Andrey's questions about poems (split from the intro thread)

[AndreyGaganov]

Andrey,

If a person came to you and said, "Andrey, I want to learn how to like music, but I just don't think it is for me. Please convince me that I do like music."

One thing that doesn't make sense about these words is the interest in poetry and the defeatist attitude conflated 2-in-1. Do you want to explore or not? Pick a team and play. The other thing that doesn't make sense is a plea for an attempt to establish that which obviously cannot be established. So, I really don't know what that person wants from me. 

If what the person is asking for is to teach him to learn to appreciate music, I'd have to say: "You get out of music only that which your brain does. There are no precepts. There are no rules. There are no puzzles. There are no expectations. Certain things about music choose you, and you can listen to it however you want ... unless it's jazz, because what I heard about it is that you have to really listen to jazz to appreciate it ... unless it's Alice Coltrane, who can really pull you in. I guess that's why I'm not a jazz guy."

I would love to try and explain a song or an instrumental piece or an experiment to someone (I want to welcome, not turn someone away), just as I'd love it for someone to explain to me why an author chose these metaphors for his poem.

Anyway, let's just plow on through. 

Andrey,

If the person said to you, "oh I listened to rock and roll one time.  Music is terrible.  It is loud and hurts my ears, how can you even think it is a thing of beauty?"

Then I would say "If it hurts your ears, turn it down. ... And who have you been listening to? Because there are so many different flavors of rock n' roll."

You would think that person a simpleton, for how can they dismiss all music based on one or two songs from one or two genres? Have they even tried Beethoven or Chopin?  Have they allowed Bach the chance?  This is how you are treating poetry.

Are you saying there is poetry that doesn't rely on sound, rhythm, irony, and cryptic metaphors?

You want an argument to explain to you why it is beautiful. You cannot argue a person into understanding the beauty of either music or of poetry. They experience it, and they either find it beautiful or they don't. That is all there is. 

Not an argument. A revelation. Besides, if I remember correctly, arguments are not allowed in here. Only discussions.

You will never learn to like poetry, ...

Who's to say that? (As I said before: I do not take defeatism kindly.)

... or whether you even can like it, by arguing the whys and wherefores. 

I'm not arguing the why's or the wherefore's; I'm inquiring about them. 

Do not begin a quest for flaws, begin a quest for beauty.

It's not that I'm on a quest for flaws; it's just that the things that I personally perceive as flaws are just right in my face.

...

After god knows how many minutes of pondering over this one, here's another question: would you say there are different kinds of beauty in poetry? Are you saying there's more to it than just rhythm and sound? Let's entertain the idea that I should express complete disregard for Randall Jarrell's intent for "The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner" (since a poem is not about the poet's intent). That means that I shouldn't care what the poem is about. That means that all I'm left with is the text and its rhythms and sounds. Is the reader's objective to only extract rhythms and sounds? - goes my second question. 

Tell yourself that you will read all the different types of poetry that you can find until you are able to find ONE poem that you do like.  When you find one poem you like, one poem that moves something in you, that you can say, "now that is a thing of beauty, I would not have said it any other way" then you may return and discuss poetry.

If you read 1000 poems and cannot find a single one with a single thing to like, then poetry is not for you ...

For my own good I'll just pretend you did not write that. 

Please stop trying to understand beauty through argument. That is not how beauty is conveyed. 

(I listen to music; I have an idea of how beauty can be conveyed within a musical, not a lyrical, paradigm.)
I'm not trying to understand beauty through argument. Research and inquiry, but not argument. I just want to know the ways in which beauty can be manifested. Some say it's the metaphors, right? You can use a metaphor to describe something beautiful, right? That means the beauty is not in the metaphor itself, but in the object of the metaphor, right? Someone said: to get an emotional point across; but it turns out there's someone who's been working with poetry for years and did not extract a great deal of emotion, so I'm lost on that one. Now, some say it's the rhythm and sounds of the text alone, right? It sounds to me like poetry is kind of like music, only you have less of a chance enjoying it because there are no instruments that can produce pleasing sounds, there is no singer with a great voice, and ... there is no singing. I'm basically down to two dimensions only - rhythm and sound, right? Is there a poem that can spoil the reader with its rhythms and sounds? 

Please stop trying to understand beauty through argument.   I realize you will feel inclined to argue with me on some small point of what I have said.  I will not respond.  I am right.  Now go, your homework is to find one poem that you truly love.  Your arguments have no weight if you cannot.

They have no weight because, as I've said before, there are no arguments. As per the homework assignment, ... I'm on it.