12-08-2014, 12:08 PM
"I only did it b/c you indicated the message/intent had "bypassed" you. As a reader you would never know what is happening in all poems b/c poetry is not meant to be a clear cut medium."
Not to beat a dead horse but no, it is not because I interpreted it differently, it is because you did not write it. Your intent was to show a man in a bus station who upon seeing a girl who he thought was the most desirable girl he had ever seen, began to daydream about what she did last night. The problem is You did not convey this. The information is not there. It has nothing to do with your Mona Lisa example. One, we don't know what the intention of da Vinci was outside of painting that picture. On the other hand we have a very clear account of your intent of what you meant this poem to be. I am saying what you meant this poem to be is not there. You are certainly welcome to disagree with that assessment, but I find it somewhat offensive the way you keep trying to re-characterize what I am saying. I did not misinterpret anything, I simply failed to find what you intended to put in the poem but failed to do so. As I said you are welcome to disagree with that, but that is what I am saying. I am saying the failure of the poem is not on my part, nor is a result of a different interpretation by me. It is my experience that when such an occurrence as this happens (and it has happened plenty of times to me in my poetry writing) that the reader is telling the writer necessary information is missing from the poem for the reader to get from the current poem, to where the writer envisions them being. This is a common in poetry. Poets assuming that the reader has certain knowledge that they do not, and projecting that information onto their poem. I must assume that you think there is more information in your poem than there is, this is a very common problem, but it is a problem with the poem. Just so I am clear, I am saying there is nothing in your poem that would tell a reader that the first speaker remains the speaker throughout, and that this is a fantasy daydream by that speaker about a girl he just happens to notice at a bus station. Please, just understand this has nothing to do with interpretation as there is nothing there to interpret. You are certainly free to disagree with me, and call me names, discount me as a fool, but please do not say this is a matter of interpretation, it has nothing to do with that.
Dale
Not to beat a dead horse but no, it is not because I interpreted it differently, it is because you did not write it. Your intent was to show a man in a bus station who upon seeing a girl who he thought was the most desirable girl he had ever seen, began to daydream about what she did last night. The problem is You did not convey this. The information is not there. It has nothing to do with your Mona Lisa example. One, we don't know what the intention of da Vinci was outside of painting that picture. On the other hand we have a very clear account of your intent of what you meant this poem to be. I am saying what you meant this poem to be is not there. You are certainly welcome to disagree with that assessment, but I find it somewhat offensive the way you keep trying to re-characterize what I am saying. I did not misinterpret anything, I simply failed to find what you intended to put in the poem but failed to do so. As I said you are welcome to disagree with that, but that is what I am saying. I am saying the failure of the poem is not on my part, nor is a result of a different interpretation by me. It is my experience that when such an occurrence as this happens (and it has happened plenty of times to me in my poetry writing) that the reader is telling the writer necessary information is missing from the poem for the reader to get from the current poem, to where the writer envisions them being. This is a common in poetry. Poets assuming that the reader has certain knowledge that they do not, and projecting that information onto their poem. I must assume that you think there is more information in your poem than there is, this is a very common problem, but it is a problem with the poem. Just so I am clear, I am saying there is nothing in your poem that would tell a reader that the first speaker remains the speaker throughout, and that this is a fantasy daydream by that speaker about a girl he just happens to notice at a bus station. Please, just understand this has nothing to do with interpretation as there is nothing there to interpret. You are certainly free to disagree with me, and call me names, discount me as a fool, but please do not say this is a matter of interpretation, it has nothing to do with that.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.