The question, asked of me, "So what are you learning from Empson, ...?" is so apt. Befitting my personality -INTP- I subscribe to Dennett's notion of epistemological hunger. I do indeed try to learn, whether and what I do -or not- is always the question. [Related to that is my own assessment of myself as a slow reader -and, no, I'm not about to take a test to certify that. As it is, I am slow typist also -hunt & peck- and if I were going to undertake any self-improvement, it would be to learn touch typing. In any case, being a slow reader, and trying to learn, I always have this sense that Time (you know what Time I mean) is catching up to me, and may catch me before I've learned whatever it is that I'm trying at the moment.] But in this case I do believe I'm learning something of value, at least to me.

There are preliminaries. First of course is how I came to know of William Empson, and why I bothered to inquire about him. I won't reiterate that tale again here, suffice it to say that as a preliminary I researched him at Wikipedia where I learned that he is an acclaimed critic. Of course, not having been an English major, and at the time, scooting by with as little of the English program as was allowed (what good would it do me, after all; I'm going to be a Sociologist!), I then knew nothing of Empson, and of poetry only that it was a fancy way of writing, soulful, we may have called it in the late 60s. Being who I am, I get awfully impressed by the credentials of Authority, initially. I was immediately impressed that William Empson was an authority on poetry, and it was about poetry that I went seeking.

I had just recently focused myself on again taking up essay writing, when in a virtual space on the Internet I became "networked" with a real writer, who invited me to join in at yet another virtual site where there would be opportunity to for writing and critique. I learned quickly -that's a bit unusual- that my host was well-into poetry writing, and promoted it well. New to the group, I felt it a challenge and begin to toy with the idea; the idea of writing poetry. But I need to know how and why something that I will be engaged in works, so I latched on to Empson. I accepted him as an authority from whom I might learn. And what I learned initially was that he had a primary critique on poetry in general: "7 Types of Ambiguity". It was small and inexpensive, and I bought it.

Suddenly, I'm impressed with poetry. One guy, albeit, an accomplished guy, can write 265 pages on the matter of ambiguity in poetry?! Who knew! What I had known was that poetry was often difficult to comprehend, and with that I had simply put a pass on it. But now, here in authoritative British English print, I'm learning that, yes, poetry is difficult to comprehend, and furthermore, when you think you do, you may not. But, so be it! So Empson sets out to clarify how and what it is about poetry that is difficult. You know, for some of us, we -me- may be looking at a wall, and not think, barn. At least not until I got my back off it and walked across the yard and turned to look at it with a different perspective. But then, I had come upon this wall in the dark of night seeking a shelter from the wind. It is ambiguity that makes poetry difficult, and Empson has reasoned out seven sorts of ambiguity with which to approach the reading of poetry.

As I conclude this entry, note that -what I have assumed through page 26- is that this approach, almost a philosophical theory of the mind, is aimed at a comprehensive ability to read poetry. At this point, whether one is assisted in writing poetry with this approach remains to be seen. With the next entry I will address the first of the 7 types of ambiguity.