reading someone else's feedback

[billy]

reading someone else's feedback and using a point within such feedback in your own is fine. as long as the feedback is to the poem it matters not where it was garnered or how said feedback affected you or your thoughts. personally i try not to read the other feedback but sometimes i do and it often affects how i read the poem. [it's the main reason i don't do it. i do enjoy giving feedback then reading other feedback and seeing i got it completely wrong] it happens more than i care to mention.

[rowens]

I'm going to say something that's unpopular. I guess there's a first time for everything. . . . I don't know what to say a lot of the time. People have different experiences from me, different intellectual experiences from me, different. . . . I do believe that biographical information is important to truly 'getting' something. I truly believe that literary research and criticism is important. I couldn't make heads or tails of Wallace Stevens a few years ago; and then I read his biography and a couple books of literary criticism about him. And now I can't stop reading him and loving him. What do you all think? And by 'all', I mean everybody.

[billy]

unlike you it the poetry i read that interests me or not, the life of the poet may play a part but only a secondary one. bukowski; once i read more than 1 or two of his pieces i was hooked, would have been even if he was the man they say he was in real life.

[rowens]

I don't disagree with you. All I'm saying is there are a lot of poets that I couldn't have understood without outside help. And once I did understand them I got something out of it.

[Quixilated]

I don't think you can make a blanket statement one way or the other.  There are plenty of poems that could be written "by anonymous" for all the author matters to my enjoyment of them.  And there are others where knowing the history behind them makes the reading of them richer.  Sometimes the "history" is the author's own background, other times it could be historical relevance, or other trivia.  Some poems say what I need them to say all on their own, and I don't even want to know what the author intended it to say because I need my own interpretation of it to remain intact.  And other times knowing things about the author can make a poem feel more friendly, like I'm in on all the secrets it is whispering.  

Anyway, it's not something that can be generalized one way or the other.  Every poem and every reader come together to create a unique and inimitable experience.

[rowens]

Well, I have a systematic mind. I think in threes. The given, that's the world of reality; happenstance, that's what of the world and reality you happen to be aware of; and the Personal, that's what you take to heart, and choose to make a part of you. And you like what you like, and dislike what you dislike.

[NobodyNothing]

I don't disagree with you. All I'm saying is there are a lot of poets that I couldn't have understood without outside help. And once I did understand them I got something out of it.

Count me among your numbers.  I have so often been in need of outsiders insights into a poet's work before I could truly begin to appreciate their work.  Wallace Stevens was a good example of this, as you mentioned.  It wasn't until I read Harold Bloom's book on the poetry of Stevens that I was able to "crack his code", as so to speak.  Then poems like The Auroras Of Autumn and The Owl In The Sarcophagus began to make sense to me.  I was even able to enjoy his poetic cadence more.

Anyway...

[billy]

i have to agree with you. though for me the outside help wasn't necessarily the poet themselves.

I don't disagree with you. All I'm saying is there are a lot of poets that I couldn't have understood without outside help. And once I did understand them I got something out of it.

[billy]

hi quixie;

you bring up a good point, i suppose knowing about the author can make the reading of them richer. i knew nothing of ann sexton till someone put me on to her, i felt her and plath to both be pretentious, after reading some of their work i began to change, after reading about them my whole attitude changed. while i don't like all they write, they do have a way of getting their lives across to the reader. knowing a lot of it is real definitely enriches the reads.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement one way or the other.  There are plenty of poems that could be written "by anonymous" for all the author matters to my enjoyment of them.  And there are others where knowing the history behind them makes the reading of them richer.  Sometimes the "history" is the author's own background, other times it could be historical relevance, or other trivia.  Some poems say what I need them to say all on their own, and I don't even want to know what the author intended it to say because I need my own interpretation of it to remain intact.  And other times knowing things about the author can make a poem feel more friendly, like I'm in on all the secrets it is whispering.  

Anyway, it's not something that can be generalized one way or the other.  Every poem and every reader come together to create a unique and inimitable experience.

[NobodyNothing]

i have to agree with you. though for me the outside help wasn't necessarily the poet themselves.

I don't disagree with you. All I'm saying is there are a lot of poets that I couldn't have understood without outside help. And once I did understand them I got something out of it.

So I take it you wouldn't want me to lecture you on the meaning and significance of my poetry.

[rowens]

In fact I would. But it's another good thing that what the writer says about his or her or whatever's writing is just another level of confusism. Another level left to the reader's mystery and enjoyment.

---

I read a lot of critics. I've read a lot of Harold Bloom because he writes and writes and writes. But then I read criticism of Harold Bloom. Criticism of the critics. It's like philosphers and theologians, if they didn't disagree they'd have nothing to say.

[CRNDLSM]

I don't understand poetry, don't understand my own or where it comes from, reading lots of poetry kinda fuddles me clouding my thoughts with interpretations and inspirations. I prefer reading the feedback honestly, it's like analytical exercise, grounds me when I'm fluttering

[rowens]

That's why I like poetry, fuddles, clouds, it's like being drunk, or having sex. The three minutes that it takes takes you out of this painful, confusing world.

[RiverNotch]

reading someone else's feedback and using a point within such feedback in your own is fine. as long as the feedback is to the poem it matters not where it was garnered or how said feedback affected you or your thoughts. personally i try not to read the other feedback but sometimes i do and it often affects how i read the poem. [it's the main reason i don't do it. i do enjoy giving feedback then reading other feedback and seeing i got it completely wrong] it happens more than i care to mention.

just gonna note that when starting out on this site, i got dinked for giving more feedback to others' feedback. and when i tried workshopping in the flesh, i also got dinked for the same. it does sort of go back to what crundle, rowens, and this book on the sefer yetzirot i'm currently reading says. it's not that me or prolly crundle don't understand poetry, it's just that it's an extra step to take. reading poetry, like rowens says, is like sex, or getting drunk -- at least good poetry. it should stun you with its beauty, make you, in a sense, euphoric: fill you with Wisdom, the wordless sort of creative energy that emanates from the Will, which needs a second emanation, Understanding, in order to put into new words, to 'understand'. whereas someone else's interpretation should already contain some of that Understanding.

[rowens]

I wanted to say something, but I think you already said it. I feel the need to argue with people even when they agree with me. Have you ever noticed that about me? And, also, the alcohol is running out again. It's like the old Groucho Marx joke, Oh, you agree with my idea, huh?, well there must be nothing to it.

[NobodyNothing]

I wanted to say something, but I think you already said it. I feel the need to argue with people even when they agree with me. Have you ever noticed that about me? And, also, the alcohol is running out again. It's like the old Groucho Marx joke, Oh, you agree with my idea, huh?, well there must be nothing to it.

Reminds me of our former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's quotes, a position of power he inhabited which all but requires the obtuse and cryptic speaking out of both sides of one's mouth...

“ I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”

“I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you’ve probably misunderstood what I said.”

[billy]

like everything else we learn giving feedback or critique is no different. the more we read others feedback will we ourselves be better equipped to give it. it is best though not to critique the feedback be it right or wrong.

I don't understand poetry, don't understand my own or where it comes from, reading lots of poetry kinda fuddles me clouding my thoughts with interpretations and inspirations.  I prefer reading the feedback honestly, it's like analytical exercise, grounds me when I'm fluttering