|
|
|
|
|
 |
Search published articles |
 |
|
Showing 2 results for Modern Poetry
Hamid Rezā Ghorbāni, Mohammad Khodādādi,
Volume 32, Issue 96 (4-2024)
Abstract
Trees have special importance in Persian poems. Cultural, religious, mythical, ethical, mystical, and political elements have propositions influenced by trees. Following water and the sun, the tree is an important phenomenon from which special literary elements and situations are created. The creative ways of connecting natural phenomena with human elements have been highlighted by the emergence of various political events in the last century on the one hand, and the creation of many artistic ideas and styles on the other hand. The tree image has found a new and multifaceted effect in modern poetry. Modernist poets give special roles to non-human elements and among these, the tree is a human-like mirror image that shows the evolution of human society in its stature. Using the library method and based on an analysis and explanation of poetic evidence in the thoughts of selected poets the current research revealed that the tree could be an image of personal failures, love, a medium of perception, an indicator of freedom, a representative of an ecosystem, a symbol, a sign of death and nonexistence, and a reflection of tyranny and a denial of human existence under the rule of tyranny.
No Ebrāhim Hasanaklou, No Rezā Cherāghi,
Volume 32, Issue 96 (4-2024)
Abstract
The debate over literary theory and Nima’s poetry has a long history. Literary critics have interpreted Nima from their own perspectives, offering various interpretations. The issue of this research is a critical re-reading of the views of Pournamdarian and Barahani in the 1990s as representatives of academic and non-academic criticism. This research showed that Pournamdarian and Barahani have occasionally been excessive in their understanding of Nima. As a result, despite Pournamdarian’s efforts to understand Nima’s poetry anew, he remains trapped in the stereotypical traditions of literary criticism, which leads him to define modern poetry under traditional poetry. On the other hand, Barahani has neglected the historical process of theorizing and Nima’s poetry, by going to extremes in some of his views and speaking of a crisis that we witness in the poetry from the 1990s onward. In other words, tradition and modernity are clearly at odds in the views of these two critics. Pournamdarian wants to blend modern poetry with traditional criticism, while Barahani becomes dogmatic in his criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
