Do not be cross with poetry

[QDeathstar]

Trying to figure that out... Examples are the best way..

[QDeathstar]

Leanne, why did you delete half the posts? Must of it was good discussion...

[Leanne]

Only the most recent posts have been deleted. The discussion stands, on track as you requested. No parameter change.

[Lizzie]

Hey, I just deleted my comment because I didn't want to offend.

So that nobody wonders, I said "Q, were you posting explicit material again? "

I didn't know if we were on a first letter basis yet

I'll stop confusing everyone now. By deleting posts, not by just generally being confusing!

[Leanne]

It wasn't QP's fault. Kewpie. Whatever.

Funny you should mention explicit -- that seems to be the kind of meaning people really want. Me, I like implicit. I like to be surprised by some new idea every time I return to a poem.

[QDeathstar]

It is fine to have a new idea, or gain new meaning from a poem each time you read it. But if you gain no meaning from reading it then what is the point.

[shemthepenman]

oh dear, have i inadvertently stumbled into the 'let's all take ourselves incredibly seriously" thread again :/ sorry. serious face, engage.

anyway, and irregardless, i tend to prefer poems i don't fully understand [no, that isn't true. the poems i like tend to be ones i don't fully understand], at least initially. i say 'fully' because, with a few exceptions—da da and occasionally nonsense poems—, if one can read, then at least the basic units [the words] of a poem will be understood. the semantics of a poem may be difficult to comprehend [maybe even impossible, in any definitive sense], but if it does enough with the syntax and there is even the most minimal conformity to the structures of grammatical standards then one can usually find some kind of semantic meaning in it—if not, it seems like pretentiousness and pomposity to adamantly critique a poem, one which is surrealist, as being meaningless.
one would use different standards to critique a limerick to those used to critique a sonnet. of course, a lot of the standards will apply to both. and the same can be said for surreal peotry, stream of consciousness poetry, abstract poetry, etc. it is a skill and, the same as any other, it has dos and don'ts and takes practice to recognise what is going on, why something works and why something doesn't. and that is primarily why i find them so interesting. i read a Dylan Thomas poem and think "how did that work? how did i enjoy that while at the same time comprehending so little of its semantic meaning?" or even, why this da da poem, devoid of linguistic sense, is enjoyable and this other one is not. and it is this that is fascinating. this is surely one of the principle reasons we enjoy writing poems in the first place—and also the reason reading a fair number of them is tedious.
my advice with regards to the OP'ed questions would be, ask yourself are you really interested in that style of poetry. if you are, read a ton of it. read Finnegans Wake, read all of Joyces poetry [a lot of it is actually relatively traditional], read Beckett , Thomas and Elliott, Muldoon and Paulin; in fact, pull any modern poetry book off the book shelf in your local book shop open a page and you will more often than not be confronted with a very complex and difficult poem, one that you don't fully understand. read all of them. and you will start to 'understand' the language of that style and realise that it isn't just randomly putting words together, pretentiously, to baffle the reader and say "look at how deep i am", because those authors will stick out like a sore thumb. alternatively, if you are not into that sort of thing, maybe it is best to leave it be, as far as critique goes. if you get no initial enjoyment from reading a poem you don't understand, then what's the point in learning the language?

and just to end, from what i remember of the original Fry quote it was basically saying, if you are looking for meaning and you don't find it you may very well be upset. relieving oneself of the pressure of having to find 'The Meaning' of a poem may, somewhat counter intuitively, help you to find the meaning, or at least A Meaning and enjoy what might otherwise be a struggle.

[Achebe]

Pdeath - you cited 'Do not go gentle', which is the Penny Lane of Dylan Thomas's poems (although a very good one). Try 'I see the boys of summer' / I'm the Walrus - it's easy to get a general idea of what the poet's trying to say, but hard to understand the specifics.

[QDeathstar]

do not go gently into the night is also his most recognizable/popular poem. Make of it what you will.

[shemthepenman]

or even, altarwise by owl light.

---

do not go gently into the night is also his most recognizable/popular poem. Make of it what you will.

yeah, and i wished i looked after me teeth. if only popularity equated to quality, i think we'd be living in a much happier world. or more depressed one. i don't know.

[Lizzie]

I just got my copy of Finnegan's Wake from the library this morning and here's the first bit of the introduction:

"There is no agreement as to what Finnegan's Wake is about, whether or not it is "about" anything, or even whether it is, in any ordinary sense of the word, 'readable.'"

Well, this should be an interesting 628 pages!

[shemthepenman]

I just got my copy of Finnegan's Wake from the library this morning and here's the first bit of the introduction:

"There is no agreement as to what Finnegan's Wake is about, whether or not it is "about" anything, or even whether it is, in any ordinary sense of the word, 'readable.'"

Well, this should be an interesting 628 pages!

i predict either you give up after a few pages, or stubbornly, against your will, continue to the end. . . or really enjoy the strangeness of it all and read it with glee as it changes your very perception of what writing is, and what it can do. in any case, as Bob Dylan once said, good luck, i hope you make it.

what edition do you have?

[next]

I was going to add some trenchant comments, but I decided to claim that I would have said
exactly what shemthepenman said about 5 comments above.

Someone was speaking of examples; here's a famous one:


The Emperor of Ice Cream  -  Wallace Stevens

Call the roller of big cigars,
The muscular one, and bid him whip
In kitchen cups concupiscent curds.
Let the wenches dawdle in such dress
As they are used to wear, and let the boys
Bring flowers in last month's newspapers.
Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.
 

Take from the dresser of deal,
Lacking the three glass knobs, that sheet
On which she embroidered fantails once
And spread it so as to cover her face.
If her horny feet protrude, they come
To show how cold she is, and dumb.
Let the lamp affix its beam.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.  

------

[QDeathstar]

That poem has meaning. I really think the cool kids are missing the point. A poem you can understand is more easily critiqued. How can you even critique something you don't understand in a way that will remotely be helpful. A poem you can understand is one more fully enjoyed.

Way more people enjoy the cat in the hat over whatever that ^ was.

Good for you if you think "liking it" makes you "learned". Reality is a bit different.

[billy]

you can say "i don't understand it" for starters.

That poem has meaning. I really think the cool kids are missing the point. A poem you can understand is more easily critiqued.  How can you even critique something you don't understand in a way that will remotely be helpful.  A poem you can understand is one more fully enjoyed.

Way more people enjoy the cat in the hat over whatever that ^ was.

Good for you if you think "liking it" makes you "learned". Reality is a bit different.

[Lizzie]

Ok, well my experience with Q is that he (I'm assuming, if I'm wrong I apologize) will say when there's a lack of understanding. The only two times he's commented on my posts were to say I'm not understanding the significance of x, y, z and it was helpful to have that pointed out.

And that's the second time I've heard the "cool kids" issue come up here, not from Q though. Hmmmm......

---

Wow, this got intense really fast.

[Erthona]

There are different types of poems and as such need to be critiqued differently. The are such poems as nonsense poems like "Jabberwocky" by Lewis Carroll. One would not try and correct the spelling on that poem and believe it a legitimate form of critique. In concrete poetry one critiques how well the image fits the written words, or how well the written words covey the image. One might critique the poem and say it is a negative trait that the writer has sentences ending within the body instead of at the end of the line. Not paying attention to that rule anyone of no talent or skill could create any image they chose. So firstly I think it is fairly easy to establish that the critique should fit the type of poem. Then that puts the onus on the critic to be able to identify what one is dealing with. So one should be somewhat conversant in the basic forms. Is it a formal poem? A sonnet? Free verse? and so on.

I do agree with Shem in that what I would consider the better poem would have levels, that is each time I read the poem I find something new that I did not see before (Blake referred to these as fourfold poems). All good pieces of literature have this attribute, one can call it inspired if one chooses, as a large portion comes from religious text: this is not to say that all religious text are inspired or multi-leveled. A Hallmark of this sort of writing is that one can return to it again and again and never really become bored. I just recently saw two of Shakespeare's comedies, "As You Like It" and "A Midsummer Night's Dream", both of which I have seen more times than I can count, but they are always fresh (one could wish to say the same of Bill's sonnet's).

As to the meaning question. Here is my thought. Why write something if one did not wish to convey something? If the piece does not convey anything due to the fact it is so convoluted, or simply poorly written, then the critique should point this out. Hopefully refraining from the use of such phrases as "this is rubbish" or other more vulgar thoughts that comes to ones mind when struggling with something that in fact conveys nothing. I say this as much for myself as anyone. I frequently feel that a writer is simply wasting my time and I would really like to lash out at them, especially when it seems their intent is to baffle with bullshit and expect no one to call them on it. They can still be called, just not name called.
Sometimes people think they are suppose to write this way (unclear) and others simply wish to be poets, yet have nothing to say, it is not as though all who frequent this site are going to be even moderate to middling poets, let alone good and most people are simply uninformed. So our job as critics is to offer the most beneficial feedback to the writer in a way they can hear (again, this is not one of my strong points).

However the one abiding truth for the critic is to never think that something is simply above your head. The clarity of conveying whatever is supposed to be conveyed rest with the writer, not the reader. Any piece of writing should follow the standard form (sentences, spelling, grammar, etc.) unless there is a tremendous and overwhelming reason to do otherwise. We write the way we do, and have the rules for writing that we have because they have been hammered out over hundred of years to make the writing the clearest it can be. Oftentimes the writer is trying to convey difficult ideas, or bring the reader to a different viewpoint through inventive use of language. Still the burden lies on the writer to make that work and not leave the reader with the impression of gibberish 

dale

[QDeathstar]

a poem you can understand is not one more fully enjoyed. see, i can make subjective statements posing as facts too!

my thesis is supported through emperical observation. Yours ain't.

anyway, and irregardless, of course you can critique a poem you don't semantically understand, unless you're a pompous twat, of course. irregardless [i'm starting to like this dimwitted word], popularity doesn't equate to quality. unless you think every number 1 is the best song that week. justin for the win!

You can of course critique, but you're critiques will be of limited use to the poem's author. Irregardless, I'm not sure why you're resulting to name calling to argue your point into the ground.

i don't understand quantum mechanics, and nor do you; yet, i wouldn't go critiquing the black-body radiation problem based on the argument "well, i don't get it"

Actually, I got a PH.D. in quantum mechanics, so.... Why would you bother spouting off anything at all on a subject you know almost nothing about? Or, if you did, would it help the quantum mechanist in any measurable way?

you seem to be of the opinon that understanding is elitism; or that appreciation of complexity is alienation.

No. No. no. no. no. no. You are hung up on the idea that the "not understanding" the poem or not getting any meaning from the poem is solely caused by the lack of attention the author gave to the work. That is not what I have been saying, but you've been to busy pressing the reply button mocking me to stop and think. Not being able to deriving meaning from the poem could just be a case of you being a dumb ignorant morane. Still, I think that that demishes your ability to enjoy the peice and your ability to deliver effective critique. People have always prefer to understand things, that is why God exists.

Ok, well my experience with Q is that he (I'm assuming, if I'm wrong I apologize) will say when there's a lack of understanding. The only two times he's commented on my posts were to say I'm not understanding the significance of x, y, z and it was helpful to have that pointed out.

And that's the second time I've heard the "cool kids" issue come up here, not from Q though. Hmmmm......

---

Wow, this got intense really fast.

I am not upset with anyone, and I can accept that I am dense. People get so angry when you discuss anything it's actually sorta sad. My philosophy teacher in college called me an evil person that's going to hell when I suggested that God might actually be Satan, since Satan is the ultimate deceiver... he got so angry it was sort of rediculous.

you can say "i don't understand it" for starters.

that is true, but if it is all there available to be figured out and you cannot understand it because you lack the aptitude, how useful is that critique?

[Lizzie]

Please don't start to draw blood you guys.

Nobody's the enemy here.

[Achebe]

would it help the quantum mechanist in any measurable way?

It would, but if he measured it it would be unhelpful again.