07-27-2012, 08:30 AM
Thank you very much for your thoughts.
The reason I asked for very specific kinds of criticism is that, while I may have "meaning" in mind, this is not a poem that especially intends to communicate something concrete and unambiguous, so I'm not really interested in semantic/semiotic analyses.
In my view, meaning is not only not everything in poetry, but it doesn't have to be anything in poetry--or at least the artist's view of a piece's meaning does not have to be privileged. The idea of a "false interpretation" is therefore incoherent to me. Many worthwhile analogies with visual art may be made. Here is where I'd usually launch into a tirade re: My Philosophy of Poetry, but I'll spare you all that.
I've proofread the poem dozens of times and edited it extensively. I can understand that for anyone with any formalist leaning this may not appear to be the case.
I rarely use titles because they usually seem like an attempt to frame the poem for the reader. Sometimes this is necessary, or a good idea, or you can do something clever and creative and fun with a title, but usually titles feel superfluous to me, even patronising. Again, I respect alternative views with regard to this, and it doesn't bother me that most people title their poems.
The whole piece has an messy, ragged feel to it. Punctuation then no punctuation, lucidity then absurdity, fluency then incompetance. <-- This probably wasn't intended to be complimentary, but I'm tickled by it. Though I'll assert that the absurdity is only ostensible, as is any appearance of incompetence.
penguin: I'm glad you thought the repetition of "only" worked well; it was one of the things I wasn't sure about. The "but" you mention is intended to reference the immediately preceding line. The last stanza is intended as a meditation upon the (grudgingly conceded) benefits of temporary separation from the person you love. So kind of a "but on the other hand..."
Thanks again for the comments. I've made a few small changes as a result. And it is refreshing to hear this kind of honesty.
The reason I asked for very specific kinds of criticism is that, while I may have "meaning" in mind, this is not a poem that especially intends to communicate something concrete and unambiguous, so I'm not really interested in semantic/semiotic analyses.
In my view, meaning is not only not everything in poetry, but it doesn't have to be anything in poetry--or at least the artist's view of a piece's meaning does not have to be privileged. The idea of a "false interpretation" is therefore incoherent to me. Many worthwhile analogies with visual art may be made. Here is where I'd usually launch into a tirade re: My Philosophy of Poetry, but I'll spare you all that.
I've proofread the poem dozens of times and edited it extensively. I can understand that for anyone with any formalist leaning this may not appear to be the case.
I rarely use titles because they usually seem like an attempt to frame the poem for the reader. Sometimes this is necessary, or a good idea, or you can do something clever and creative and fun with a title, but usually titles feel superfluous to me, even patronising. Again, I respect alternative views with regard to this, and it doesn't bother me that most people title their poems.
The whole piece has an messy, ragged feel to it. Punctuation then no punctuation, lucidity then absurdity, fluency then incompetance. <-- This probably wasn't intended to be complimentary, but I'm tickled by it. Though I'll assert that the absurdity is only ostensible, as is any appearance of incompetence.
penguin: I'm glad you thought the repetition of "only" worked well; it was one of the things I wasn't sure about. The "but" you mention is intended to reference the immediately preceding line. The last stanza is intended as a meditation upon the (grudgingly conceded) benefits of temporary separation from the person you love. So kind of a "but on the other hand..."
Thanks again for the comments. I've made a few small changes as a result. And it is refreshing to hear this kind of honesty.