The review discusses the book by Edyta Sołtys-Lewandowska O „ocalającej nieporządek rzeczy” polskiej poezji metafizycznej i religijnej drugiej połowy XX wieku i początków XXI wieku, which is aimed at describing contemporary Polish poetry in terms of its religious/metaphysical quests. Sołtys-Lewandowska distinguishes two types of poetry, namely, religious and metaphysical. The first type refers to the poems which depict a personal relationship with God; the second implies a premonition of an outer reality which transcends the limits of human cognition. Sołtys-Lewandowska interprets a variety of poems. She analyzes what she calls the “sacralization” and the “desacralization” effects, describes the figures of God (especially the figure of Father and Lord) and argues that contemporary Polish poetry may be interpreted as an expression of a “return of religion”. The reviewer appreciates the original idea of the book but criticizes the too broad scope of the project which results in very general conclusions. He also disagrees with some typological concepts which don’t seem to be really consistent and helpful.
 

The review discusses the book by Edyta Sołtys-Lewandowska O „ocalającej nieporządek rzeczy” polskiej poezji metafizycznej i religijnej drugiej połowy XX wieku i początków XXI wieku, which is aimed at describing contemporary Polish poetry in terms of its religious/metaphysical quests. Sołtys-Lewandowska distinguishes two types of poetry, namely, religious and metaphysical. The first type refers to the poems which depict a personal relationship with God; the second implies a premonition of an outer reality which transcends the limits of human cognition. Sołtys-Lewandowska interprets a variety of poems. She analyzes what she calls the “sacralization” and the “desacralization” effects, describes the figures of God (especially the figure of Father and Lord) and argues that contemporary Polish poetry may be interpreted as an expression of a “return of religion”. The reviewer appreciates the original idea of the book but criticizes the too broad scope of the project which results in very general conclusions. He also disagrees with some typological concepts which don’t seem to be really consistent and helpful.