Organisms of Difficulty: The Data

  • Davide Castiglione


This chapter presents the data to which the model is applied. Based on critics’ intersubjective agreement, eleven poems by ten authors are chosen. The authors are: Gertrude Stein, Ezra Pound, Wallace Stevens, E.E. Cummings, Hart Crane, Dylan Thomas, Geoffrey Hill, Susan Howe and Charles Bernstein for difficulty; two poems by Mark Strand and John Betjeman provide instead a baseline measure for accessibility. The second part of the chapter outlines two empirical studies that provide the RIDs for a subset of the poems. The first study, a pencil-and-paper task, aims at exploring the degree of comprehension elicited by the poems. In the second, an online reading task, reading times are recorded to measure the resistance opposed by the poems used in the first study.


Betjeman participantsParticipants Difficult Poem themeTheme Confirmation biasConfirmation Bias 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abrams, M. H., & Greenblatt, S. (Eds.). (2000). The Norton Anthology of English Literature: 20th Century. New York and London: Norton.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, H. (1991). The Difficulty of Difficulty. In C. A. Purves (Ed.), The Idea of Difficulty in Literature (pp. 23–50). New York: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  3. Adamson, S. (1999). The Literary Language. In S. Romaine (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, 4, 1776–The Present Day (pp. 589–692). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Altieri, C. (1984). Self and Sensibility in Contemporary American Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bäckström, P. (2010). Forgive Us, O Life! The Sin of Death: A Critical Reading of Michael Riffaterre’s Semiotics of Poetry. Textual Practice, 25(5), 913–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker, A. (2002). Review of “Speech! Speech!” by Geoffrey Hill. Poetry Nottingham International, 56(3), 34.Google Scholar
  7. Ballard, J. G. (1962). The Drowned World. London: Berkley Books.Google Scholar
  8. Bernstein, C. (1987). The Sophist. Los Angeles: Sun and Moon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bernstein, C. (2011). The Difficult Poem. In C. Bernstein (Ed.), Attack of the Difficult Poems (pp. 1–6). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Betjeman, J. (1974). A Nip in the Air. London: Murray.Google Scholar
  11. Bloom, H. (1973). The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Burke, M. (2007). “Progress is a Comfortable Disease”: Cognition in a Stylistic Analysis of E.E. Cummings. In M. Lambrou & P. Stockwell (Eds.), Contemporary Stylistics (pp. 144–155). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  13. Butt, D. (2007). Thought Experiments in Verbal Art: Examples from Modernism. In D. Miller & M. Turci (Eds.), Language and Verbal Art Revisited: Linguistic Approaches to the Study of Literature (pp. 68–96). London and Oakville: Equinox.Google Scholar
  14. Carminati, M., N., Stabler, J., Roberts, A. M., & Fischer, M. H. (2006). Readers’ Responses to Sub-genre and Rhyme Scheme in Poetry. Poetics, 34(3), 204–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Castiglione, D. (2017). Difficult Poetry Processing: Reading Times and the Narrativity Hypothesis. Language and Literature, 26(2), 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crane, H. (1972 [1926]). White Buildings. New York and London: Liveright.Google Scholar
  17. Crane, H. (1997). O My Land, My Friends: The Selected Letters of Hart Crane (L. Hammer & B. Weber, Eds.). New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.Google Scholar
  18. Cummings, E. E. (1998 [1935]). No Thanks. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
  19. Cureton, D. R. (1979). E.E. Cummings: A Study of the Poetic Use of Deviant Morphology. Poetics Today, 1(1–2), 213–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diepeveen, L. (2003). The Difficulties of Modernism. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Dillon, G. L. (1978). Language Processing and the Reading of Literature. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Mehodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Eliot, T. S. (1972 [1922]). The Waste Land, and Other Poems. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  24. Eliot, T. S. (1999 [1921]). The Metaphysical Poets. In T. S. Eliot (Ed.), Selected Essays (pp. 281–291). London: Faber.Google Scholar
  25. Fowler, R., & Bateson, F. W. (1971). The Languages of Literature. Some Linguistic Contributions to Criticism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  26. Gomez-Jimenez, E. M. (2015). ‘oride lesgo eckshun’: Spelling Foregrounding in the Experimental Poetry of E. E. Cummings. Language and Literature, 24(4), 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Graesser, A. C., Hoffman, N. L., & Clark, L. F. (1980). Structural Components of Reading Times. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(2), 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grossman, A. (2007). On Communicative Difficulty in General and “Difficult” Poetry in Particular: The Example of Hart Crane’s “The broken Tower”. Chicago Review, 53(2–3), 140–161.Google Scholar
  29. Hakemulder, F., & van Peer, W. (2015). Empirical Stylistics. In V. Sotirova (Ed.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Stylistics (pp. 189–207). London and New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  30. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing Experience Through Meaning. A Language-Based Approach to Cognition. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  31. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  32. Hanauer, D. (1998). The Genre-Specific Hypothesis of Reading: Reading Poetry and Encyclopedic Items. Poetics, 26, 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hansson, G. (1991). Kinds of Understanding, Kinds of Difficulties in the Reading of Literature. In A. Purves (Ed.), The Idea of Difficulty in Literature (pp. 93–116). New York: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  34. Herd, D. (2000). John Ashbery and American Poetry. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hill, G. (2001). Speech! Speech!. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  36. Howe, S. (2003). The Midnight. New York: New Directions.Google Scholar
  37. Jeffries, L. (1993). The Language of Twentieth Century Poetry. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jeffries, L. (2008). The Role of Style in Reader-Involvement: Deictic Shifting in Contemporary Poems. Journal of Literary Semantics, 37(1), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keyser, S. J. (1980 [1976]). Wallace Stevens: Form and Meaning in Four Poems. In M. K. Ching, M. C. Haley, & R. F. Lunsford (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Literature (pp. 257–282). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  40. Leech, G. (1969). A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  41. Leggett, B. J. (2007). Stevens’ Late Poetry. In J. Serio (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Wallace Stevens (pp. 62–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lopez, T. (2006). Meaning Performance: Essays on Poetry. Cambridge: Salt.Google Scholar
  43. McHale, B. (2000). How (Not) to Read Postmodernist Long Poems: The Case of Ashbery’s “The Skaters”. Poetics Today, 21(3), 561–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McHale, B. (2004). The Obligation Toward the Difficult Whole: Postmodernist Long Poems. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mellors, A. (2005). Late Modernist Poetics: From Pound to Prynne. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Miall, S. D., & Kuiken, D. (1994). Foregrounding, Defamiliarization, and Affect: Response to Literary Stories. Poetics, 22, 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nadel, I. B. (2007). The Cambridge Introduction to Ezra Pound. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nahajec, L. (2009). Negation and the Creation of Extra Meaning in Poetry. Language and Literature, 18(2), 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Neel, E. (1999). The Talking Being Listening: Gertrude Stein’s “Patriarchal Poetry” and the Sound of Reading. Style, 33(1), 88–106.Google Scholar
  50. Nowottny, W. (1962). The Language Poets Use. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  51. Päivärinta, A. (2014). Foregrounding the Foregrounded: The Literalness of Dylan Thomas’s ‘After the Funeral’. In C. Harrison, L. Nuttall, P. Stockwell, & W. Yuan (Eds.), Cognitive Grammar in Literature (pp. 133–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Perloff, M. (1985). The Dance of the Intellect: Studies in the Poetry of the Pound Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Perloff, M. (1991). Radical Artifice: Writing Poetry in the Age of Media. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Pound, E. (1954). The Cantos of Ezra Pound. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  55. Prynne, J. H. (2005). Poems. Tarset: Bloodaxe Books.Google Scholar
  56. Quartermain, P. (1992). Disjunctive Poetics: From Gertrude Stein and Louis Zukofsky to Susan Howe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Sell, R. D. (1993). The Difficult Style of “The Waste Land”: A Literary-Pragmatic Perspective on Modernist Poetry. In P. Verdonk (Ed.), Stylistic Criticism of Twentieth-Century Poetry: From Text to Context (pp. 135–158). Florence, KY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Semino, E. (2002). Stylistics and Linguistic Variation in Poetry. Journal of English Linguistics, 30(1), 28–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Serio, J. (2007). Introduction. In J. Serio (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Wallace Stevens (pp. 1–7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith, C. (1988). Factors of Linguistic Complexity and Performance. In A. Davison & G. M. Green (Eds.), Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension: Readability Issues Reconsidered (pp. 247–279). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Stein, G. (1914). Tender Buttons: Objects, Food, Rooms. New York: Claire Marie.Google Scholar
  62. Stein, G. (1980 [1927]). Patriarchal Poetry. In The Yale Gertrude Stein (pp. 106–146). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Steiner, G. (1978). On Difficulty. In G. Steiner (Ed.), On Difficulty and Other Essays (pp. 18–47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Stevens, W. (1950). The Auroras of Autumn. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  65. Stockwell, P. (2009). Texture: A Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Strand, M. (1978). The Late Hour. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
  67. Sutherland, K. (2010). Wrong Poetry. Textual Practice, 24(4), 765–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tartakovsky, R. (2009). E.E. Cummings’s Parentheses: Punctuation as Poetic Device. Style, 43(2), 215–247.Google Scholar
  69. Thomas, D. (1988 [1934]). Collected Poems 1934–1953. London: J.M. Dent and Sons.Google Scholar
  70. Toolan, M. (1993). Approaching Hill’s “Of Commerce and Society” Through Lexis. In P. Verdonk (Ed.), Stylistic Criticism of Twentieth-Century Poetry: From Text to Context (pp. 32–45). Florence, KY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Tuma, K. (1998). Fishing by Obstinate Isles: Modern and Postmodern British Poetry and American Readers. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  72. van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  73. van Peer, W., Hakemulder, F., & Zyngier, S. (2012). Scientific Methods for the Humanities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wallot, S., O’ Brien, B., Haussmann, A., Kloos, H., & Lyby, M. (2014). The Role of Reading Time Complexity and Reading Speed in Text Comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1745–1765.Google Scholar
  75. Wilkinson, J. (2007). The Lyric Touch: Essays on the Poetry of Excess. Cambridge: Salt.Google Scholar
  76. Yaron, I. (2002). Processing of Obscure Poetic Texts: Mechanisms of Selection. Journal of Literary Semantics, 31(2), 133–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yaron, I. (2003). Mechanisms of Combination in the Processing of Obscure Poems. Journal of Literary Semantics, 32(2), 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yaron, I. (2010). Obscurity and Dylan Thomas’s Early Poetry. Retrieved from
  79. Zwaan, R. (1993). Aspects of Literary Comprehension. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zyngier, S., van Peer, W., & Hakemulder, F. (2007). Complexity and Foregrounding: In the Eye of the Beholder? Poetics Today, 28(4), 653–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Castiglione
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of English PhilologyVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations