Scholars have studied Gerard Manley Hopkins’ poetry extensively due to its unique approach to exploring his inner landscape – a self-sculpting of sorts. Three secondary sources address this topic at length; Summer Star, David Downes, and Penelope Tzougros focus on how various aspects of Hopkins’s work manifest as an inner journey with himself and provide critical insights into how readings can be further deconstructed. The authors argue that Hopkins reveals “the contours of both poetic spirituality and personal identity within his carefully crafted metrical forms” (Star 557). Through conscious manipulation of meter, he creates outlets for expressing themes pertinent to him – namely those concerning existential struggle, which becomes evident through analysis of vowels structure and accent patterns. This then contributes to creating a spiritual rhythm between the poet and reader.
Additionally, they probe deeper into understanding how Francis Ricoeur’s concept of the ‘achieved self’ enables one ‘to endure difference without erasing it” in three ways: recognition, responsivity, and receptivity (Downes 50). Therefore, Hopkins can navigate external tensions by allowing them space internally or becoming receptive towards them instead – resulting in his being ‘enlightened.’ Finally, they highlight the experience of selflessness that is evoked in “The Windhover” and ‘Two Beautiful Young People.” The authors argue that Hopkins was able to engage with his innermost ‘Heroic Self,’ understanding this as a metaphorical journey that “focuses on detaching one’s sense of identity from the imprisoning demands made by parents or society” (Tzougros 6). This enabled him to recognize unique aspects within himself – emerging triumphant over traditional constraint models.
These three sources contextualize different ways in which Gerard Manley Hopkins has been studied by exploring how meter functions philosophically; existentialism plays a role as an initiating factor for readers, and poetic devices are used deliberately to evoke selfless experiences. By critiquing these works, we can gain insight into Hopkins’ philosophy; dissecting terms like ‘difference’ and accepting his metaphor help expand our interpretations even further. In doing so, it becomes clear that there are multiple layers beneath each layer – creating varying dimensions when explored differently yet resulting in, ultimately, greater comprehension overall. The analysis generated across all authors gives rise to interesting debates concerning meaning-making– validating the depth at which each scholar has addressed their respective topics– paving the path for further analysis.
In conclusion, all three sources discussed have provided critical thought into Gerard Manley Hopkins’ poem through an examination of meter and metaphor alongside existentialism, offering insights that are both insightful in their approach yet remain diverse within each other – illustrating the layers at which scholars can look when analyzing a creative work. It is clear why these works have been chosen to illustrate this point – showing how by deconstructing text, we gain more than surface understanding but complex research potential within single texts themselves. These three authors make significant contributions to this field of study, providing readers with an engaging insight into the depths and complexities embedded within Hopkins’ work. By looking at the text through various lenses, literature can yield much more than what initially meets the eye; hence, secondary sources remain important to our understanding as they open up new possibilities for discussing topics.
Works Cited
Downes, David Anthony. “‘Self Flashes’: Ricoeur’s Achieved Self in Hopkins.” In Francis L. Fennell, ed., Rereading Hopkins: Selected New Essays (English Literary Studies, University of Victoria, 1996) 46–62.
Star, Summer J. ” For the Inscape’s Sake’: Sounding the Self in the Metres of Gerard Manley Hopkins.” Literature Compass 6.2 2009 557–564.
Tzougros, Penelope. “‘The Selfless Self of Self’ in Hopkins’ Two Beautiful Young People.” Hopkins Quarterly 7.1 Spring 1980 5–8.
write