Memorizing Literature

[Ben Mines]

Though only feasible with poetry and short stories, possession by memory is, in my emphatic opinion, the best possible way to engage and experience literature.

 

Do you agree? And what, if anything, have you committed to memory?

[BookJumper]

I find memorising a piece the only way to avoid embarassment when declaiming it (I'll stutter if I read; I won't if I know the thing off by heart), but - here comes the tricky part - unless I've already understood it and assimilated it into my very soul, it will not stick in my memory.

 

Some things I know by heart (the first that spring to mind, I'm sure there's more):

 

- Too many bits of Shakespeare to mention, including but not restricted to sonnets 55, 107, 116, 123*

- Too many bits of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice to mention

- Random bits of Dante's Inferno

- The incipit of Monti's Italian verse translation of Homer's Iliad

- Walt Whitman's O Captain, My Captain

 

* interestingly, the way I learnt sonnets 55, 107 and 123 was spending the entire summer translating them over and over again - now that's a way to engage and experience literature! You never know what layers of meaning may be eluding you unless you stare at a piece of writing for weeks on end, wondering just how to render "And dwell in lovers' eyes" in another language. A seemingly innocent, easy line... or is it?

[Ben Mines]

There's something about Shakespeare that makes him oddly easy to memorize. Sonnet 130 (the pick of the crop, in my opinion) was preserved in my memory just as a result of rereading it, without any mnemonic techniques or even a conscious effort to learn it by heart. The same is true for quite a few soliloquies from Hamlet and Macbeth.

 

I've found that the hardest thing to memorize is literature and poetry that is similar to everyday speech. The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, the longest poem I've memorized,was easier than Eveline, a short story from Dubliners told in plain English that I'm still struggling with. I think it's because with everyday speech there are many possible syntactical variations, whereas you're not as likely to unconsciously modify dense or archaic language. It's difficulty actually makes it easier to remember.

[BigWords]

Along with some Shakespeare, bible pieces (though I'm hardly religious), poetry and quotation books, I somehow have fragments of Hunter S. Thompson, Elmore Leonard, Dashiell Hammett (and Bill Hicks stand-up) lodged in my brain. I can quote chunks of obscure old comics as well, so there is definitely something wrong with me.

[sirinrob]

You never know what layers of meaning may be eluding you unless you stare at a piece of writing for weeks on end, wondering just how to render "And dwell in lovers' eyes" in another language. A seemingly innocent, easy line... or is it?

 

Indeed that line isn't that straightforward - I quickly tried to render it in German and realised exactly what you have intimated - would need a good thunk to sort that out

[BookJumper]

Indeed that line isn't that straightforward - I quickly tried to render it in German and realised exactly what you have intimated - would need a good thunk to sort that out

Yet upon first reading it, it seems a perfectly understandable and uncomplicated line - odd, isn't it? Incidentally, I find that since realising the extra layers of meaning brought about by translation I'll translate everything I read in English into Italian as I go along - which further slows down my already hyperanalytical reading... aaaargh !

 

@ Ben:

 

First of all, let me be impressed by your knowing the Ancient Mariner off by heart - that is indeed one long poem.

 

What you say about peculiarity of language making certain pieces easier to remember makes sense, after all we're likelier to have a clear image of what a Dal

[Raskolnikov]

I know the whole Smith's song catalogue by heart. But I won't be credited for that... I have always found it very hard to memorize things out a visual or sonor imprint. But I find your poetic instincts interesting.

[Vanwa]

- Too many bits of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice to mention

 

 

I find that I have a terrible non-talent for memorising literature.

 

Besides a scene from Midsummer Night's Dream, Poe's Annabel Lee, some passages from The Silmarillion and possibly the odd other passage or two which escape my memory currently, P&P is the only lengthy piece I have committed to memory.

 

I have reread it so many times that I can open the book at any page, read the first line on that page and recite (without further looking at the page) probably two or three paragraphs or more. I also find that I cannot watch any screenplay of P&P without correcting the dialogue to Austen's original version out loud, word for word. In particular, a certain proposal scene between Lizzie and Mr Darcy.

 

I of course do not claim to possess any ability to recite the entire novel by heart, but certainly a decent amount of it.

 

As for the translation of "And dwell in lovers' eyes": from school and my own later attempts in life at translation of certain phrases from English to German and vice versa, I am well aware that direct translation can be a tricky affair. However, I do not have the skill in any language to translate a phrase such as this, and so I simply sat for a while trying to think of an English alternative. Surprisingly difficult I must say.

 

I can only conclude that with my own difficulty in putting it in an alternative way in its original language, the problematics of direct translation, and knowing all the while that the poetic tone should be kept the same, corr blimey how did you do it?!

[BookJumper]

I have always found it very hard to memorize things out a visual or sonor imprint. But I find your poetic instincts interesting.

I think "instincts" is the right word in my case - I used to have terrible trouble learning stuff for school unless I liked it, and if I liked it I would learn it automatically regardless of whether or not it was asked of me.

 

Which brings us to an intriguing tangent: why is it that I cannot remember my own poetry by heart, hard as I may try? Following the numerous file losses of my creative life, I've often managed to more or less reconstuct the vital bits of my prose - yet the poetry was always lost forever. I wonder why this should be; surely my own work should be instinctually closer to me than that of others? T'is peculiar, I tell you .

 

corr blimey how did you do it?!

With some difficulty ; particularly as Italian has two words for 'lovers': 'amanti' denotes a sexually consummated relationship, 'innamorati' doesn't disclose and is therefore a softer, more romantic term - hence the need for the translator to speculate biographically. After three months and seven drafts, I rendered it as 'conservato negl'occhi d'ogni innamorato', which literally means 'preserved in th'eyes of each person in love' (note: I had to singularify* 'lovers' to achieve the final rhyming couplet).

* pretty sure I've just invented that one !

[Vanwa]

Indeed I think you coined it; after a quick check the Oxford doesn't have it. I would suggest singlarize, which the Oxford doesn't have either, however it does have pluralize.

 

I personally prefer singularify though, far more ingenious.

[Ben Mines]

First of all, let me be impressed by your knowing the Ancient Mariner off by heart - that is indeed one long poem.

 

Thanks. It required an Atlantean mental and physical effort and a lot of careful and creative mnemonics.

 

Trouble is, memorizing long texts is a lot like spinning plates: Without periodic attention, they will start to wobble.

 

What you say about peculiarity of language making certain pieces easier to remember makes sense, after all we're likelier to have a clear image of what a Dal

[sirinrob]

just checked the Shorter OED and singularize and its variant singularise are listed, but like Bookjumper's neologism singularify

[BookJumper]

... and what to say of its related noun, 'singularification' ?

[sirinrob]

that as well - supraneologism to boot.

[Vanwa]

Ooh I like the noun BJ

 

Not a bad guess on my part then Sirinrob eh?

 

(And ever so slightly off-topic) However, I am vexed to learn that your Shorter is more detailed than my Concise. This was something I was looking at myself on the OUP site last night. My own edition is a little outdated (2006) and I was pondering my options for a more up to date edition in the New Year. How does one choose a sensible dictionary in this day and age? Short of buying the OED in its full glory and oh my gosh, how many volumes, I am officially stuck. Halp! By the by, in order to retain law and order, may I direct potential replies to this towards my Odds and Ends thread in General

[sirinrob]

Well Vanwa the shorter is a good halfway house - used to use the concise but with the literature I read these days it falls short. The shorter seems to cover my needs well - just 2 volumes... I have the same situation with German, use the DUW and the attendant volumes and it works....

[sirinrob]

just to add BJ that is a little OTT - Joycean even

[BookJumper]

just to add BJ that is a little OTT - Joycean even

What is, pray? You've lost me:lurker:!

[Ben Mines]

"Singularification" is a bit over the top and therefore reminds him of Joyce?

[sirinrob]

sorry about that BJ was meant in jest:)

[sirinrob]

Just a thought, but perhaps the understanding/appreciation of poetry is akin to a translation exercise? So some people find this interesting/facile and others boring/tedious perhaps? Thoughts anyone.

[Vanwa]

If I understand your meaning correctly Sirinrob, you may be right. Poetical language is a different side to any language it is written in. Similarly the rule applies to technical jargon and other apects of languages also. Languages within languages if you will.

 

First you must think of it in words you understand, and then develop a taste for the type of language used. Only once you understand something can you then start to appreciate it.

 

I think it goes beyond just poetry in literature though, and can be extended to prose also. For instance, I might have a better understanding and therefore appreciation of Austen than someone else, and they might have a better understanding and appreciation for King than I.

[sirinrob]

If I understand your meaning correctly Sirinrob, you may be right. Poetical language is a different side to any language it is written in. Similarly the rule applies to technical jargon and other apects of languages also. Languages within languages if you will.

 

First you must think of it in words you understand, and then develop a taste for the type of language used. Only once you understand something can you then start to appreciate it.

 

I think it goes beyond just poetry in literature though, and can be extended to prose also. For instance, I might have a better understanding and therefore appreciation of Austen than someone else, and they might have a better understanding and appreciation for King than I.

 

Yes your point about languages within languages was an aspect I was considering. Your extension to prose is imo valid too. When you talk about understanding, are you considering just the intention of the author or including any underlying themes?

[BookJumper]

When you talk about understanding, are you considering just the intention of the author or including any underlying themes?

May I badger in with an opinion I feel very strongly about:lurker:? It is this: if the author didn't put it there and it's not ascribable to the author's historical/biographical context, it is not an underlying theme.

[Vanwa]

Here here BJ.

 

@ Sirinrob. I was referring to the writer's style, themes, symbolism, emotive text and dialogue such as humour, and also components of the text such as metaphors and similes.

 

Pretty much anything which isn't written in the "Biff through the ball for Chip. Chip chased the ball" kind of simplicity is open to interpretation and can be subjective.