04-28-2015, 05:06 PM
Recent crit raised some old blue-barnacled platelets...huh? Obscurity, don't yah just love it?
OK. I am going to make a confession. I am a lazy reader. I like to be allowed into the mind of the poet without the need for the breaking of a ten digit rotary padlock. I am more than happy, though, to enter in IF I know the ten digit number.
Obscure poetry is often rewarding to read provided that the INTENT of the writer is made clear. Round this maypole of intent the ribbons can be twisted, tangled and woven into intricate patterns and colourful tapestries. Where it all goes wrong is when obscurity becomes the objective. Why on earth would anyone write something unfathomable? Well, it is because of the "false universality" of the obscure. Even an average reader can take solace from an "imagined" translation of what an obscure poem is all about, whilst the consummate consumer of all things literary will delight him/herself with the proud claim that the piece was clearly about this or that.
There is a spectrum of acceptance amongst readers which averages out. Any claim that the "false universality" of obscure poetry is a myth, is eroded by the bell-curve of acceptance amongst the "universal" readers reading "universal" poetry. In other words, we readers are many in number and wide in our tastes...and ditto writers. It is then, far more all encompassing to write in a non-specific way than to write only about facts...but is universal appeal what we crave? I do not believe so.
To sum up. Obscurity in poetry is an excuse for inability. It is a GOOD excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. Worse than accidental obscurity is DELIBERATE obscurity...go write puzzles for Reader's Digest (RIP) and don't bother me.
Oh, why FALSE universality? A bit obscure, that. Again, there is thought behind the premise. As far as I can tell, it seems to me that the Emperor has new clothes every day. With anything approaching gobbledygook it takes but ONE critique to laud the piece and an avalanche of eulogists fall from on high, each trying to out-translate the other. This gives the writer a warm glow and encourages more of the same...I know, I have been on both sides; but I never believed the believers. That would be to assume that gobbkedygook is universally acceptable...a false universality.
You wanna fight about it?
Best,
tectak
OK. I am going to make a confession. I am a lazy reader. I like to be allowed into the mind of the poet without the need for the breaking of a ten digit rotary padlock. I am more than happy, though, to enter in IF I know the ten digit number.
Obscure poetry is often rewarding to read provided that the INTENT of the writer is made clear. Round this maypole of intent the ribbons can be twisted, tangled and woven into intricate patterns and colourful tapestries. Where it all goes wrong is when obscurity becomes the objective. Why on earth would anyone write something unfathomable? Well, it is because of the "false universality" of the obscure. Even an average reader can take solace from an "imagined" translation of what an obscure poem is all about, whilst the consummate consumer of all things literary will delight him/herself with the proud claim that the piece was clearly about this or that.
There is a spectrum of acceptance amongst readers which averages out. Any claim that the "false universality" of obscure poetry is a myth, is eroded by the bell-curve of acceptance amongst the "universal" readers reading "universal" poetry. In other words, we readers are many in number and wide in our tastes...and ditto writers. It is then, far more all encompassing to write in a non-specific way than to write only about facts...but is universal appeal what we crave? I do not believe so.
To sum up. Obscurity in poetry is an excuse for inability. It is a GOOD excuse, but an excuse nonetheless. Worse than accidental obscurity is DELIBERATE obscurity...go write puzzles for Reader's Digest (RIP) and don't bother me.
Oh, why FALSE universality? A bit obscure, that. Again, there is thought behind the premise. As far as I can tell, it seems to me that the Emperor has new clothes every day. With anything approaching gobbledygook it takes but ONE critique to laud the piece and an avalanche of eulogists fall from on high, each trying to out-translate the other. This gives the writer a warm glow and encourages more of the same...I know, I have been on both sides; but I never believed the believers. That would be to assume that gobbkedygook is universally acceptable...a false universality.
You wanna fight about it?
Best,
tectak