01-03-2012, 12:24 PM
"for example, nobody here has said "this poem has no meaning" or anything to that effect."
Ironically, because the word "meaning" has two distinct definitions, it often becomes ambiguous in it's usage. That distinction is really at the heart of the problem. Depending on which way you meant the above quote, the following has validity or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When GrannyJill asked.
"As to giving life advice - who does that?"
What she is doing is calling into question the premiss upon which your poem is founded, and thus it's worth/value (meaning). Thus she is very much questioning if the poem has meaning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two types of meaning. One is simply what the poem means, in does it have something intelligible to say? The response to such a question of "meaning" is I understand, or I don't understand. In other words, do I understand the message. This goes to our concept about if there is a message there at all, or is just gibberish.
The second type of meaning relates to it's value, or worth. It is what I call philosophical meaning, as it is used in the title of a book by Victor Frankl's, "Man's search for Meaning". The response to such a question is I agree, or I disagree.
The first type of meaning, the type which denotes understanding is very much in the realm of the critic, the second type of meaning, the type that denotes value/worth, is in the realm of the apologist.
I believe it is an important distinction, one that was blurred in the last century do to such school's of literary criticism as Marxism, Darwinism, Feminism, and other's of the same type. I believe that confusion in terms of poetical criticism is still operative today. These schools had a ready made ideology they brought to the table against which to measure the poem, and discover if it matched those expectations. So they determined if the poem was good or bad in relation to the ideology specific ethics they brought to the table. To me this is the area of the apologist, and I use that term quite intentionally, as I believe the response to these ideologies was similar if not the same as how people respond to religion. I do not believe such approaches are within the purview of the critic. I think the critic's job is, to determine whether or not the poem does what it is intended to do, in terms of what it is suppose to convey, and to what degree it does this. Thus the critic speaks to the idea, "Is the meaning clear?" Not, "is what the poem saying good or bad?". Just as when we use the phrase "This means something to me." to say that it has value. We say, "It may not mean anything to you, but it does to me." Meaning, it may not have value to you, but it does to me.
A critic would say Hitler was a very good speaker, in that he was very effective in motivating people to do as he wished. An apologist would say he was a very bad speaker because he manipulated people into going along with the atrocities that the Nazis inflicted upon the world.
This is the difference between the critic and the apologist, and that is the distinction I was trying to make in my question. When I defended your poem against GrannyJill's accusation that your premiss was not supported by reality, I was unclear which area that fell within. If it falls within the arena of the apologist, then it is inappropriate to discuss it on this thread, if it is in the arena of the critic it is perfectly appropriate to discuss it here.
I belabor this point because it seems many of the questionable replies in this forum fall into this grey area, and it seems there is a lot of confusion related to this. Aside from that, I think it is a major philosophical problem in poetic criticism that must be continually dealt with. If we are going to allow as valid the point of view of the apologist, then we open the door to the full gamut of reader response, and must acknowledge that any response, no matter how personal or tangential is appropriate to the discussion, if for no other reason than we have thrown away any objective measuring stick by which to say it should not be allowed.
Dale
Ironically, because the word "meaning" has two distinct definitions, it often becomes ambiguous in it's usage. That distinction is really at the heart of the problem. Depending on which way you meant the above quote, the following has validity or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When GrannyJill asked.
"As to giving life advice - who does that?"
What she is doing is calling into question the premiss upon which your poem is founded, and thus it's worth/value (meaning). Thus she is very much questioning if the poem has meaning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two types of meaning. One is simply what the poem means, in does it have something intelligible to say? The response to such a question of "meaning" is I understand, or I don't understand. In other words, do I understand the message. This goes to our concept about if there is a message there at all, or is just gibberish.
The second type of meaning relates to it's value, or worth. It is what I call philosophical meaning, as it is used in the title of a book by Victor Frankl's, "Man's search for Meaning". The response to such a question is I agree, or I disagree.
The first type of meaning, the type which denotes understanding is very much in the realm of the critic, the second type of meaning, the type that denotes value/worth, is in the realm of the apologist.
I believe it is an important distinction, one that was blurred in the last century do to such school's of literary criticism as Marxism, Darwinism, Feminism, and other's of the same type. I believe that confusion in terms of poetical criticism is still operative today. These schools had a ready made ideology they brought to the table against which to measure the poem, and discover if it matched those expectations. So they determined if the poem was good or bad in relation to the ideology specific ethics they brought to the table. To me this is the area of the apologist, and I use that term quite intentionally, as I believe the response to these ideologies was similar if not the same as how people respond to religion. I do not believe such approaches are within the purview of the critic. I think the critic's job is, to determine whether or not the poem does what it is intended to do, in terms of what it is suppose to convey, and to what degree it does this. Thus the critic speaks to the idea, "Is the meaning clear?" Not, "is what the poem saying good or bad?". Just as when we use the phrase "This means something to me." to say that it has value. We say, "It may not mean anything to you, but it does to me." Meaning, it may not have value to you, but it does to me.
A critic would say Hitler was a very good speaker, in that he was very effective in motivating people to do as he wished. An apologist would say he was a very bad speaker because he manipulated people into going along with the atrocities that the Nazis inflicted upon the world.
This is the difference between the critic and the apologist, and that is the distinction I was trying to make in my question. When I defended your poem against GrannyJill's accusation that your premiss was not supported by reality, I was unclear which area that fell within. If it falls within the arena of the apologist, then it is inappropriate to discuss it on this thread, if it is in the arena of the critic it is perfectly appropriate to discuss it here.
I belabor this point because it seems many of the questionable replies in this forum fall into this grey area, and it seems there is a lot of confusion related to this. Aside from that, I think it is a major philosophical problem in poetic criticism that must be continually dealt with. If we are going to allow as valid the point of view of the apologist, then we open the door to the full gamut of reader response, and must acknowledge that any response, no matter how personal or tangential is appropriate to the discussion, if for no other reason than we have thrown away any objective measuring stick by which to say it should not be allowed.
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.