Do not be cross with poetry

[Lizzie]

What's missing here (apart from half the posters and half the posts) is the fact that reading comprehension goes completely out the window when emotion is involved. If the reader is upset, others can APPEAR dense, malicious, delusional, defiant...anything really. I'm saying this just as much for myself as anyone else.

[Leanne]

I find it interesting that people assume poetry and emotion should be mutually exclusive.

Or thought and emotion, for that matter.

Since we are basically just bags of chemicals, emotions are nothing but chemical responses, just the same as the intellectual processes involved in thought. Emotion and logic both live in the cerebrum, and to separate them -- well, that's just illogical.

But then, I'm not an empathetic person. I am a proud misanthrope who doesn't especially care what people think of me.

[Lizzie]

I find it interesting that people assume poetry and emotion should be mutually exclusive.  

Or thought and emotion, for that matter.  

Since we are basically just bags of chemicals, emotions are nothing but chemical responses, just the same as the intellectual processes involved in thought. Emotion and logic both live in the cerebrum, and to separate them -- well, that's just illogical.

But then, I'm not an empathetic person.  I am a proud misanthrope who doesn't especially care what people think of me.

I'm saying that being in a certain frame of emotional mind affects how we read things, what we see in them.

[Leanne]

That's the point.

[Lizzie]

Ok, good talk.

[billy]

try and download the attachment now

[Lizzie]

Worked for me.

[shemthepenman]

aha! you caught my drunk annoyed post that i immediately regretted and deleted. touché!

however, i am in a mischievous mood. so let's try for a rebuttal. it will have to be immanent because, quite frankly, i cannot remember the context [either of what you were saying or what i was arguing against]

[quote='shemthepenman' pid='213815' dateline='1468980328']
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. -- if your thesis [again, can't remember] is the opposite assertion "an understood poem is one more fully enjoyed", then i suggest you look up the word empirical. both understanding and enjoyment are subjective states. if you can empirically observe either, then you are a wizard and teach me your secrets. however, if you mean that you have been told "i understood that poem, therefore i enjoyed it" [which i highly doubt], this is anecdotal evidence, at best. i have heard said, often, "i don't know what you just said, but i like it!" who wins?

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. -- fair point, well made. i must have been in a mood [one of my turns] which is why i deleted the comment. i suppose i just found some irony in you using a made up word to further your argument about meaning. i also recognise that actually i was being the pompous twat, again, why i deleted the comment.

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? --well, you must be american, because i've never heard of someone having a phd in quantum mechanics ["If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."]. regardless, yes, you make a good point. however, i think it is based on my poorly worded argument. what i think i was trying to say [if i remember correctly] not understanding something semantically doesn't preclude you from critiquing it. there are other elements to be considered. and with regards to the quantum argument, saying "i don't get it" as a criticism benefits no one, and the meaning of the thing one is looking at doesn't necessarily relate to one's understanding of it -- i must admit, though, i am not entirely sure why i made this statement in the first place, so that's all a bit ad hoc :/

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. --again point taken [yeah yeah, i did delete this comment, just to reiterate]. my defence would be, i do not agree with the idea that semantic understanding is primary to one's enjoyment of something. i cannot accept this principle simply because i often enjoy things i do not understand or even understand why i enjoy them. I don't know why, but i am, at this moment, thinking of Jackson Pollock paintings. some of those are fascinating, and no matter which way you cut it, i don't understand them in any consciously cerebral sense. however, there are paintings of his that i like and ones i don't, and i think i could come to some understanding of why "that one works" and "that one doesn't" and give a critique.

---

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.



so, that's that. oh, and whoever said about their 'philosophy teacher' thing doesn't sound legit. i don't know any philosophy professors [and i know a fair few] who would say that. in fact, i think it's Descartes 101 to make that argument.

[QDeathstar]

aha! you caught my drunk annoyed post that i immediately regretted and deleted. touché!

however, i am in a mischievous mood. so let's try for a rebuttal. it will have to be immanent because, quite frankly, i cannot remember the context [either of what you were saying or what i was arguing against]

if your thesis [again, can't remember] is the opposite assertion "an understood poem is one more fully enjoyed", then i suggest you look up the word empirical. both understanding and enjoyment are subjective states. if you can empirically observe either, then you are a wizard and teach me your secrets. however, if you mean that you have been told "i understood that poem, therefore i enjoyed it" [which i highly doubt], this is anecdotal evidence, at best. i have heard said, often, "i don't know what you just said, but i like it!" who wins?

my imperical evidence for people preferring poems they understand is that easily understood poems are way more popular and pervasive in current culture than obtuse difficult ones #aintgottimeforthat

i suppose i just found some irony in you using a made up word to further your argument about meaning. i also recognise that actually i was being the pompous twat, again, why i deleted the comment.

Google defines irregardless. I consider it a word, like ain't.

so, that's that. oh, and whoever said about their 'philosophy teacher' thing doesn't sound legit. i don't know any philosophy professors [and i know a fair few] who would say that. in fact, i think it's Descartes 101 to make that argument.

I can only tell you it happened... I don't guess he was a fan of Descartes.....

[UselessBlueprint]

I find it interesting that people assume poetry and emotion should be mutually exclusive.  

Or thought and emotion, for that matter.  

Since we are basically just bags of chemicals, emotions are nothing but chemical responses, just the same as the intellectual processes involved in thought. Emotion and logic both live in the cerebrum, and to separate them -- well, that's just illogical.

But then, I'm not an empathetic person.  I am a proud misanthrope who doesn't especially care what people think of me.

Frankly, I'm not sure why I prefer to separate emotion and (critical) thought. I guess it just feels right to do so. 

[ellajam]

What's missing here (apart from half the posters and half the posts) is the fact that reading comprehension goes completely out the window when emotion is involved. If the reader is upset, others can APPEAR dense, malicious, delusional, defiant...anything really. I'm saying this just as much for myself as anyone else.

I guess different people respond differently. For me, reading comprehension does not go out the window when emotions are involved. If anything it makes me read more carefully, and reread and think about how what has sparked me can be interpreted. It makes me slower to respond while I try to figure out why something has gotten to me.

So speak for yourself.

[Lizzie]

What's missing here (apart from half the posters and half the posts) is the fact that reading comprehension goes completely out the window when emotion is involved. If the reader is upset, others can APPEAR dense, malicious, delusional, defiant...anything really. I'm saying this just as much for myself as anyone else.

I guess different people respond differently. For me, reading comprehension does not go out the window when emotions are involved. If anything it makes me read more carefully, and reread and think about how what has sparked me can be interpreted. It makes me slower to respond while I try to figure out why something has gotten to me.

So speak for yourself.  

Yeah. I guess so.

[shemthepenman]

aha! you caught my drunk annoyed post that i immediately regretted and deleted. touché!

however, i am in a mischievous mood. so let's try for a rebuttal. it will have to be immanent because, quite frankly, i cannot remember the context [either of what you were saying or what i was arguing against]

if your thesis [again, can't remember] is the opposite assertion "an understood poem is one more fully enjoyed", then i suggest you look up the word empirical. both understanding and enjoyment are subjective states. if you can empirically observe either, then you are a wizard and teach me your secrets. however, if you mean that you have been told "i understood that poem, therefore i enjoyed it" [which i highly doubt], this is anecdotal evidence, at best. i have heard said, often, "i don't know what you just said, but i like it!" who wins?

my imperical evidence for people preferring poems they understand is that easily understood poems are way more popular and pervasive in current culture than obtuse difficult ones #aintgottimeforthat

again, this is not empirical evidence. firstly you are presuming that your definition of more easily understood is what is popular [a subjective determination]; and secondly that what is popular is understood. none of this leads to empirical evidence for your thesis.

i suppose i just found some irony in you using a made up word to further your argument about meaning. i also recognise that actually i was being the pompous twat, again, why i deleted the comment.

Google defines irregardless. I consider it a word, like ain't.

yeah, i know that. i was being silly. but still, that ain't a word. just to show some goodwill, once a girlfriend said to me "irrespective..." and i laughed and was like "that's not a. . ." and she was like "i said irrespective" and laughed at me. so, being a judgemental prick means you have to roll with the punches. s'all i'm saying.

so, that's that. oh, and whoever said about their 'philosophy teacher' thing doesn't sound legit. i don't know any philosophy professors [and i know a fair few] who would say that. in fact, i think it's Descartes 101 to make that argument.

I can only tell you it happened... I don't guess he was a fan of Descartes.....

ok i trust. but still, that is a fundamental argument of the western tradition of philosophy [not to mention the countless philosophers engaged in the question of theodicy. . . i could go on]; and for a philosophy professor to even bat and eye at this [centuries old] argument should have inspired you to have asked for some credentials, cos' that sounds like someone your college just dragged off the street. anyway, cool.

[Leanne]

Me as well, Ella -- if I have a strong emotional response to something, I generally let it happen initially and ride it out, then sit back and examine my own biases and how they jell or jar with the agenda of the writer (or the agenda I perceive the writer to have had).

[RiverNotch]

What's missing here (apart from half the posters and half the posts) is the fact that reading comprehension goes completely out the window when emotion is involved. If the reader is upset, others can APPEAR dense, malicious, delusional, defiant...anything really. I'm saying this just as much for myself as anyone else.

I guess different people respond differently. For me, reading comprehension does not go out the window when emotions are involved. If anything it makes me read more carefully, and reread and think about how what has sparked me can be interpreted. It makes me slower to respond while I try to figure out why something has gotten to me.

So speak for yourself.  

But wouldn't you fail to respond to something you can't comprehend, except in feeling either awed or baffled at the thing? Which is, in itself, a form of comprehension, albeit of the fact that the thing exists and is incomprehensible, rather than of the thing itself -----
ie, I'm supposing comprehension happens at levels. Reading comprehension as a whole can't go out the window when emotions are involved, unless the person chooses to just take in the feels and stop reading completely (which is, I dunno, kinda meh) -- it just takes either a step back or a step forward, depending on how American one is. And this isn't really semantic, I think -- the moment reading comprehension reaches the level wherein the reader comprehends a work as something solely awe-inspiring/baffling, or as something that gave (emphasis on the tense) a certain emotional hit and nothing more, is the moment a reader has basically stopped reading, which is I think the moment when the piece itself doesn't matter anymore.

[next]

This discussion (disregarding ill-regarded emotions and regardless of irregardless's existence) reminded me of this:

My library used to have a book club that featured local writers.  The writer was present at the meeting and it went like this:  
The book's writer answered general questions about writing in a short talk at the beginning, but did not discuss any of the
specifics of the book.  Then we had a discussion in which the writer didn't participate.  Then, at the end, the writer joined the
 discussion.

There were always questions about how the story should be interpreted. This one stuck with me:
 
Club member:  "X's and Y's accounts of the drowning are contradictory.  I'm pretty sure this was your intention and I expected
to find out later just who was telling the truth, but I never did. Was this your intention or did I just miss something?"

Author: "You didn't miss anything."

Club member: "So you left it up to us to decide which account was true."

Author: "Why settle for one when you can have both?" *




*When you open the box to find out if the cat's alive or dead, you find there is no cat!
Was it all in your head or was it Cheshire?

[shemthepenman]

This discussion (disregarding ill-regarded emotions and regardless of irregardless's existence) reminded me of this:

My library used to have a book club that featured local writers.  The writer was present at the meeting and it went like this:  
The book's writer answered general questions about writing in a short talk at the beginning, but did not discuss any of the
specifics of the book.  Then we had a discussion in which the writer didn't participate.  Then, at the end, the writer joined the
 discussion.

There were always questions about how the story should be interpreted. This one stuck with me:
 
Club member:  "X's and Y's accounts of the drowning are contradictory.  I'm pretty sure this was your intention and I expected
to find out later just who was telling the truth, but I never did. Was this your intention or did I just miss something?"

Author: "You didn't miss anything."

Club member: "So you left it up to us to decide which account was true."

Author: "Why settle for one when you can have both?" *




*When you open the box to find out if the cat's alive or dead, you find there is no cat!
Was it all in your head or was it Cheshire?

why don't you have any stars?! it's not natural, i tell's ya!

[next]

why don't you have any stars?! it's not natural, i tell's ya!

Because I just joined 4 weeks ago, have only done 4 crits, and I don't get stars for agreeing with you?

Quotes from Looking Glass  and Wonderland  to provide semblance of topicality:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is,"said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
-------
The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was, “Why is a raven like a writing-desk?”
“Come, we shall have some fun now!” thought Alice. “I’m glad they’ve begun asking riddles. — I believe I can guess that,” she added aloud.
“Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?” said the March Hare.
“Exactly so,” said Alice.
“Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on.
“I do,” Alice hastily replied; “at least–at least I mean what I say–that’s the same thing, you know.”
“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “You might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!”
“You might just as well say,” added the March Hare, “that ‘I like what I get’ is the same thing as ‘I get what I like’!”
“You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, “that ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!”

[ellajam]

why don't you have any stars?! it's not natural, i tell's ya!

Because I just joined 4 weeks ago, have only done 4 crits, and I don't get stars for agreeing with you?

Quotes from Looking Glass  and Wonderland  to provide semblance of topicality:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is,"said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
-------
The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was, “Why is a raven like a writing-desk?”
“Come, we shall have some fun now!” thought Alice. “I’m glad they’ve begun asking riddles. — I believe I can guess that,” she added aloud.
“Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?” said the March Hare.
“Exactly so,” said Alice.
“Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on.
“I do,” Alice hastily replied; “at least–at least I mean what I say–that’s the same thing, you know.”
“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “You might just as well say that ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!”
“You might just as well say,” added the March Hare, “that ‘I like what I get’ is the same thing as ‘I get what I like’!”
“You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, “that ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!”

Lovely choice, being beaten over the head with a feather. For some one example might be enough but every single time I read that last passage I pause to think about each one. It's interesting how he manages to keep my interest.

[ellajam]

What's missing here (apart from half the posters and half the posts) is the fact that reading comprehension goes completely out the window when emotion is involved. If the reader is upset, others can APPEAR dense, malicious, delusional, defiant...anything really. I'm saying this just as much for myself as anyone else.

I guess different people respond differently. For me, reading comprehension does not go out the window when emotions are involved. If anything it makes me read more carefully, and reread and think about how what has sparked me can be interpreted. It makes me slower to respond while I try to figure out why something has gotten to me.

So speak for yourself.  

But wouldn't you fail to respond to something you can't comprehend, except in feeling either awed or baffled at the thing? Which is, in itself, a form of comprehension, albeit of the fact that the thing exists and is incomprehensible, rather than of the thing itself -----
ie, I'm supposing comprehension happens at levels. Reading comprehension as a whole can't go out the window when emotions are involved, unless the person chooses to just take in the feels and stop reading completely (which is, I dunno, kinda meh) -- it just takes either a step back or a step forward, depending on how American one is. And this isn't really semantic, I think -- the moment reading comprehension reaches the level wherein the reader comprehends a work as something solely awe-inspiring/baffling, or as something that gave (emphasis on the tense) a certain emotional hit and nothing more, is the moment a reader has basically stopped reading, which is I think the moment when the piece itself doesn't matter anymore.

I'm confused by awe-inspiring/baffling, two wildly different concepts for me. While a gush of emotion on the page tends to make me glaze over, it is when there is a true emotional hit that I tend to dig in. When I'm baffled sometimes I try harder but something in there has to catch me or I move on. It's interesting that of Leanne's two new practice threads I find the visual so much easier to respond to, the poems will take more time for me, I'm going to try them.