12-26-2014, 01:06 PM
Sorry, personal preference does not make something wrong, no matter how highly one views himself.
When I speak of clarity, accepting for the moment you will not disregard what I say and just argue for arguments sake, I mean taking something that is already simple and clear and purposefully making it more obscure either by subtracting information that one needs to have a clear understanding of what is trying to be communicated, or adding extra wording that does the same thing. Writing is to communicate. If one is operating under the premiss that one does not need to write as clearly as is possible to communicate whatever it is, the reader does not enter into the relationship aware that the writer will play them false. If one has something of note to say it is often difficult to communicate the idea as it is. It is only when one has nothing of merit to say does he obscure his writing in some way, so that readers will think he is "deeper" or more profound than he actually is. The reader will often think this simply because they can not make sense of what the writer has written. Most readers do not that have the confidence to challenge the writer and generally assume the fault lies with them because they cannot make sense out of the senselessness the writer has put onto the paper. The writer is quite happy to perpetuate the false idea that it is the lack of intelligence in the readers that keeps them from understanding what has been written. It is the "Emperor has no Clothes" for writers. The people who read the poem can't make anything out of it, but are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid. So they do their best to comment in a way that makes them look like they are one of the in crowd ( usually something so vague it could mean anything). It is manipulation on the part of the poet pure and simple. The poet, if one ever existed, has now become a charlatan. On the furthest end of baseness the writer is doing this purposely and with full comprehension of what he does. At the other end is a writer unaware he is perpetrating a fraud, and simply following what he has been taught, not fully comprehending what he is doing.
The purpose of any writing, prose, or poetry is to communicate. It makes no sense to sabotage the thing that is at the core of writing. There are those who like to repeat, for whatever reason, that the poet is unimportant, and the only thing that matters is their interpretation of the words. This is the equivalent of what ink blots are to art. If I am creating the poem from the words that have been written, why do I need the writer. I am already creating the myth of my own image to reflect back to me.
Should you feel the need to respond that poetry isn't for communicating, then I ask this. Why make sure you have correct spelling, correct grammar, syntax, punctuation? Those things are there, simply for the purpose of communicating, and doing so clearly. If there is anything that is difficult or obscure for the reader, then it should be because the idea is difficult to express, and no matter how clearly the writer tries to write, it is still a difficult concept to understand, not a simple concept that one has purposefully made obscure. A bit of a ramble, but I am in a bit of a hurry.
Dale
When I speak of clarity, accepting for the moment you will not disregard what I say and just argue for arguments sake, I mean taking something that is already simple and clear and purposefully making it more obscure either by subtracting information that one needs to have a clear understanding of what is trying to be communicated, or adding extra wording that does the same thing. Writing is to communicate. If one is operating under the premiss that one does not need to write as clearly as is possible to communicate whatever it is, the reader does not enter into the relationship aware that the writer will play them false. If one has something of note to say it is often difficult to communicate the idea as it is. It is only when one has nothing of merit to say does he obscure his writing in some way, so that readers will think he is "deeper" or more profound than he actually is. The reader will often think this simply because they can not make sense of what the writer has written. Most readers do not that have the confidence to challenge the writer and generally assume the fault lies with them because they cannot make sense out of the senselessness the writer has put onto the paper. The writer is quite happy to perpetuate the false idea that it is the lack of intelligence in the readers that keeps them from understanding what has been written. It is the "Emperor has no Clothes" for writers. The people who read the poem can't make anything out of it, but are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid. So they do their best to comment in a way that makes them look like they are one of the in crowd ( usually something so vague it could mean anything). It is manipulation on the part of the poet pure and simple. The poet, if one ever existed, has now become a charlatan. On the furthest end of baseness the writer is doing this purposely and with full comprehension of what he does. At the other end is a writer unaware he is perpetrating a fraud, and simply following what he has been taught, not fully comprehending what he is doing.
The purpose of any writing, prose, or poetry is to communicate. It makes no sense to sabotage the thing that is at the core of writing. There are those who like to repeat, for whatever reason, that the poet is unimportant, and the only thing that matters is their interpretation of the words. This is the equivalent of what ink blots are to art. If I am creating the poem from the words that have been written, why do I need the writer. I am already creating the myth of my own image to reflect back to me.
Should you feel the need to respond that poetry isn't for communicating, then I ask this. Why make sure you have correct spelling, correct grammar, syntax, punctuation? Those things are there, simply for the purpose of communicating, and doing so clearly. If there is anything that is difficult or obscure for the reader, then it should be because the idea is difficult to express, and no matter how clearly the writer tries to write, it is still a difficult concept to understand, not a simple concept that one has purposefully made obscure. A bit of a ramble, but I am in a bit of a hurry.
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.