I don't understand. What do you mean? Are you saying that the origin of the failure to convey meaning is about writing? What is meaning then? Do animals convey meaning? They can't write? Or read? Or is it a metaphor 'writing' being just the expression of meaning, and reading the passive? What is a failure? How does that fit into origins of meaning? No, I am sorry, I cannot understand this. You should be clearer. It obviously has nothing to do with me and my slowness. :/ Bit of irony there. I thought I would point it out, just to be clear.
"What Tarquinius Superbus said in the garden by means of the poppies, the son understood but the messenger did not."
Ah but pretending to not understand when you do understand, in order to make your point is deceitful and what kind of a victory is it when you must demean yourself (whether you will admit it or not) in order to win?
However, I suppose you win. I am a simple man and I cannot compete with the complexity of lies.
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.
(03-22-2015, 08:26 AM)Erthona Wrote: Ah but pretending to not understand when you do understand, in order to make your point is deceitful and what kind of a victory is it when you must demean yourself (whether you will admit it or not) in order to win?
However, I suppose you win. I am a simple man and I cannot compete with the complexity of lies.
so my meaning was unclear :/ I am not sure now whether that is my fault or yours. Yours if I follow you proverb.
but anyhow, so irony is a lie? yep, that is true. My point is not deceitful, but my method is. The fact is you cannot make a one size fits all proverb about this kind of thing. I actually kind of understood what you meant (it still wasn't that clear, which makes it itself ironic), but I am sure there are people who wouldn't. I am sure that one can be as clear as spring water about quantum mechanics and a reader wouldn't understand it. Not because the writer is a failure but because the reader is dumb.
I wrote something ironically to convey a meaning. was it unclear? To you, maybe. Is that my fault or yours?
not to mention the hundreds, thousands, of different interpretations of what has been said or written. It just seems like a stupid proverb, is all. If I want to write something that has a meaning or means something then there are most certainly times when the reader can be blamed for not understanding. And as for the origin of the failure to... it is a misnomer to say it belongs on one side or the other. If you say something stupid then it is your fault. On the other hand if you say something clever to someone as thick as shit it is theirs.
In Gulliver's Travels, Swift did not forsake clarity for the satire or the irony in the stories. One should not sacrifice clarity on the alter of any trope for any purpose. There is a big difference between something being made explicit or clear. If a poem is talking about a person walking to the store, there is simply no point to obfuscate this. Obviously if this is a metaphor for something, then that aspect of it does not need to be made explicit, but the action, the setting and the context need to be written clearly or there is no basis for anything else. In the past this was understood. However, in today's world there seems to be this absurd notion going around that says if a poet wants to be thought of as deep, he must obscure what he says so people will not understand it and think it is deep because it is not understandable. Depth is not achieved by playing games with the story anymore than poetry is achieved through affectation, that is to give the writing the visual appearance of what one believes poetry looks like without any legitimate rationale for doing so except to make up for ones inability to write poetry. Not using capitals correctly or at all, nor the use of punctuation, or using it sporadically and incorrectly. Both are part and parcel of the same problem which is the inability to write clearly, either because they don't want to, or they lack the ability.
Here, I will approach it from a different way. Writing is for the sole purpose of communicating, unless one is some kind of egoist and writing in an attempt to impress. Good writing is defined by the best communication. Poetry is defined by the same rules as any other type of writing. Clarity leads to communication. If a person says the do not write to communicate and communicate the best way possible, I can only conclude they are an egoist of the highest order or they are completely inane. Not striving for clarity in writing is like a farmer who having worked from sun up to sunset, bringing his crops to fruition and just before they are ready to pick he spray poison on them making them uneatable.
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.
(03-22-2015, 10:42 AM)Erthona Wrote: In Gulliver's Travels, Swift did not forsake clarity for the satire or the irony in the stories. One should not sacrifice clarity on the alter of any trope for any purpose. There is a big difference between something being made explicit or clear. If a poem is talking about a person walking to the store, there is simply no point to obfuscate this. Obviously if this is a metaphor for something, then that aspect of it does not need to be made explicit, but the action, the setting and the context need to be written clearly or there is no basis for anything else. In the past this was understood. However, in today's world there seems to be this absurd notion going around that says if a poet wants to be thought of as deep, he must obscure what he says so people will not understand it and think it is deep because it is not understandable. Depth is not achieved by playing games with the story anymore than poetry is achieved through affectation, that is to give the writing the visual appearance of what one believes poetry looks like without any legitimate rationale for doing so except to make up for ones inability to write poetry. Not using capitals correctly or at all, nor the use of punctuation, or using it sporadically and incorrectly. Both are part and parcel of the same problem which is the inability to write clearly, either because they don't want to, or they lack the ability.
Here, I will approach it from a different way. Writing is for the sole purpose of communicating, unless one is some kind of egoist and writing in an attempt to impress. Good writing is defined by the best communication. Poetry is defined by the same rules as any other type of writing. Clarity leads to communication. If a person says the do not write to communicate and communicate the best way possible, I can only conclude they are an egoist of the highest order or they are completely inane. Not striving for clarity in writing is like a farmer who having worked from sun up to sunset, bringing his crops to fruition and just before they are ready to pick he spray poison on them making them uneatable.
yes, I agree with a lot of this. But I do not agree with the proverb. And if this is what the proverb means, then I did not get that. The fact is, to automatically blame the writer for lack of clarity is just as bad as automatically blaming the reader for their lack of understanding. It is like the way people are quick to call pretentious anything they themselves do not understand; a lot of the time it is, but a lot of the time it isn't. Some things are just difficult and they take effort to understand.
Your proverb has 3 main aspects: 1) meaning 2) clarity and 3) intellect. On the 1st I don't think of meaning in terms of factual reporting. Of course, that has meaning, too. As in "i walked along this straight thing and it became bent so I walked around it and put my body through a rectangular thing and asked for a smaller rectangular thing.' But what does it mean? It means I walked down the road around the corner and into a shop and asked for a packet of cigarettes. Clarity of description would have helped in this case convey what I meant. But that isn't really what one thinks of by 'convey a meaning', is it? And especially in poetry. The meaning of a poem is very often subtle and, not necessarily hidden but, under the surface. In a sense, not clear. It may hint, point, nudge the reader to its meaning, but this has little to do with writing clearly to convey that meaning. And why is that? Is it just to be pretentious and write something that you can say 'a-ha, I am smarter than you!' Well, as you pointed out, in a lot of cases this is true, but it is also one of the key elements of writing poetry, so why? It is because the poem itself is a unique experience. Or the best ones are. And as with all original experiences they are not clear, we don't get everything right away, and that is what makes them interesting. That is why love poems are so difficult to write, because everyone has become jaded with love poems. They are so ubiquitous that it is hard to find a unique experience in them.
This leads on to the intellect of the reader. Of course, writers can be fucking crap at conveying meaning. Can be all over the place when it comes to writing clearly. But readers can be lazy, stupid and insensitive when it comes to poetry. To dsmiss a poem because someone didn't understand it is hasty; it should be considered, of course, but to automatically say 'oh, you didn't understand it! It must be my lack of clarity - it couldn't possibly be because you didn't really read it properly, or didn't understand the vocabulary, or that you wouldn't know a metaphor if you were fucking one... it must be my fault.'
Anyway, I think your obsession with clarity is a personal preference thing, rather than a deeper insighter into the 'true nature' of writing. Of course we want to communicate something and we want to be clear, but I don't think we want to be too clear.
I don't know, maybe this is all bollocks, but something just doesn't sit right with me with this clarity thing. It just seems so cold and against the spirit of poetry in some way. But I admit I haven't really formulated any coherent theory about all this. It's just a sense.
ps. I just had a thought. I think I would like to make the distinction between being clear and becoming clear. I think poetry is more in lline with process philosophy (becoming) rather than ontology (being). And I think this may be where my objection is coming from.
I think there is a difference between being unclear and coming into clarity in an interesting way. What is being said doesn't have to be said blatantly if the reader is led to a clear place. That clear place may even be different for different readers, but what is written should be whole enough to have an impact.
For me a poem I love touches something inside me that isn't always said outright, but in its entirety repeatedly brings me to that same place. If the words/image/metaphor are not clear enough they don't have that cumulative effect I am looking for.
billy wrote:welcome to the site. make it your own, wear it like a well loved slipper and wear it out. ella pleads:please click forum titles for posting guidelines, important threads. New poet? Try Poetic DevicesandWard's Tips
(03-23-2015, 05:19 AM)ellajam Wrote: I think there is a difference between being unclear and coming into clarity in an interesting way. What is being said doesn't have to be said blatantly if the reader is led to a clear place. That clear place may even be different for different readers, but what is written should be whole enough to have an impact.
For me a poem I love touches something inside me that isn't always said outright, but in its entirety repeatedly brings me to that same place. If the words/image/metaphor are not clear enough they don't have that cumulative effect I am looking for.
true. And I think my objection was based on this difference between being and becoming. I am not anti-clarity, but to say that something should BE clear is too restrictive. Also, there are those little revelations that do happen almost right away when reading a poem and you automatically think 'that was perfectly stated', which is that moment of clarity, a being clear. But a lot of the time these are just moments in an otherwise becoming clear. And it is for this reason that the argument that it is always the author's fault is invalid, because a lot of the time people will read something say to themselves 'well, I don't understand' and then that is that. To make declaritive statements like this seems self-defeating. Not to mention that I am not entirely convinced that a poem necessarily convey meaning. Meaning is a very abstract term and a lot of times poems convey a sense rather than a clearly defined meaning.
(03-22-2015, 01:30 AM)Erthona Wrote: Clarity—from the Proverbs of Tharmas Erthona
The origin of the failure to convey meaning
is in the inability to write clearly:
not the lack of intellect in the reader.
Erthona
Simplistic duh!
If A's "shit" means B's "ice cream": "what we have here is a problem to communicate"*
Not knowing what "ice cream" means is every bit the failure of not knowing what "shit" means.
Confusing "shit" with "ice cream" has something to do with quantum theory.
*From the 1967 film "Cool Hand Luke"
a brightly colored fungus that grows in bark inclusions
If you will notice I said "write clearly," what you are saying may be a whole different thing. That is if a cat climbs a tree, don't write the lines:
feline vertical sinews
oak veneer in the veins.
This is even more true if it is necessary that the reader understand that the cat climbed the tree.
_______________________________________________________________________________
RayBanMan,
No one can gainsay Paul Newman. Why would you even want to?
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.
(03-22-2015, 01:30 AM)Erthona Wrote: Clarity—from the Proverbs of Tharmas Erthona
The origin of the failure to convey meaning
is in the inability to write clearly:
not the lack of intellect in the reader.
Erthona
Simplistic duh!
If A's "shit" means B's "ice cream": "what we have here is a problem to communicate"*
Not knowing what "ice cream" means is every bit the failure of not knowing what "shit" means.
Confusing "shit" with "ice cream" has something to do with quantum theory.
*From the 1967 film "Cool Hand Luke"
"what we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."
(03-23-2015, 12:10 PM)Erthona Wrote: Shem,
If you will notice I said "write clearly," what you are saying may be a whole different thing. That is if a cat climbs a tree, don't write the lines:
feline vertical sinews
oak veneer in the veins.
This is even more true if it is necessary that the reader understand that the cat climbed the tree.
em, that's true, I have gone off on a tangent. But like I said, it's because on the one hand I agree with what you are saying but on the other I'm not quite sure why the whole clarity thing doesn't sit well with me. Regardless, yes you did say 'write clearly' which is a different thing than 'being clear' etc. I was just trying to unpack the proverb and get some kind of discussion going.
Yet, I still do not agree with the proverb, at least not the way I'm reading it. You could just as well say that the origin of the failure to convey meaning is in the lack of intellect of the reader and in the inabbility to write clearly. But then that negates the necessity for the universalising 'origin of the failure'; unless both things have to occur in order for meaning to not be conveyed. But that isn't true because it could be one or the other. To write the proverb more clearly (:/) it would be 'the failure to convey meaning could be either in the inability to write clearly or in the lack of intellect of the reader.' but that is a shit proverb because it is just stating the obvious.
I suppose an argument could be made that the writer is the active force in the equatiion and the reader passive, so that the writer fails to 'convey' meaning and the lack of intellect in the reader fails to 'grasp' meaning. But to convey is a binary system, for example, if it is the job of a pipe to convey water to a glass and the glass is smashed one would hardly say that the pipe has failed to convey the water to the glasss, but rather the water has failed to be conveyed because the glass is smashed.
or somfin. I am tired look forward to the next proverb.
(03-23-2015, 09:28 AM)rayheinrich Wrote: ... "what we have here is a problem to communicate"*
*From the 1967 film "Cool Hand Luke"
"what we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."
Damn it! This just goes to show I shouldn't quote things off the top of my addled brain.
I bow to the correctness of your quote of the Captain (Strother Martin) and am duly ashamed and impressed.
And, having looked it up on wiki, I see that Luke (Paul Newman) echoes it at the end: "What we got here is a failure to communicate."
So everybody, except me, is right. (I take my movies seriously.)
"Some men you just can't reach" reminds me of a line in Nicholas Ray's film "Johnny Guitar":
Quote from a NPR piece by Pat Dowell:
"Borgnine is best known and probably best loved for the smug ferocity of his great villains — the bully in the 1954 cult Western Johnny Guitar comes to mind. Bart knifes his bookish roommate in the back ('Old Tom' played by John Carradine) when he won't consider joining him in betraying their gang. And then he complains, "Some people just won't listen!"
(03-23-2015, 09:28 AM)rayheinrich Wrote: ... "what we have here is a problem to communicate"*
*From the 1967 film "Cool Hand Luke"
"what we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."
Damn it! This just goes to show I shouldn't quote things off the top of my addled brain.
I bow to the correctness of your quote of the Captain (Strother Martin) and am duly ashamed and impressed.
And, having looked it up on wiki, I see that Luke (Paul Newman) echoes it at the end: "What we got here is a failure to communicate."
So everybody, except me, is right. (I take my movies seriously.)
"Some men you just can't reach" reminds me of a line in Nicholas Ray's film "Johnny Guitar":
Quote from a NPR piece by Pat Dowell:
"Borgnine is best known and probably best loved for the smug ferocity of his great villains — the bully in the 1954 cult Western Johnny Guitar comes to mind. Bart knifes his bookish roommate in the back ('Old Tom' played by John Carradine) when he won't consider joining him in betraying their gang. And then he complains, "Some people just won't listen!"
To be honest, I have only seen Cool Hand Luke once. The only reason I know this quote by heart is because it appears at the beginning of the Guns N' Roses song Civil War and therefore the Use Your Illusions II album which at one time I listened to to an unhealthy amount of times.
Not so apropos analogies aside, there are two starting places:
1. If the poem is unclear it is the readers fault.
2. If the poem is unclear it is the writer's fault.
The first denies responsibility for the competency of the work.
The second accepts responsibility for the competency of the work.
Certainly if ten people read it and find it clear, and only the eleventh one does not, that person's opinion can be discounted(or so one would think). However, if it is a 2 - 2 split between four people, then discounting the two negative ones becomes more problematic. Taking into account that in the real world if you were to ask someone to read one of your poems. Chances are, no matter how unenlightening the poem is for them they will praise it to some extent so as not to hurt your feelings. It is the rare person who feels competent enough and committed enough to weather your disapproval (or expected disapproval) by giving you a negative review. So in the real world, no matter who you are, I would generally expect a 99% approval rating. In the PigPen that percentage drops to about 50%, unless you are unlucky enough to get myself, Leanne, milo and Tom as there will rarely be pussyfooting from those four. The point is that a negative response has to overcome many hurdles in order to make it to the writers ear, therefore a negative response should be weighed heavier than the more likely positive response.
What does this have to do with clarity? Where else will one learn of it, except from ones readers and if one has a misapprehension of the readers, one cannot get an accurate response in terms of clarity.
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.
(03-25-2015, 10:48 PM)Erthona Wrote: Not so apropos analogies aside, there are two starting places:
1. If the poem is unclear it is the readers fault.
2. If the poem is unclear it is the writer's fault.
The first denies responsibility for the competency of the work.
The second accepts responsibility for the competency of the work.
Certainly if ten people read it and find it clear, and only the eleventh one does not, that person's opinion can be discounted(or so one would think). However, if it is a 2 - 2 split between four people, then discounting the two negative ones becomes more problematic. Taking into account that in the real world if you were to ask someone to read one of your poems. Chances are, no matter how unenlightening the poem is for them they will praise it to some extent so as not to hurt your feelings. It is the rare person who feels competent enough and committed enough to weather your disapproval (or expected disapproval) by giving you a negative review. So in the real world, no matter who you are, I would generally expect a 99% approval rating. In the PigPen that percentage drops to about 50%, unless you are unlucky enough to get myself, Leanne, milo and Tom as there will rarely be pussyfooting from those four. The point is that a negative response has to overcome many hurdles in order to make it to the writers ear, therefore a negative response should be weighed heavier than the more likely positive response.
What does this have to do with clarity? Where else will one learn of it, except from ones readers and if one has a misapprehension of the readers, one cannot get an accurate response in terms of clarity.
Dale
you should seriously be a politician, Dale. You say a lot, but never really answer the question. Hats off to that.
But, it isn't 'if the poem is unclear it is the readers fault' or the opposite, the fact is it can quite clearly be both. Your proverb gives the false message that it is always the writers fault. And, furthermore, a proverb saying the opposite could just as well be the case. If it is the intention of your 'proverb' to convey the meaning 'write clearly, make sure you write clearly, double check that' then it fails, on so many levels. Is something clear enough for me to understand clear? Is something that doesn't convey meaning to me written in an unclear way? Possibly, but not necessarily or universely.
In terms of clarity, and writing clearly to convey meaning, it is silly, because being clear seems to hop over the becoming clear of possibility. I could write something unclear (being) but will become clear (becoming). Your proverb is just a bit shit, is all.
(03-25-2015, 10:48 PM)Erthona Wrote: Not so apropos analogies aside, there are two starting places:
1. If the poem is unclear it is the readers fault.
2. If the poem is unclear it is the writer's fault.
It is starting to read as if greater clarity = better writing.
I heartily disagree. Too much clarity is mundane and boring. Prosaic, if you will. There should be some challenge associated with poetry. The best poems reveal additional layers of meaning with successive readings, growing in ratio to the work a reader is willing to put into it.
A great poem is like a great girl - it doesn't give it up all at once but teases with potential, undressing slowly as you invest more attention.
That being said, a great poem like a great riddle should be able to be resolved to a solution with enough work.
(I just read upthread and realized ella said pretty much the same thing but I see no sense in deleting it now, let's just say i agree with ella.)
look forward to the next proverb.
