Andrey's questions about poems (split from the intro thread)

[Lizzie]

Metaphors are not exclusive to poetry. They are all around you, from the language employed by journalists and advertisers to the aphorisms of bumper stickers. They are written, verbal, visual - they are shortcuts to meaning, avoiding the need for longwinded explanations.

Well, who is to say what is long-winded? I for one would certainly care for some expansion on what 'the State' is and what the 'hunching in the belly' means. (Not that you have to do it now. After the poet has convinced me that the poem has to be one with research and the prosaic addendum he wrote for it, I got the gist of it in its entirety.)

I suppose it's more of a matter of how loaded with shortcuts your poem is and how you choose or craft your metaphors. This altogether makes poetry for me more difficult to read and understand. Question: why? Couldn't the author fulfill his objective in a way that would make more sense? Couldn't he get his message across more effectively? (These are just questions for understanding; I'm trying not to make an argument of it.)

You are assuming that there is a singular message being conveyed.

[Achebe]

Andrey, what's your education background?

[Leanne]

The poet's intent has very little to do with the way it is received. A fine poet with a careful hand will match up at least one set of meanings with the reader, but the subtleties that exist due to different experiences, cultures and emotions are where true poetry lies. Poetry is the skill to draw Windows where previously only walls existed.

Yes, a poet could explicate things - but why? The beauty of poetry is the way it allows the reader to come to his/her own realisations on the nature of the world, the universe and the human condition. One could tell, via lecture, or one can show, via poetry.

If all you want is to be told what and how to think, in plain and unambiguous language, then poetry will never be the medium for you.

[QDeathstar]

...erm. Andrey, how do you expect to have an intelligent conversation if you won't share your cheese preference?

[Todd]

It's not so much a reading comprehension problem as it is my problem with what is at the foundation of poetry. My argument is this: why does a poet feel the need to use metaphors when we already have prose? Why contrive a confusing piece of literature and make the reader work hard on its meaning when it is only supposed to convey an idea? What practical  advantage do metaphors have over simple terms?

I don't know why you would assume that a poem is "only supposed to convey an idea." This feels like a very flat understanding of what poetry and even what good literature is supposed to do. This is the sort of definition one might attach to a newspaper article or a blog post. I do think this statement of yours does address the core issue as to why you don't connect with poetry.

I honestly find it hard to believe you'd actually be able to come to an appreciation of poetry from this framework. That isn't necessarily bad. It will probably just never be your thing.

Interesting thread though

[AndreyGaganov]

 Based on what you've said, it appears that one must have a very strong passion for any kind of sound to appreciate poetry. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

On an additional note: You seem to be insinuating that someone who gets poetry can at the very least derive pleasure from vowels, consonants, rhymes, and rhythms. By that logic, with some effort I could passionlessly write a poem that features alliteration, assonance, rhymes, and rhythms, and thus score really high in the mind of the reader/reciter. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

I'm an imagery girl myself. Rich metaphor and simile -- that's what does it for me. I know others that are about the sounds primarily and the content second. I'm all about the visual that I can create in my mind. What's challenging and amazing about poetry is it's ability to conjure scenes and evoke emotion with so few words. And, actually, I think the fewer words the better. More active involvement on the part of the reader is required to fill in the details than with a story that's all spelled out for you.

I see. So, would you say that one could draw a handful of comparisons between the landscape of poetry and the landscape of music ? E.g., different readers/reciters/listeners look for different things in poetry, and that it's all relative? There are no prerequisites to reading/listening to poetry? That you have to find the right poem that will ignite some kind of a spark within you (without going through the trouble of being educated with literary devices and such)? That perhaps there is a certain kind of poetic movement (and not all movements) that's right for you?

[AndreyGaganov]

Andrey, what is your favorite kind of cheese?

Brie.

[AndreyGaganov]

Metaphors are not exclusive to poetry. They are all around you, from the language employed by journalists and advertisers to the aphorisms of bumper stickers. They are written, verbal, visual - they are shortcuts to meaning, avoiding the need for longwinded explanations.

Well, who is to say what is long-winded? I for one would certainly care for some expansion on what 'the State' is and what the 'hunching in the belly' means. (Not that you have to do it now. After the poet has convinced me that the poem has to be one with research and the prosaic addendum he wrote for it, I got the gist of it in its entirety.)

I suppose it's more of a matter of how loaded with shortcuts your poem is and how you choose or craft your metaphors. This altogether makes poetry for me more difficult to read and understand. Question: why? Couldn't the author fulfill his objective in a way that would make more sense? Couldn't he get his message across more effectively? (These are just questions for understanding; I'm trying not to make an argument of it.)

You are assuming that there is a singular message being conveyed.

Yeah, I was just being general. It could be plural. The question could be rephrased as: "Couldn't he get his message(s) across more effectively?"

[AndreyGaganov]

Andrey, what's your education background?

I did eight whole years in two different St.-Petersburg schools, finished grades 9-12 in Sparks (sort of a Siamese "city" to Reno), got an Associate's in Computer Science from a community college and a Bachelor's in Computer Science (with the focus on Games and Simulation) from the University of Nevada, Reno.

[Lizzie]

I don't know why you would assume that a poem is "only supposed to convey an idea." This feels like a very flat understanding of what poetry and even what good literature is supposed to do. This is the sort of definition one might attach to a newspaper article or a blog post. I do think this statement of yours does address the core issue as to why you don't connect with poetry.

Todd, the way you get right to the heart of the matter takes me to church! (in a good way) >< ><

[Achebe]

Andrey, what's your education background?

I did eight whole years in two different St.-Petersburg schools, finished grades 9-12 in Sparks (sort of a Siamese "city" to Reno), got an Associate's in Computer Science from a community college and a Bachelor's in Computer Science (with the focus on Games and Simulation) from the University of Nevada, Reno.

OK. Well, I have a background in engineering myself, but my much older brother was a Literature major, and I got exposed to Spenser and Shakespeare when I was little all thanks to him. Otherwise, I may have found it hard to believe that poetry has any purpose other than communication, i.e. that it can exist for the sheer pleasure of existing.
My advice to you would be to just read more. We learn at the fringe of what we know, and as you know more, some of the questions you're asking will find their own answers. But if after you've given it a fair shot nothing comes of it, then yeah - it's time to drop it. My father in law swears by golf, I positively hate it, so it takes all sorts.

[AndreyGaganov]

The poet's intent has very little to do with the way it is received.

This makes no sense to me at all. If a poet puts love and care into a poem because he has an idea for it, be it the meaning of the poem or how it sounds, then doesn't he want every reader/reciter/listener to take notice of the poem's objective, the very thing that the poet holds dear? This very same statement leaves me unsure of which is more important: what the poet wants out of his/her poem or how the reader receives it. And if we grant this proposition that the poet's intent is subordinate to how the poem can be received, then why on earth would the author write the poem in the first place? 

A fine poet with a careful hand will match up at least one set of meanings with the reader, ... .

Can't the poet just make his/her thoughts/feelings clear with one set of meanings (one for every metaphor as a shortcut to an overarching idea)? 

... but the subtleties that exist due to different experiences, cultures and emotions are where true poetry lies.

By that do you mean "clues that paint the rest of the picture within a certain context"? Can't that still be accomplished with prose? 

Poetry is the skill to draw windows where previously only walls existed.

I need an example. 

Yes, a poet could explicate things - but why?

Because clarity to convey a message matters. Doesn't it?

The beauty of poetry is the way it allows the reader to come to his/her own realisations on the nature of the world, the universe and the human condition. One could tell, via lecture, or one can show, via poetry.

OK. What you are saying is that the objective of a poet is not to make a specific statement (unlike what Randall Jarrell did, which makes matters all the more puzzling), but to merely paint a picture and let the reader make an impression of it. But how is that to poetry's advantage when the same can be done in prose? 

If all you want is to be told what and how to think, in plain and unambiguous language, then poetry will never be the medium for you.

Why would I want that and what author of prose ever did that? An author of prose can state an opinion or paint a picture and let the reader/reciter/listener do the rest. Where is the confinement/conformity in that?

[AndreyGaganov]

...erm. Andrey, how do you expect to have an intelligent conversation if you won't share your cheese preference?

You have to be patient. I can only choose the right words so fast. I'm tap-dancing as fast as I can. I've spent about seven hours on this forum today, and my ADD along with the research on bibliotherapeutic literature and poetry keep getting in the way. In fact, it's 11:24 PM right now, and based on the Web research I've done on depression, I figured that I should be in bed right now.

[AndreyGaganov]

It's not so much a reading comprehension problem as it is my problem with what is at the foundation of poetry. My argument is this: why does a poet feel the need to use metaphors when we already have prose? Why contrive a confusing piece of literature and make the reader work hard on its meaning when it is only supposed to convey an idea? What practical  advantage do metaphors have over simple terms?

I don't know why you would assume that a poem is "only supposed to convey an idea." This feels like a very flat understanding of what poetry and even what good literature is supposed to do. This is the sort of definition one might attach to a newspaper article or a blog post. I do think this statement of yours does address the core issue as to why you don't connect with poetry.

I honestly find it hard to believe you'd actually be able to come to an appreciation of poetry from this framework. That isn't necessarily bad. It will probably just never be your thing.

Interesting thread though

You are welcome to contribute since (as I understand) you find yourself capable of appreciating poetry. 

I don't know why you would assume that a poem is "only supposed to convey an idea."

Aside from sounding pleasant, what other suggestions do you have?

[Lizzie]

 Based on what you've said, it appears that one must have a very strong passion for any kind of sound to appreciate poetry. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

On an additional note: You seem to be insinuating that someone who gets poetry can at the very least derive pleasure from vowels, consonants, rhymes, and rhythms. By that logic, with some effort I could passionlessly write a poem that features alliteration, assonance, rhymes, and rhythms, and thus score really high in the mind of the reader/reciter. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

I'm an imagery girl myself. Rich metaphor and simile -- that's what does it for me. I know others that are about the sounds primarily and the content second. I'm all about the visual that I can create in my mind. What's challenging and amazing about poetry is it's ability to conjure scenes and evoke emotion with so few words. And, actually, I think the fewer words the better. More active involvement on the part of the reader is required to fill in the details than with a story that's all spelled out for you.

I see. So, would you say that one could draw a handful of comparisons between the landscape of poetry and the landscape of music ? E.g., different readers/reciters/listeners look for different things in poetry, and that it's all relative? There are no prerequisites to reading/listening to poetry? That you have to find the right poem that will ignite some kind of a spark within you (without going through the trouble of being educated with literary devices and such)? That perhaps there is a certain kind of poetic movement (and not all movements) that's right for you?

Yes, I do think that you need to find the right author and the right poems that speak to you. On average, I'd say that I love maybe about 1 in every 30 to 40 poems that I read. I like most poems I read, and can appreciate them through my knowledge of literary devices, but to really love something....it's individual taste, yes.

From a couple of things that you're saying, it seems like you might be expecting too ecstatic of an experience from poetry. Certainly, some poems have taken me there, but most just bring amusement, mild pleasure, interesting thoughts, simmering feelings of all flavors. I wouldn't worry too much if you're not transported by everything you read. If someone else loves a poem, that's them not you. One would hope that you'd learn to appreciate almost all good poetry, but it seems like you're really looking to make a love connection.

It'll take time and lots of reading. There's so much out there.

If I were you, I'd start with the "Poems you love" thread here -- there's lots of great stuff in there.

I mean, people say that Wagner is the bee's knees, but I never cared for him. Now Chopin, I've tried to raise him from the dead a few times.

[Achebe]

---

I mean, people say that Wagner is the bee's knees, but I never cared for him. Now Chopin, I've tried to raise him from the dead a few times.

Chopin? Nein!! iz fur sissies und wimmen....the Reich shall list only to der Wagner!

[AndreyGaganov]

... Otherwise, I may have found it hard to believe that poetry has any purpose other than communication, i.e. that it can exist for the sheer pleasure of existing.

OK, ... (1) existing for the sake of communication and (2) existing for existence's sake - two different things (the latter of which, obviously, makes no sense at all). Moreover, I don't understand how "the sheer pleasure of [a poem's existence]" can occur. 

My advice to you would be to just read more. We learn at the fringe of what we know, and as you know more, some of the questions you're asking will find their own answers. But if after you've given it a fair shot nothing comes of it, then yeah - it's time to drop it. My father in law swears by golf, I positively hate it, so it takes all sorts.

Well, once again: I'm not in the habit of giving up on things. Can't quit. I don't have a choice ... mainly because I hate the feeling of disappointment from being left out of a loop on something. So, with that said, how is giving up on poetry a healthy way to go?

[Lizzie]

---

I mean, people say that Wagner is the bee's knees, but I never cared for him. Now Chopin, I've tried to raise him from the dead a few times.

Chopin? Nein!! iz fur sissies und wimmen....the Reich shall list only to der Wagner!

Yeah, I guess I am betraying my dad's German roots a little there.

But, the Reich would have considered me a sissy for sure. Fuck those assholes. I'm glad they're dead.

I'm lucky that my ancestors immigrated from Germany in the 1800's, because I'm sure they would have been Nazi's if they had stayed. Bunch of racists, all.

[Leanne]

Why does the poet not care immensely if his/her poem is received in exactly the same way it was delivered? Because (most) poetry is not about answers, but questions.

Please stop assuming that poetry and prose are at odds. Many of us write prose also, and will tell you that prose does not fit into one neat category. I do not choose a report format for a reflective essay. I do not write science fiction in the form of a policy document. I do not write a letter to the editor as if it was detective fiction. Prose, like poetry, has formats that best suit the audience and purpose and yet the boundaries are not so set in stone that one cannot fuse elements together or bleed one into another.

Nobody here is anti prose, it's just now what we are here for.

[Achebe]

(2) existing for existence's sake - two different things (the latter of which, obviously, makes no sense at all).

Why does it make no sense at all? What are the axioms you are using to construct your argument? You are just making an arbitrary statement and presenting that as logically thought through. It's rubbish.

EDIT: existing for the pleasure of existing == existing not to convey information, but to provide auditory and visual stimuli through the use of words that have an effect on certain areas of the brain that respond to language and music. 
It's pretty obvious shorthand. If you did not get it, it could be because i) you are not familiar with the expression ii) you're trying to split hairs and come off as a smart dude. I hope it's (i).