Impossible

According to Pope our writing should copy nature. Our ultimate goal is to have a piece of writing that is natural. But I wonder if that is even possible. The definition of Nature that I’m using is “anything born of the Earth” (Br. Tom), basically anything not manmade. Is it possible to have a manmade creation be and imitation of a natural creation? To get really big, can human minds create something that can compare to God’s creation? I guess to Pope, Homer is God. Homer was able to become one in the same with Nature and create the perfect example for us (135). But I doubt if that is possible. I have never read Homer, so I cannot make a well educated judgment, but I just don’t see how a manmade creation can be one in the same with a natural creation. I think it is a good goal to reach for, but I think it’s just one of those things impossible to reach.

At least that’s how I see it…

1204600566

I don’t see how humans can create something that can compare to God’s creation but I think if Pope meant copying nature in terms of trying to imitate it I think that’s doable even though any imitation would be far short of anything that is actually a part of nature. There are certain elements in nature, like natural laws or the rhythmic heart beat, that poets can imitate or copy. Shakespeare did a pretty good job of copying the human heart beat which is undeniably natural. So I think if you took what Pope wants poets to do in a very literal sense I don’t think it’s possible. No matter what humans do they just simply will never be able to create an exact copy of nature through literature. But, if you look at what Pope wants more figuratively, we can get pretty close in some ways. 1204843770

I think you can look at it another way as well. As humans we are born of nature ourselves. We are natural, and if we can capture our nature in writing then we have achieved the goal of copying nature. However, I don't think that true nature can ever be fully put into words, and I also think that there is more than one possible way to get to an understanding of nature. Why do we have to follow the footsteps of Homer or the other great ancient writers? Why can't we free ourselves from form? I don't see what is wrong with that or how that can detract from a great work. 1204856176

To answer this question you really need to have an understanding of what nature is in the sense that Pope is speaking of it--he could mean something entirely different from nature as in the land and things that are part of creation. I like what Patrick said, that we are nature and therefore our thoughts expressed in writing are natural because of our nature. But at the same time, if this were the perspective that Pope was taking, it seems contradictory to popular belief--why are things created by humans "man-made" not "natural"? If something was not created as it is from the beginning, it's not considered nature.

I don't see any way for humans to create nature in writing--we are, after all, only people. We cannot make something natural of our own accord. We weren't equipped to do that. It seems that we could try to come as close to nature as possible, but what does this mean? To write about things that occur naturally, and not inhibit our writing with those things which are unnatural to the world? It seems that writing solely based on nature greatly limits a writer. But maybe Pope is saying that the best writers can work through these limitations? 1205105655

I saw it somewhat in the way that Dayna did in the respect that I don't think Pope wants all form or subject matter to be related to forest preserves or anything. I rather thought that Pope wants writers to do things that they know. He says, "Nature to all things fix'd the Limits fit, And wisely curb'd proud Man's pretending wit." (52-53) We each have natural strengths and weaknesses. We each have things that we have learned and know. We should not try to be anyone we are not naturally, such as a supergenious. We can try, but we shouldn't pretend to be. Therein lies the unnaturalness.

From this fronting people do, pretending they know everything, putting faith in abilities that they don't have, they become proud. Proud people are fools, as I believe the above quote implies. To put my argument into more concrete terms, if a writer is writing an essay or poem on a certain subject matter, he or she should write it in a way that best allows them to communicate. The writer should not think, "Okay, I want this to be more difficult because I want to look smarter" or anything to that effect. As Shepherd says, obscurity is always a flaw. A writer should only write in ways natural to him or her, because nature is flawless. That was my take. 1205270618

We cannot even fathom God; He is a mystery, so I don't even think we can wrap our minds around all that He created. That being so, I don't think we can even begin to compare our own works with those of God. Sure, we are made in His likeness, but there's no way we can compare ourselves with something we don't even understand - do any of us really understand? I don't. Even so, I still see the possibility of trying to "copy nature." They are not going to be one in the same, especially if the definition insists that nature is not man-made. But we can still use it as a model, can't we? I mean, my limited mind certainly wouldn't know where to begin, but I'm sure there are people out there who have inclinations and a means. 1205274887

That realization, adi,I think is why art has thrived as a human experience. To be sure, all art is not made to imitate the greatness of nature, but much of it is. From the cave drawings of men and buffalo, to Serat, art has been created to imitate the creation of God, nature. And that is the reason people still make art and write, and paint, and play music to this day, because it is an unattainable, but appealing goal. Art is not like bowling, where you can bowl a 300 and have your perfect game. There will always be imperfections in art, whether in the eyes of the artist or his audience. No painting or piece of music can come close to as perfect as nature, and so art will never stop being made and never stop being appreciated, because people will always be willing to attempt the perfection in their work that is all around them in nature.1205369186

Ok, I'm not going to lie, I had a lot of trouble understanding this one. I actually got a good quote out of it: "Pope isn't saying that you can't write about the red wheelbarrow because it's not nature." -- Br. Tom. But if he's not saying that, then what //is// he saying? I mean, I think people would get bored if all we wrote about was "nature" in the sense of the earth and flowers and trees and stuff. Maybe Pope was trying to say "nature" as in like, the natural process of thought. If we have a thought that it purely our own, entirely organic, and not tainted or biased in any way, then it should be written about and shown to people. If we write something merely to serve our own purposes, then it might not be the best way to go. I don't know, that's just my interpretation of what Pope could potentially be saying. 1205372800

Yes, Pope says that our writing should imitate nature, but nowhere does he say that we must be equivalent to God, or that all you can write about is nature. We should take values and examples from nature, and try to be as perfect as possible in our imitation. Everyone has said so far that this perfection, this perfect imitation of nature is not possible, and that he was wrong to say it. As sha said, "We cannot even fathom God...there's no way we can compare ourselves with something we don't even understand- do any of us really understand?" We should all keep in mind that Jesus said in Matthew 5:48 "You must be perfect, just as your father in heaven is perfect." Really, Pope is asking us to do the same thing Jesus asks (Pope just applies it to writing). Too often people use the fact that "nobody's perfect" as a crutch; it has become probably the most widely used defense. Pope probably realized this, which is why he said what he said. If we have perfection as a goal, we may not achieve it, but will probably turn out better work than someone who has failure as a goal. user:PSp-c

Nice Post, Psp. Bible verses are always appreciated here. I would like to elaborate on one point made by sha that you were confronting.

"Sure, we are made in His likeness, but there's no way we can compare ourselves with something we don't even understand - do any of us really understand?" -Sha

Though God will always be a mystery to humanity, "I am who am" (Exodus 3:14),until we encounter him in the next world, we still know a great deal about him. Theology is the study of God's revelation to humanity, and countless theology exists; therefore, God has countlessly revealed himself to humanity. The whole Bible is God's revelation about himself, specifically God's revelation to us through his reincarnation in Jesus. So, although God may be a mystery, I would not classify him as "something we don't even understand" when he has revealed his loving nature to us in countless ways.

But alas, this, unfortunately, is not a theology debate forum, it is a forum on Pope's essay, so I will proceed to relate what I just explained about God to Pope's essay and nature. Although nature obviously has some mystery to it, it is not "something we don't even understand", at least not to Pope, an Enlightenment thinker who naturally believed that nature is rational and we can look at nature's rationality and purity and ascribe it to every task we do, including poetry. With regards to Pope's use of nature, Pope was stating that he wished that more writers would ascribe to the Enlightenment principles of looking at nature's rationality to perfect ones.1205381913

I agree with what I think some people are saying that we shouldn't keep the narrow view of nature as the trees and flowers. One thing that I think good art tends to reflect is human nature, as well as the natural world, and I think that pope does not mean to limit the use of art, but moreover to focus what its ultimate goal must be, to imitate nature, any kind of nature. Also I don't think he would expect people to be able to perfectly and accuratly imitate nature, but I'm sure that he is just hoping that more writers make the effort to make their art strive for this perfection of nature. 1205382723

To go off of what you said, KLe, I have another quote that goes along with what you were saying and can possibly elaborate.

Lines 50-51: "Launch not beyond your depth, but be discreet, And mark that point where sense and dulness meet."

Pope is saying that there is a really fine line between our natural selves and a point that we may sometimes cross when we are trying to be something other than God intended for us. Pope is telling us to not be afraid to be who we are and to not hide ourselves, but he's also telling us to not flaunt ourselves. I know many people have discussed Bible passages in this topic, and being discreet is something that Jesus teaches. We are suppossed to pray alone when nobody knows, we are suppossed to give to others without making a show out of it. If we live according to oursleves, and live for ourselves with God instead of for other people, then we will live truly satisfying lives. 1205416457

I had a very similar idea to what AGe is talking about. When I read this poem. I thought that Pope was referring to truth when he talks about nature. Truth is natural. It is not artificial, disguised or wearing masks. In other words natural poetry, is when the author writes what they are thinking and feeling. I think that often when we write poetry we try to conform our thoughts and our style to what is accepted. Poetry that is a true reflection of nature is a true reflection of human nature. It expresses exactly what we are thinking without being afraid of what someone else will think. I think in a way this can be applied to Pope's own poem. We have argued that Pope seems very arrogant to say the things that he does, but it could be a very natural form of poetry if those are his true feelings. 1205460662

I'm with PMi. I took nature to mean our nature as humans, the very innermost part of us. When poets are able to capture the essence of humanity in words, or even come daringly close, they write naturally. Pope saw Homer as very natural. He viewed his writings as basic to human nature and something people could connect with, and he thought all writing should be like that. That's probably why we get the impression that Pope saw Homer as God. He just wanted writers to return to the old ways, because he felt that poetry had deviated away from human nature. 1205468913