Do not be cross with poetry

[Lizzie]

"Never worry about 'meaning' when you are reading poems... Poems are not crossword puzzles: however elusive and 'difficult' the story or argument of a poem may seem to be and however resistant to simple interpretation, it is not a test of your intelligence and learning (or if it is, it is not worth persevering with)...


Do not be cross with poetry for failing to deliver meaning and communication in the way that an assemblage of words usually does."

~Stephen Fry


Here's my question: how would we go about offering a critique on a piece whose "meaning" eludes us or if we don't know what the author is on about? Does author intent matter when it comes to critique? What about critiquing surrealist poetry – how would you judge whether that kind of poem is successful?

[aschueler]

Those are tough, but I see poetry isn't so much puzzles to solve but meant to be artful arrangements of words and meanings.

Thus, really abstract poetry should mean something to people who follow language the way visual artists appreciate abtractions in visual art, albeit not always approachable.

As such, if a poem is too dense to really even understand WHAT the poet is doing, I generally either dodge it or express that. Else, discuss the word usage, meter, composition etc as best possible. It might mean more to some people than myself, so if I'm totally lost I either say nothing or admit the same so the author at least knows they left me at Albuequrque. So the intent, in my opinion, does matter.

Rambly response but I hope it helps.

[ellajam]

We all address all sorts of things in addition to meaning when we critique. A poem has got to do something, mean something or evoke something or be enjoyable to say. Maybe it's from a point of view I find imteresting, maybe I just like the way the words slide around. To make me want to spend time with it it has to appeal to some reason I am reading poetry. It's fine for that "something" to be different for individual readers and writers and poems.

Somethimes a poem does it all for me, those are the ones I remember. But if a poem does any of those things they can be mentioned in a critique and if it is lacking in any that can be pointed out.

While I don't think of poems like a crossword puzzle, though I might be convinced to, I do think of them as a jigsaw, when the pieces go together seamlessly a whole emerges.

I expect a poem to be more, more than the sum of its parts. I'm not cross with a poem that is difficult to get a hold of but I am easily bored by a piece when nothing about it excites or invites me. It's subjective.

But any poem can be critiqued by anyone if they just guide the poet through their individual read. That's one reason that crit that claims the posters above them have said it all feels like bullshit to me. Each read is its own.

[QDeathstar]

well, I disagree. I think understanding a poem is key to enjoying it. Not understanding a poem is like being unable to see porn, just hearing random groans and being generally confused as to what is actually going on.

A poem without meaning is for me, pointless. There are poems to make you laugh, to make you think, to make you feel. They have meaning and purpose, perhaps without a "meaning" other that that, I'm ok with them.

A poem that I can't understand is for me, a bad poem. A good crossword puzzle atleast gives you clues. If you can't solve the puzzle with the clues given then what's the point in creating the puzzle. I'm not saying I know everything or that if can't get the poem, no one can. But, what i can say is, i can't enjoy the crossword puzzle if I can't decipher the clues and I certainly can't enjoy a poem without understanding what is being written.

I feel like a poems meaning is important to critiquing. There's a huge difference between saying "you're poem is too abstract and the words lack meaning, and seem to be put together in random order" and the reality of "I can't understand what you are trying to say, therefore your poem doesn't make sense."

[Leanne]

You might find this discussion on meaning interesting.

[Achebe]

well, I disagree.  I think understanding a poem is key to enjoying it. Not understanding a poem is like being unable to see porn, just hearing random groans and being generally confused as to what is actually going on.

A poem without meaning is for me, pointless. There are poems to make you laugh, to make you think, to make you feel. They have meaning and purpose, perhaps without a "meaning" other that that, I'm ok with them.

A poem that I can't understand is for me, a bad poem. A good crossword puzzle atleast gives you clues. If you can't solve the puzzle with the clues given then what's the point in creating the puzzle. I'm not saying I know everything or that if can't get the poem, no one can. But, what i can say is, i can't enjoy the crossword puzzle if I can't decipher the clues and I certainly can't enjoy a poem without understanding what is being written.

I feel like a poems meaning is important to critiquing. There's a huge difference between saying "you're poem is too abstract and the words lack meaning, and seem to be put together in random order" and the reality of "I can't understand what you are trying to say, therefore your poem doesn't make sense."

But nobody understands Dylan Thomas and he's wonderful to read. I think if you're incomprehensible, you need to be really really good, the best. The relationship between clarity and beauty is hyperbolic.

[Lizzie]

You might find this discussion on meaning interesting.

I WILL enjoy this discussion, thank you! Sorry if I've overlapped too much.

[QDeathstar]

well, I disagree.  I think understanding a poem is key to enjoying it. Not understanding a poem is like being unable to see porn, just hearing random groans and being generally confused as to what is actually going on.

A poem without meaning is for me, pointless. There are poems to make you laugh, to make you think, to make you feel. They have meaning and purpose, perhaps without a "meaning" other that that, I'm ok with them.

A poem that I can't understand is for me, a bad poem. A good crossword puzzle atleast gives you clues. If you can't solve the puzzle with the clues given then what's the point in creating the puzzle. I'm not saying I know everything or that if can't get the poem, no one can. But, what i can say is, i can't enjoy the crossword puzzle if I can't decipher the clues and I certainly can't enjoy a poem without understanding what is being written.

I feel like a poems meaning is important to critiquing. There's a huge difference between saying "you're poem is too abstract and the words lack meaning, and seem to be put together in random order" and the reality of "I can't understand what you are trying to say, therefore your poem doesn't make sense."

But nobody understands Dylan Thomas and he's wonderful to read. I think if you're incomprehensible, you need to be really really good, the best. The relationship between clarity and beauty is hyperbolic.

well, I disagree. Especially visa vi critiquing.

It's pretty easy to derive meaning from "don't got gentle into the night"

[UselessBlueprint]

well, I disagree.  I think understanding a poem is key to enjoying it. Not understanding a poem is like being unable to see porn, just hearing random groans and being generally confused as to what is actually going on.

Interestingly, that is exactly what some poetry proves to be. And I can't say with any certainty if that itself is good or bad.

I do not believe meaning is necessary to critique, but that does not mean it must be ignored. I have seen poems posted here that have an obvious depth, but that are beyond my scope. These are usually too intimidating, and for the time, I pass them by. If a poem has meaning that is poorly maintained, e.g. the poem shifts from one topic/statement to an unrelated one, that is worth critiquing.

Of course, often times people interpret poetry in different ways. This may be the intent, it may not be. I'm okay if it changes a bit along the lines of history we all have, but I believe it should be layered. The deeper your knowledge and comprehension of what you have learned, the more layers you can see. For example, many allusions, historical references, or linguistic properties might pass over one person's head, while they are more than obvious to another. Whether or not we see them will affect how many layers of meaning we can see. Thus, poetry of birds and trees might be about a failing relationship, but it may also be porn that you hear but do not see.

[QDeathstar]

m

well, I disagree.  I think understanding a poem is key to enjoying it. Not understanding a poem is like being unable to see porn, just hearing random groans and being generally confused as to what is actually going on.

I can't say with any certainty if that itself is good or bad. I do not believe meaning is necessary to critique,

your statements are contradictory.

I have seen poems posted here that have an obvious depth, but that are beyond my scope. These are usually too intimidating, and for the time, I pass them by.

eg, if you don't understand them you can't critique them in any worth while manner.

Thus, poetry of birds and trees might be about a failing relationship, but it may also be porn that you hear but do not see.

yes, and that makes the poem or the porn much less enjoyable for the one who partakes but cannot see.

---

A masterpiece is just another peice of paper to the blind.

[UselessBlueprint]

If a poem cannot be understood at the lowest layer by anyone, it has failed, in my opinion. If I pass a poem by because I do not understand it well, it does not mean I do not understand it at all. From what is understood, it can be critiqued technically, without a consideration as to what its meaning is. That is, I do not need to know what you're trying to tell me, as long as I know what you are showing me. If I fail to see anything, then yes, I am a blind man encountering another paper. Undoubtedly, it's hard to give useful critique if a poem cannot be understood at all, but that lies more on the language being a mess than the meaning being too obscure.

If I may nitpick at my own words here, I do not believe meaning is necessary to critique, but I believe it is certainly helpful. If your poem tells a lot of stuff, has a lot of words, and means a lot of things as a result, I can still critique its mechanics, give opinions on the devices used, and in the end, it is up to the writer to decide if the opinions are of any worth or if they fail to see his obvious mastery of the art.

Should meaning be considered when critiquing? That is an entirely different question than what I was talking about. It lends to more meaningful comments, so yes, by all means it should be. But for me, enjoyment does not hinge on meaning, but more on execution - for lack of a better word.

(On a side note, the porn comments I made were quite literal. It has nothing to do with enjoyment of the reader or observer)

[QDeathstar]

If a poem cannot be understood at the lowest layer by anyone, it has failed, in my opinion. If I pass a poem by because I do not understand it well, it does not mean I do not understand it at all.

im not sure you can determine case a from case b, if you find yourself not grasping the meaning. You are ignorant to your own ignorance and can only interpret and critique what is witten from your perspective. You may think you know exactly what it means, another pathetic poem about birds, when truth be told it has alluded to s completely different narrative you failed to notice.

But you critique it as a shitty bird poem cause that's all you got.

---

this topic is a perfect imperical example of how important meaning is:

http://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-17350.html

[UselessBlueprint]

But you critique it as a shitty bird poem cause that's all you got.

Sorry, but if all I see is a narrative on birds and trees, that narrative on birds and tress had better make sense as well as any other substitute narrative.

[RiverNotch]

"Here's my question: how would we go about offering a critique on a piece whose "meaning" eludes us or if we don't know what the author is on about? Does author intent matter when it comes to critique? What about critiquing surrealist poetry – how would you judge whether that kind of poem is successful?"

If nothing comes to us, then plainly, we don't. We admit we are defeated, and move on -- if the author responds, then maybe we return, but otherwise...

The author's intent is key, but not exclusively. I think a good work is layered -- it speaks for itself, so that even its author ends up being only one pair of eyes. Although, and I suppose especially for confessional stuff, what a pair of eyes they have to be!

I think surrealism is meant to give the audience alternate, perhaps even clearer, ways of viewing things. If a surrealist piece has no effect on you, at its most basic a visceral "what the fuck?" moment, but at its best a whole "my way of thinking has been forever expanded", then the piece has failed. They're not really meant to be treated as puzzles -- to treat them as such is the work of the critic, but only when the critic needs something to sell -- but they must end up creating some, in the audience's mind, if they are to be any good.

And ultimately, there are many levels of understanding, not only in poetry, but I guess in life. I sorta agree with that old saying, that art is an imitation of life, but it sort of runs deeper than art having to be all realistic and jizz -- art ultimately has to reveal certain sides in life the audience rarely, if ever, considers. And that revelation doesn't imply a reception of answers, just as God didn't really give Job or Saint John (not the Evangelist necessarily, but the one who wrote Revelation) any answers -- usually, if not constructed as a joke or some sort of scientific explanation, I think any interpretation of a poem that renders only answers is a failure -- but a reception of questions much better said than philosophy, yet much less painful than experience.

[Lizzie]

---

I think surrealism is meant to give the audience alternate, perhaps even clearer, ways of viewing things. If a surrealist piece has no effect on you, at its most basic a visceral "what the fuck?" moment, but at its best a whole "my way of thinking has been forever expanded", then the piece has failed. They're not really meant to be treated as puzzles -- to treat them as such is the work of the critic, but only when the critic needs something to sell -- but they must end up creating some, in the audience's mind, if they are to be any good.

Or if the critic is us. That's the thing, we can't passively read here. So, we have to work out the puzzle whether we like it or not.

---

But any poem can be critiqued by anyone if they just guide the poet through their individual read. That's one reason that crit that claims the posters above them have said it all feels like bullshit to me. Each read is its own.

So, ideally everyone would be able to crit everything, yes? Even if it's only to say, this makes no sense to me?

---

well, I disagree.  I think understanding a poem is key to enjoying it. Not understanding a poem is like being unable to see porn, just hearing random groans and being generally confused as to what is actually going on.

Ok, but maybe some people like hearing the sounds of sex and that's what does it for them; maybe some people write poems that feel good to say or sound lovely to the ear, and that's their only goal.

[RiverNotch]

I think surrealism is meant to give the audience alternate, perhaps even clearer, ways of viewing things. If a surrealist piece has no effect on you, at its most basic a visceral "what the fuck?" moment, but at its best a whole "my way of thinking has been forever expanded", then the piece has failed. They're not really meant to be treated as puzzles -- to treat them as such is the work of the critic, but only when the critic needs something to sell -- but they must end up creating some, in the audience's mind, if they are to be any good.

Or if the critic is us. That's the thing, we can't passively read here. So, we have to work out the puzzle whether we like it or not.

Naw, only if the critic needs something to sell -- the currency may change, but always the buying and the selling. Here, the currency is quality, itself leading either to itself, or to better chances at getting cash/fame, for anyone seeking to publish. And out of here, well, aside from the same, there are critics who end up publishing their notes, too, because criticism is fun to read --- and speaking more generally, I'm sure few people actually appreciate art actively, or at least as actively as the threshold of definition would allow, yet they'd still be willing to support it because ultimately good art says something by forcing itself into their minds, by railing against their laziness/exhaustion and blablabla.

[QDeathstar]

î

Ok, but maybe some people like hearing the sounds of sex and that's what does it for them; maybe some people write poems that feel good to say or sound lovely to the ear, and that's their only goal.

Well, anything is possible. Could see an asteroid crash into an alien tomorrow. Surely won't be telling that story because that's not my experience. Groans and moans don't do it for me. And when critiquing, I'll be sure to point that out, even if the groans and moans are something more I cannot see.

---

But you critique it as a shitty bird poem cause that's all you got.

Sorry, but if all I see is a narrative on birds and trees, that narrative on birds and tress had better make sense as well as any other substitute narrative.

If meaning doesn't matter then why is it important that the narrative on birds and trees makes sense? Because, of course, it affects your enjoyment of the peice.

[UselessBlueprint]

Meaning and sense are not the same. Someone can write a poem that, to them, means a whole lot, but contains not a single sentence of proper syntax. Regardless of what it may mean, the poem is still a mess, and can be validly critiqued as such.

Again, I'm not saying meaning is useless altogether, or that it doesn't matter at all, or that it isn't important to critique. Just that it is not necessary, and that a poem may be validly critiqued without a thoughtto meaning. Figurative meaning should make sense, but if it is lost to the reader, who says they can't offer opinions on the literal sense?
Lousy phone formatting

[QDeathstar]

Can you provide an example of a poem that has no meaning but makes perfect sense?

[RiverNotch]

Can you provide an example of a poem that has no meaning but makes perfect sense?

Wait, what does everybody mean by meaning and sense again?


Posts deleted in the interests of peace, love and harmony/ mod