not
coming
to
appreciate
the
moral
dilemma
faced
by
the
soldier
since
it
is
clear
he
does
not
see
a
dilemma,
for
him
this
is
how
to
kill
at
war
but
what
I
demand
of
a
soldier
at
war.
Our
emotional
response
and
recoil
to
the
poem
reveals
our
expectation
of
how
a
soldier
ought
to
behave,
which
involves
making
a
judgement
of
some
kind
in
connection
with
my
moral
understanding
of
such
situations.
And
so
my
emotional
response
is
generated
by
a
process
of
forging
connections
between
my
experience
of
the
poem
and
my
own
moral
commitments.
As
a
reader
and
responder
to
the
work,
I
become
implicated
in
the
moral
issue
because
it
is
my
own
conception
of
a
soldier
at
war
and
such
killing
that
is
at
stake.
My
repulsion
to
the
sniper’s
response
brings
out
my
uneasiness
with
my
concept
of
a
soldier,
since
I
reject
his
perspective,
yet,
because
of
how
I
engage
with
the
poem,
I
also
come
to
understand
the
necessity
of
his
response;
if
he
did
not
respond
in
this
way,
how
could
he
continue
to
kill
other
soldiers?
I
come
to
understand
by
forging
connections
across
the
poem
that
what
I
am
rejecting
is
the
very
notion
of
a
soldier
at
war.
I
have
agued
that
in
order
to
fully
understand
and
appreciate
a
work
of
poetry
we
must
engage
in
a
process
of
forging
connections
in
order
to
grasp
the
work
as
a
coherent
and
consistent
whole.
The
meaning
of
the
work
emerges
through
this
experience
of
forging
connections.
As
we
saw
in
the
example
of
How
to
Kill,
an
important
part
of
this
experience
is
our
emotional
response.
8
So
I
agree
with
Robinson
that
we
need
to
engage
emotionally
with
a
work
of
poetry
in
order
to
fully
understand
the
work,
but
this
does
not
necessarily
involve
engaging
emotionally
with
a
character
and
their
situation.
As
I
have
demonstrated,
understanding
a
poem
such
as
How
to
Kill
requires
emotional
engagement
but
we
engage
emotionally
with
the
experience
of
the
work
which
may
well
be
at
odds
with
understanding
the
character.
And
because
of
our
engagement
with
the
aesthetics
of
the
work
we
become
implicated
in
the
situation
described,
encouraged
to
enter
into
the
sniper’s
fascination
–
we
must
respond
which
has
wider
consequences
for
our
own
commitments
and
moral
understanding.
So,
it
is
our
emotional
engagement
which
gets
us
to
see
the
moral
problem
posed
in
the
poem
for
ourselves.
References
Douglas,
Keith.
2000.
The
Complete
Poems,
ed.
Desmond
Graham
(London:
Faber
&
Faber)
Hill,
Selima.
2001.
Bunny
(Glasgow:
Bloodaxe)
Robinson,
Jenefer.
2007.
Deeper
than
Reason
(Oxford:
Clarendon
Press)