»
Main Forums
»
English Workshop
»
Whose is the "right" interpretation?
| English Workshop |
|
Whose is the "right" interpretation? |
|
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash 
|
Hey guys. I'm not sure if this is the right forum for discussing this but I would be extremely interested in seeing what you all had to say about the subject. Is the poet's/author's original purpose, plan and interpretation of that poet's poem the "right" interpretation of that particular poem or is the poet's interpretation only incidental to the poem? Are the interpretations of the readers of the poem equally valid even if they differ from the poet's original interpretation? Is it possible for both the poet and the reader to have "right" interpretations of a poem even though those interpretations differ? Is it possible to have a wrong interpretation of a poem? I don't expect this to be very popular but the subject has arisen several times in the past few months in CA and I am interested your opinions. Mine has been changing, by the way. Jim |
||
| © Copyright 2000 Jim Bouder - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Hi Jim, I can't claim to know the answer to your question but I do have an opinion. Of course we all know about opinions. It seems to me that most poems are written with pretty non-specific wording. If you write something relating factual (or imaginery for that matter) details in specific and pointed words, then there is probably only one valid interpretation and, unless I just want to mentally rewrite it for some reason, I am essentially limited to that interpretation which you intended, at least to the extent that your language is clear and specific. If, however, you relate that incident or whatever it was in the sort of words typically used by poets, then your factual information becomes more suggestions instead. In other words, you used metaphors and imagery in an attempt to suggest or set a mood rather than relate precise details. The more you make use of these poetic features, the further you stray from specific language, the more open you are to interpretation. In short, I think by writing in what we might call a poetic style you are inviting and even requiring interpretation. A few weeks ago I posted a pretty symbolic poem, "Storm", in the CA. In the responses there were multiple interpretations. Some of them were quite different but after reading the supporting arguments, I had to agree that each interpretation was completely valid, or at least as valid as mine. One of the interpretations was actually quite close to mine although reading between the lines tells me it was for a quite different reason. So there you have my opinion for what it's worth. Pete What terms shall I find sufficiently simple in their sublimity -- sufficiently sublime in their simplicity -- for the mere enunciation of my theme? Edgar Allan Poe |
||
|
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
A poet writes to express his/her emotions and feelings. He/she certainly has a particular agenda of both the poem's superficial and intrinsic meaning. That is certainly the original, and in my opinion, the most relevant interpretation. Poetry, however, is intended to be read by others. We can't benefit from works that are locked securely away from us for all eternity. Ergo - our poems are subject to the interpretation of our readers. Once a work becomes public, there can be as many valid interpretations as there are readers. It becomes a very personal thing. The interpretive value of each and every poem in existence becomes the option of the reader... Otherwise - Why write?? |
||
|
Elizabeth Santos Member Rara Avis
since 1999-11-08
Posts 9269Pennsylvania |
Jim, I see poetry as music, and just as music is heard differently and interpreted differently by all, so is poetry. It is interpreted according to one's aesthetic bias and culture. I believe it is irrelevant what the poet meant, and not always important to know. As long as there is freedom of thought, there are infinite interpretations. But in order to be appreciated it must have qualities that attract either aethetic or intellectual interpretation. Liz |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I have to echo Nan here. I have an idea of the "meaning" when I write, which I will always be happy to share... But the interpretation of another is just as valid I belive!!!  |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Everyone: Thanks for your input into this question. Pete, I really think you are onto something. While I agree with everyone that there are certain numbers of elements in most poems that can be validly interpreted in several different ways, I think it is important to remember that specific references in a poem should not, ordinarily, be divorced from the object of that specific reference. Is it not reasonable to say that poetry, like art and music, must be interpreted subjectively or objectively when the situation calls for it? Could a misunderstanding of an archaic word's meaning in one of Shakespeare's sonnets lead to an incorrect interpretation of that sonnet's meaning? Could missing the context demanded by an allusion result in an invalid interpretation? Is it wise to dismiss the tension between the questions "What does the poem mean to me?" and "What does the poem mean?" Just curious.  Jim |
||
|
Cassanova Junior Member
since 2000-04-12
Posts 39Turlock, Ca. |
(Sorry Chris) (NOT!!!) I Agree with jbouder here. I think that if I write something, the person reading it should at least stay relatively close to what my idea was. |
||
|
Munda Member Elite
since 1999-10-08
Posts 3544The Hague, The Netherlands |
I believe the interpretation of the reader depends a lot on how the poem is written. Some poems are written in very "clear" language and some in flamboyant, or mysterious words. Personally I think when I write a poem, I'm the only person who really knows what it means. If readers come close to that interpretaion that's a bonus and if they don't and still like the poem, that's another bonus. Just my 2 cents  |
||
|
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
Whatchu talkin' about, Munda??? Who uses "flamboyant" language??? Huh??..  |
||
|
PrincessPoet Member
since 2000-04-15
Posts 133Long Beach, Calif. |
I think of Poetry, as an Expression of the Soul; The moment when a Poet can capture their deepest feelings, Look back and find speechless moments, or put Experiences to words As for the Reader, I think they can usually capture what the poet is expressing best if it's something they can relate to in that case it can be like a instance stopped in time. other than that they either like it or, are totally lost of it's meaning. Anyhow, That's my Opinion hope it helps? Poetry & Frienship, From: PrincessPoet |
||
|
tom Member
since 2000-01-26
Posts 90s/w penna u.s.a. |
jbouder When I write I do so for me.Keeping in mind whats written must be read,I struggle to keep it from being to vague.As far as interpretation,as long as the reader thinks about whats been read, or just walks away with a good (or bad) feeling, the writers accomplished what they set out to do. tom |
||
|
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
Here's an interesting "aside"... I received an email today from someone who had been reading in the main site, and wanted to comment on my poem "Symbiosis"... Here's the email in its entirety... "I don't know what you are saying the words are above my level of comprehenchen Truly yours "E"...." I need to burn my dictionaries....  |
||
|
Munda Member Elite
since 1999-10-08
Posts 3544The Hague, The Netherlands |
Mphm.....giggle...mphm.....ROTFLMAO !!!!!! (Sorry Nan ) |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
What is better? To write a poem with magical words no one understands the meaning of...or to write a poem with ordinary words that everyone can understand....which poem will connect with the reader more? Today's readers have short attention spans...look at the way we access web pages..how many of us quit trying to view a page if it doesn't load quickly? Do we write 'down' to our readers? Do we write for the lowest common denominator? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Sharon: I think good writing of any kind should be interpretable but this doesn't mean that we should only write poetry for the "lowest common denominator". I think the best poetry stretches the writer AND the reader. Allusions should be obvious enough to give someone a basis for researching whatever is necessary to be researched in order to better understand the poem. I think the "magical words no one understands" can be understood in two ways. Either the poem is so vague that it gives the reader nothing to go on or it is so complicated that the reader quickly loses interest and doesn't try. Actually, the poems I have had to work hardest in understanding are the ones that find a place in my long term memory. There are several in CA like this ... several by Philip (Poertree) and a psychological poem by Kris (warmhrt). Understanding poems like these took thought, research and a little bit of toil but grasping their meaning was infinitely more rewarding than reading "Roses are red, violets are blue, chocolate is sweet and so are you". For me, the laziness of others will never be an excuse to stop writing or reading complicated poetry. Just isn't my style. Cassanova: By agreeing with me you prove yourself to be a very wise person. Tom: Interesting points. It seems, though, that in your struggle to avoid being vague you are not only writing for yourself but also for others. I, personally, see my writing as a place to give my thoughts and feelings a home. My goal is to describe or convey the thought or feeling well enough that the poem can stand pretty much alone as an expression of that thought or feeling. In this, I think you and I agree. Christopher: You SERIOUSLY cannot think that I am going to let you get away with THAT answer now, do you? Munda: I like your way of looking at it but I get much more satisfaction out of someone knowing WHY they liked (or disliked) my poem rather than merely liking (or disliking) it without trying to understand it. Thanks, everyone, for keeping the discussion going. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 04-16-2000).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
For those of you who have accepted the intentional fallacy, shame on all of you!! If we get away from the idea of 'right' and 'wrong' interpretations, I think we can see this in a slightly different light. When you write a poem, you may have an idea in your head, when you finish your poem you may have an idea in your head, but when you actually write the words, where did you go? My argument here is that you can't write and read at the same time (simutaneously). Now why do I know that some of you are going to try it. Writing and reading makes you two different people. You can switch between the two pretty fast of course but it's still not quite the same time. Hasn't anyone else read your own poem and wondered what the hell you were thinking when you wrote it? Hasn't anyone else changed his or her mind as they wrote a poem about what the thing is about? When you read, you interpret. When you write, you, well, I don't know exactly what it is but it's not the same as reading (maybe we should call it creating but that's another whole bag of beans if we get into that.) Essentially (hate that word), the identity of any person is multiple, the roles a person plays are many. If you follow this, then you can understand that the writer's interpretation is not an AUTHORitarian interpretation but one interpretation among many. So does this mean that you can believe a piece to be anything you want? Answer: Yes So why does this seem so counterintuitive to most of us? I think primarily because most of us like to think that we live in a sort of stasis. The very words I'm using right now serve to reinforce this idea of a set meaning, of a set identity, of a set idea of self. I am what I am. On the other hand, there is the tendency for some to see the above argument as a free for all call, of a chance to be completely free from all those crazy ideas that we call thinking but the mistake here is that you can't be free without this tentative idea called the individual. How can you be free if there is no you? Is anybody still reading this? Okay, all interpretations are equally valid because in essence (hate it, just hate saying that)there is no such thing as a valid interpretation from the start -- when you write and when you read, you are two different people. However, if we decide that there should be a valid interpretation for any of a number of different reasons (trying to understand each other and the world around us would be a good one), then the idea is to find the interpretation that most people are persuaded by. There is a great interpretation of God's Chariot in Milton's Paradise Lost that describes it as a tank (another one describes Hell in the same poem as the planet Venus). In terms of the words, it's very convincing but it's just not persuasive because we KNOW that Milton never saw a tank and certainly never visited Venus. Come on guys, get back to the real world, stop this useless theorizing and tell me what he meant. Actually, tell me something I can believe. And that's the key I think. If you are persuaded by an interpretation based on your already set belief system (at least we think it's set because it does change but we can't think like that because if we did, we couldn't think at all), then you think that interpretation is 'right'. Persuasion is the key, not the author, not the history, not metaphysics, not the depths of your soul, not the authority of your professor, not me. Still, we all intuitively want to believe in the authority of the author because that confirms the authority of ourselves and what we do. It gives us an anchor in chaos but it is always an arbitrary decision to do so. If we choose not to do this, not to follow the author, you have to start from another base and those that listen have to share that base or you won't persuade them. If you don't have a base, you can't have an interpretation. It's your decision. More later, Brad |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: Do you REALLY want to get into a scrap with me? Seriously, you are absolutely right about the "right" word (and stop saying essence!). I think, perhaps, there is a "best" interpretation to any given poem and the author's original purpose and plan in writing the poem is only on element to consider in reaching the "best" interpretation. I do, however, think it is a mistake to argue that the author's interpretation is irrelevant (I don't think you are suggesting this, btw)."When you write a poem, you may have an idea in your head, when you finish your poem you may have an idea in your head, but when you actually write the words, where did you go? My argument here is that you can't write and read at the same time (simutaneously)." This works, I think, for poems that are written in one relatively short sitting or that use an abundance of allusion or metaphor. I think it is possible (and I have done this) to write a poem and read it and re-read it in order to make certain that the intended message screams loud and clear. It is also possible (and I think I've done this too) to write something with the intention of conveying a certain mood or feeling. While the intellectual elements were there, they were not the focus of the poem but, rather, were supportive of and secondary to my intended goal in writing the poem. "Now why do I know that some of you are going to try it." I don't think this is necessary if you meticulously write, read and proof-read your poems. "AUTHORitarian interpretation but one interpretation among many ... So does this mean that you can believe a piece to be anything you want? ... Answer: Yes." Brad, I can accept the idea that all (or nearly all) interpretations of a poem are valid. My problem is with the notion that all interpretations are equally valid. I am well aware that a writer can make a mistake in his/her poetry or prose or whatever that makes one or more statements (or even conclusions) wrong. I was reading a translation of "Agricola", a 1st century history of the British Isles by an old, Roman Empire historian, Tacitus. He believe Ireland to be in between Britain and Spain and he believed the "White Nights" of the far north to be a result of the Earth being flat. Then, his interpretation of the physical world was the best interpretation available but it ended up being an incorrect interpretation. I know reading poetry is different from interpreting physical phenomena but I think it is demonstrable that a "wrong" interpretation is possible even when the interpretation is regarded as the "best" interpretation. WAKE UP EVERYONE ... I'M NOT FINISHED YET!!! "Okay, all interpretations are equally valid because in essence (hate it, just hate saying that)there is no such thing as a valid interpretation from the start -- when you write and when you read, you are two different people." This is where I think you are wrong. "Valid" is not the same thing as "right". I agree that and absolutely "right" interpretation does not exist as much as an absolutely "valid" interpretation is fantasy. But determining the validity of a piece of writing involves a process (whether we are aware of it or not). I think it is possible to make a mistake in the interpretive process that renders and interpretation invalid. I think the most common mistake is our very human tendancy to "put meaning into" what we read as opposed to "getting meaning out of" what we read (exogesis vs. eisogesis ... for those of you that care). "However, if we decide that there should be a valid interpretation for any of a number of different reasons (trying to understand each other and the world around us would be a good one), then the idea is to find the interpretation that most people are persuaded by." ARGGGHHH! That is a bad idea (even if it is the most popular one)! If we decide that there should be a valid interpretation for any number of different reasons then the idea that has the best reasoned approach and conclusion should be the interpretation we seek. "There is a great interpretation of God's Chariot in Milton's Paradise Lost that describes it as a tank (another one describes Hell in the same poem as the planet Venus). In terms of the words, it's very convincing but it's just not persuasive because we KNOW that Milton never saw a tank and certainly never visited Venus. Come on guys, get back to the real world, stop this useless theorizing and tell me what he meant." The tank thing makes me laugh. There are many people who interpret the plagues of locusts in the Apocolypse of John as being Apache helicopters. I think this takes us back to the finding a valid approach to literary interpretation ... get meaning OUT of the text, don't put meaning INTO the text. "Persuasion is the key, not the author, not the history, not metaphysics, not the depths of your soul, not the authority of your professor, not me." You are right ... none of these are the key but they are all either important or helpful in reaching the best conclusion. Writing is often an expression of a reaction to something real. The author, the history, sometimes metaphysics, and (oh this hurts me to say) feelings, professors, and even YOU, Brad, are helpful tools in reaching the best conclusion. Reading Milton without having some knowledge of the prevaling religious views and language of the day is nothing less than a lesson in frustration (it is often a lesson in frustration WITH a working knowledge of the historical/religious setting of Milton's world). Being able to use these tools well prevents a mistake that will lead to a poorly wrought interpretation of a piece of writing. "Still, we all intuitively want to believe in the authority of the author because that confirms the authority of ourselves and what we do." The author's original intent is not an absolute, determining factor in interpreting a poem but it is certain NOT irrelevant. "It gives us an anchor in chaos but it is always an arbitrary decision to do so. If we choose not to do this, not to follow the author, you have to start from another base and those that listen have to share that base or you won't persuade them. If you don't have a base, you can't have an interpretation." If you decide to interpret something differently from the author's interpretation then I think the burden is on you to demonstrate the superiority of your interpretation and, you are right, you must start from a different base. Again, the author's purpose and plan is an important element, but it is one element amongst many in reaching the best conclusion. One of Philip's recent poems comes to mind, actually. Glad you decided to stop in, Brad. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 04-18-2000).] |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Jim and Brad, you both make strong and sensible arguments. Why do I suspect this thread is not yet finished? It seems the original question related to poetry but now we have expanded it to include history and other writing. At one extreme of this spectrum we might have pure poetry, such as Jabberwocky (remember that one Jim?). Now I wonder whose interpretation of that, if any, is more or most valid. At the other extreme we might have technical documentation. As a scientist, my writing must be so clear and precise as to have only one possible interpretation, the one I intended. This is not to say that I always succeed, however. Now it is true that I may have misinterpreted the underlying physics of which I write and, therefore, write something entirely wrong, but that is a different problem. The writing, itself, must still precisely describe and specify my position so that all readers know exactly what I intended, even if it is wrong. They do, of course, have every right to disagree with my conclusions though. So, what I am saying here is the real answer to this general question surely lies somewhere between these two extremes. Are all interpretations valid? Technically probably yes, considering that each interpretation is a personal opinion. Are all interpretations equally valid? Almost certainly no. Regardless of what one may write, within reason, some interpretation could be construed to conflict with the original concept. Now, I know it is possible to present an example proving this statement wrong so don't bother. In closing let me say that I have enjoyed both your arguments and I believe I have learned from them. So I thank you for your efforts. Give yourselves a first and keep up the good work. < !signature--> Pete What terms shall I find sufficiently simple in their sublimity -- sufficiently sublime in their simplicity -- for the mere enunciation of my theme? Edgar Allan Poe [This message has been edited by Not A Poet (edited 04-18-2000).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Pete: "It seems the original question related to poetry but now we have expanded it to include history and other writing." I approach criticism/interpretation of all writing in a similar way and, as far as interpretation is concerned, don't draw well-defined lines to distinguish poetry from other forms of writing. There are differences (mostly relating to the use of figures of speech and to emphasis on word meaning and sound) but, with a few exceptions, I really don't approach interpretation of poetry much differently than I approach the interpretation of any other form of literature/writing. THAT is why I lumped the different styles of writing together the way I did. Just FYI. Thanks for the input in this thread, Pete. Good stuff. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Quick note: Many of these ideas are variations of Stanley Fish's ideas. Fish is the foremost Miltonist today and an extremely arrogant speaker but I still think he's getting a lot right. There's a reason I chose Milton as an example even if I am using my own images here. Jim: "Do you REALLY want to get into a scrap with me?" --Don't you mean this the other way around, my friend? Do you really want to get into a scrap with me? Unless you mean physically, in which case, I echo the immortal words of Mony Python's King Arthur: RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!My point was to get away from the objective idea of interpretation altogether (even Pete agrees with me here) but neither of you seem to see this as radically as I do (and others -- I'm not writing in a vacuum, you know). The 'validity' of a piece of writing can only be determined by a reader (which may be the writer), never the writer writing at that moment because when you write you cannot control the meaning of the words you use. Each individual word has a history, a context, a subliminal effect on the unconscious that nobody can fully understand. It is this point that makes all interpretations valid. If we choose to decide on certain interpretations rather than others, we must have a base. Actually, it is not a choice, you can't think without making this choice. You can't feel without making this choice (even if you don't remember making it). Really, the above (my) idea is quite useless in determining much of anything. If all interpretations are valid than no interpretations are valid -- both statements result in the same consequence, no thought. But I think we should be aware that this is the state of affairs if we play around with objectivity. On the other hand, subjectivity is also impossible because this tentative thing we call an individual cannot exist without something else (I know you've heard me say this before Jim). So, the question is what do we do? Back to Milton, when I read that 'tank' part of the poem I see a tank -- a celestial, transparent tank but still a tank (I don't know why I see it as transparent, just do). When I read Satan travelling though limbo to hell, I see him travelling through space (the final frontier kind) but when he gets to hell, I don't picure Venus. Actually, if you remember the demon speeches, I see a picture out of Nail Gaiman's Sandman series even though I read Paradise Lost first. Of course, it is probably the other way around. Gaiman was probably echoing Milton when he wrote that particular Sandman episode. Is there anything wrong with this? I don't think so. Would I write an academic paper with these ideas in mind? No. Academics and common sense would not accept this as a valid interpretation and I agree that it wouldn't contribute to the goals of many fields in academics but these images do contribute to my enjoyment of the poem itself. I don't see why I can't have both. Let's take Tacitus for a moment. I think we both agree that he was incorrect in his geography but we hold him up to a certain standard because we see him as an historian and therefore probably already agree on a base. What if you say him as a poet? I have certainly written poems that are scientifically, geopgraphically impossible and nobody has had the least complaint with that. I am held, as a poet, up to a different standard. Nobody complains that Gabriel Garcia Marquez does some pretty whacky things with physics. How about Coleridge? Well, you get the idea. As Pete says, a scientist, while still stuck in the ultimate dilemma that I began this long winded arguemnt, is held up to different standards but, by the way, are still arbitrary, just not necessarily subjective (see the difference I'm making here). Damn, I'm going to be able to finish this in one shot. Oh well. Quickly, a question: If you can't interpret something, how can you 'get anything out of' a piece of writing? They are arbitrary black marks on a piece of paper (or whatever)and without your own individual and yet common past, you couldn't do anything with it. You have to 'read into something' in order to 'get something out of it.' I'm not finished yet. Brad |
||
|
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
Brad & Jim... How do you two find the time for these wonderful debates? Just when I think one of you is talking to yourself here, the other pops in with more equally intriguing comments and opinions... I'm working on finding a way to extend my day so I can join you... geesh - writing that much would take me all day and night... I'd have to read, absorb, and ponder your points - then consider my retort - consider it some more - write down my own thoughts - reconsider and reread my mottled words, read again to add any last thoughts... then post... I've gotta say that I see your point, Jim - A thousand posts for you is like two or three thousand for the rest of the world. I'd love to take on a debate with you, Brad.. I may have to retire first, though.. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Yep, you guys are awesome. You both make extremely lucid and convincing arguments. I won't try to compete but I still believe that poetry must be interpreted by the reader, at least to some extent. I must agree that academic matter could be and has been written in verse. But does that necessarily make it poetry? I don't think so. Although poetry certainly can present a message, it seems to me that it should be more for enjoyment (or enlightenment) than education. I do make an important distinction here between enlightenment and education. Well, this was not very well said but it was the best I could do at the moment. Pete |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: "--Don't you mean this the other way around, my friend? Do you really want to get into a scrap with me? Unless you mean physically, in which case, I echo the immortal words of Mony Python's King Arthur: RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!" Just think of me as the Brad-kenstein monster, Dr. Brad-kenstein. I always enjoy a battle of wits with you ... I consider it a good means of "sharpening my teeth". I would never consider getting into a physical scrap with you ... maybe a battle of shots (like in the first Indiana Jones movie) and THEN we could watch a Montie Python movie while drinking beer through a straw. First person to spew beer out through their nose is the loser of the battle. How's that sound? I noticed that you dropped the "equally" from your "valid" argument. Is there a reason for this or was that just an oversight? "If all interpretations are valid than no interpretations are valid -- both statements result in the same consequence, no thought." Um ... I think this statement is invalid. A valid interpretation, in my opinion, always involves a process (even if the interpreter is unaware of this process). I'll explain:Inductive reasoning is not like science in that two people can follow the same reasoning processes but reach very different conclusions (this happens in legal reasoning all the time). I think you touched on the reason for this when you mentioned that every interpretion begins with a base or starting point. This starting point shapes what the interpreter sees in each step of the process but even this does not make the interpretation completely arbitrary because there are set parameters that are outside of the interpreter (grammatical meaning, historical context, authors intentions, etc.). Leaving those parameters invalidates an argument. "But I think we should be aware that this is the state of affairs if we play around with objectivity." Objectivity is a funny word in inductive reasoning because it isn't always rigidly defined (the "average reasonable person test" is considered an "objective" test ... kinda strange considering I've never met an average reasonable person). Which brings me to your next point: "On the other hand, subjectivity is also impossible because this tentative thing we call an individual cannot exist without something else (I know you've heard me say this before Jim)." Inductive reasoning (essential, I think, in interpretation of any kind) recognizes this. Again, the MOST valid interpretation is the one that is most successive in keeping within those parameters that ARE objective including grammatical meaning, historical context, and (as much as can be ascertained by the above and collateral writings) the author's original intent and explanation of the meaning. It is true that words mean different things to different people depending on context, geography, time, etc. but I think the grammatical meaning of the word as the author undertood it is ascertainable in most instances. I think the importance is not in the conclusion but in the process. "Back to Milton, when I read that 'tank' part of the poem I see a tank -- a celestial, transparent tank but still a tank ..." This is interesting. I think we are talking about two very different things, though. I read Blake's "Tyger, Tyger" years ago and envision my little, cameo tabby cat stalking through the landscaping around my house. Blake probably didn't have a domestic cat in mind when he wrote this poem (I am fairly certain of this) but I did get enjoyment out of looking at the poem in this light. This may be construed as an application of Blake's idea to my surroundings but I don't think this could rightly be called and interpretation of Blake's poem. Interpretation is involved with determining what a poem "means" moreso than it is involved with determining what a poem "means to me". "I don't see why I can't have both." You can have both but I don't think you can call them both interpretations. Your argument sounds a little bit like those of the Epicureans (after they refined their ways) who sought to find meaning in aesthetics and pleasure. There are countless ways the words of one particular poem can be meaningful to a person. But meaningfulness is not the same thing as meaning. "Let's take Tacitus for a moment. I think we both agree that he was incorrect in his geography but we hold him up to a certain standard because we see him as an historian and therefore probably already agree on a base. What if you say him as a poet? I have certainly written poems that are scientifically, geopgraphically impossible and nobody has had the least complaint with that." The process of interpretation is similar but there are differences in the approach one takes in interpreting historical literature, narratives, legal briefs, and poetry. The difference is mainly in recognizing that poetry uses figurative language much more often than other types of writing. "If you can't interpret something, how can you 'get anything out of' a piece of writing?" I would argue that it is possible to "get something" out of a piece of writing but that "something" wouldn't be an interpretation. Maybe thoughts springing from an emotional reaction or spurred on by certain combinations of words but not an interpretation. I, personally, get most of my enjoyment in reading a poem out of my analysis of it. For me, the meaningfulness of the poem is strongly linked to my ability (or inability) to understand it. Maybe we should patent this discussion as a sleeping aid ... what do you say, Brad? I look forward to seeing this one continue.Nan: "Brad & Jim... How do you two find the time for these wonderful debates?" We alienate our wives who think we love the computer more than we love them. Also, when the only two people on Earth who happen to care about this subject happen to be half a world away from each other, this is the only medium we have to stage our inter-continental debate ... so we make time. "I've gotta say that I see your point, Jim - A thousand posts for you is like two or three thousand for the rest of the world." Only two or three thousand?  Pete: "Yep, you guys are awesome. You both make extremely lucid and convincing arguments." That, I think, is the point I am making. The conclusion you reach isn't so important as reaching the conclusion in the right way. "Although poetry certainly can present a message, it seems to me that it should be more for enjoyment (or enlightenment) than education." FYI, I just read an article that described a philosophical debate that took place during the 18th century that was done so entirely in verse. These debates, evidently, were best sellers and were read for purposes of both enjoyment AND education. Why must we dichotomize enjoyment and learning? Later everyone. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 04-20-2000).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I decided to raise this thing because Jim was complaining about my 'equally valid' point and thought I hadn't made myself clear yet. Are all interpretations equally valid? Yes, provided that no parameters are given. But if no parameters are given, no interpretations are valid -- you have no basis from which to judge. Jim, You've described certain parameters that I find, more or less, useful; but I don't believe they are objective parameters. Historical context is not objective in that we can't know everything and endlessly debatable. We both agree that July 4, 1776 is a significant date but that is only because we have decided to subscribe to certain parameters, background, a basic belief in logic, a consistency in the way we view the world. Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 8, 1941 according to the Japanese calendar (because of the international dateline and provided that we don't talk about the Japanese calendar of the Showa era). These may seem like fairly trivial arguments but my point is that you can never pin things down with a 'general sense' or 'common sense' argument, not in an absolute sense. Okay, historical context is arguable. But so is grammar. Chomsky's idea of a universal grammar, of an objective universal grammar is flawed in that he takes the way the very thing that makes language useful, a general way to compare and contrast specific contexts with a generalized tool (this is the only way we could communicate by the way). I've heard that he has altered his theory but I haven't had a chance to research it yet. Maybe he's changed his mind. I don't know. Grammar changes with each situation and the idea of a generalized speech situation seems ludicrous to me (as a way of pinning down the 'real' meaning of a sentence. It's perfectly useful as a way guessing, not determining, a possible meaning). If one simply includes intonation and stress into any argument for grammar, if one concludes that irony is a possibility in any statement, then grammar is alway arguable. It's only because we accept so much of the same premises that grammar is a useful and I think interesting tool. Authorial intent? But the author cannot by definition see what he or she is doing. Not really. Furthermore, we have the unconscious to worry about. For example, Fish often talks about Milton's hatred for women as a driving force in much of what he wrote. Milton would probably disagree with that statement so who is correct? It depends on what position you believe in and who is the more persuasive arguer. Finally, I've returned to persuasion. An interpretation is accepted by a community, not by any outside standards, but by the standards inherent in that community. The validity of an interpretation is always an open variable because there are different communities in the world. You, yourself, are also part of different communities at the same time. If we go back to my tank argument, you seem to argue that while enjoyable, it is not a true interpretation because it doesn't follow the rules of engagement set up by the majority of people in this world. My argument is simple that those rules change. What if it is discovered that there is a gene for precognition and that Milton had it? All of a sudden my ludicrous interpretation becomes quite believable. Milton himself seems to have believed that he had foretold the future in his poem Lycidas (read the short note before the poem). He believed that it was God's gift. So, is his interpretation the valid one? Anyway, my point is that any interpretation is valid as long as it conforms to any pre-set belief system but that belief system is just as arbitrary as any whacky interpretation. I may be jumping here but I'm pressed for time. Persuasion is the key but it also has to be original and interesting. If the argument is boring, if it doesn't show me something that I haven't articulated or heard before, it's not a very useful interpretation. It has to be interesting and persuasive in order for it to be a good interpretation. I'll stop here, Brad |
||
|
Rosebud1229 Senior Member
since 2000-04-05
Posts 1813North Carolina |
Simply to make this short and sweet I believe that yes as far as the subject of the poem it is interpreted as but when it comes to the many aspects of the poem, you may have many different interpretations and conclusions. In fact sometimes poems are left open for exactly that. Sometimes the reader does have to read in between the lines. |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
why does it have to be one or the other, the reader's or the author's intention? why can't both be important? when i read a poem or any work of fiction, i try to understand what the author is trying to say, what ideas, thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc., he or she is trying to convey, and then consider how it all strikes me, what i think about it. i don't think writers go to all the trouble of writing simply to spark any old random emotion in the reader; if that were so, why would any of us agonize about finding the perfect words? writers are trying to come up with a specific combination of words to convey specific thoughts, ideas, or whatever. and isn't that the whole point of reading? to find out what these thoughts are? to experience, if possible, however imperfectly, the emotions the writer is trying to convey? the writer's intention is important, and the reader should take some time to reflect on what it is. at the same time, though, the reader's own interpretation is important, too, and once a piece is out there in the world, there isn't anything the writer can do about it. if a writer writes something for entertainment, and the reader hates it and isn't entertained, lol, well, that's that. the writer's intent, after a certain point, simply doesn't matter. take jim's recent poem about seeing his old childhood row house, for example (sorry, jim, i forget the title). it is undeniably "about" something specific, and presents jim's specific thoughts and feelings. a reader may well read it and think that the crumbling of the old house is great, its a good thing to get away from one's life as a child and move into adulthood, the crumbling of the house is symbolic of a loss of control of parents over a child, and the child is now free to pursue his own life for the better. (i wouldn't interpret the piece that way, btw.) but the reader misses something, in my opinion, if he doesn't even try to consider jim's own interpretation, doesn't try to see or feel the rather complex sense of loss that jim, i believe, was trying to convey. in the end, though, the reader is king (or queen, lol); whatever the poem means to the reader is simply what it means to that reader. not to say that ALL interpretations are valid; if i said jim's poem was about safari hunting in africa, i would be wrong. it simply isn't. but an individual's interpretation can coexist with another's, without either necessarily being wrong. and indeed, in the end, that interplay between individuals and their differing thoughts, views, and interpretations, is a "good" all of its own. jenni |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Ok - well, I read NOTHING of the above...but whatever side you take Jim I shall dispute of course... It is, as I am sure someone would have said above, a matter of perspective - pure and simple. If it were one way - then we would all be a bunch of robots really... See THIS poem in THIS way or else...hahhaaaaaa! I am the evil overlord of poetry interpretation! HAHAHAHAAAAAA! You get my point. I hope. When I write poems I leave much under the surface and I find it personally delightful when a reader says they see something there that I had no idea of! It tells me my poem is deep enough to provoke thought and response. It is an honour to receive an interpretation at all really - pity the poor fools who write something SOOO obscure it is mere drivel. In fact - I will start a topic about that... K |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Jenni, But how do you know it isn't about Africa? Even if Jim tells you it isn't, couldn't his unconscious have some point, some symbolic association, that even Jim doesn't see? What about genetic memory? What about repressed memories? Severn, How are we able to communicate if it is all a matter of perspective? All rephrase my position slightly. All interpretations are potentially valid dependent upon the context in which they are made. However, in order for any communication (in as many senses as I can think of)to take place at any level, we must share similar contexts in order to be understood. Is meaning for either the reader or the writer static or dynamic? I think it's dynamic and while that sounds cool (I think most people find dynamic the more positive word), people find it unsettling when put into practice. Brad |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
Hi Jim ...great question......lol So this is where you've all been ... I wondered why CA was so quiet these days .. and even you Pete as well ....how are ya? Long time no see, so to speak .. Lady K staging a late run on the inside (heh heh) and the b & t jenni where's Trev? Well, unlike the slothful LK (note the transition from a possum or was it koala? ..do they have sloths in NZ btw?) I HAVE read every word of the above and at the end of it Brad and you owe me for a full pack of strong filter coffee ! Essentially and in essence and having regard to everything that's been said and with respect to all of you (had enough yet Brad? ) i think, though I'm by no means sure, that i disagree with most of what you (jim) said, naturally and always agree with the lucid and brief Lady K, agree some with the even-handed jenni but not all (going for that seat in the Supreme Court j?..lol), and, incredibly, find myself agreeing with all the parts of Brad's diatribe that i could understand!Mainly though, i wanted to mention this word "valid". "Valid" seems to be the "in-word" in the US (sorry Brad). It seems to me, despite what you said at the outset, to be little more than a way of avoiding the use of the politically incorrect "RIGHT" or "WRONG" we can trawl through all the synonyms for valid like : accurate, authentic, bona fide, convincing, correct, defensible, true, trustworthy etc etc but at the end of the day is not an interpretation of a poem either: RIGHT OR WRONG ?? (heh heh ... i can see you and brad fidgeting .. lol) the lawyer among us clearly thinks so: "If I said jim's poem was about safari hunting in Africa, i would be wrong. It simply isn't." or DOES she !!? "an individual's interpretation can coexist with another's, without either necessarily being wrong" so on the one hand if I say that jim's poem was about safari hunting I'd be wrong, but on the other i wouldn't necessarily be wrong !! .....er ? I know what jenni will say to this (and here you will note that I'm about to disagree with jenni ... brave eh !! he heh ... luckily I've been taking Estate Planning advice lately so my affairs are reasonably in order!) ... she will say that it's a matter of degree, she will say that there is absolutely no way that, to use your, and in fact a favourite legal, phrase "the reasonable average man or woman acting reasonably" would say that your poem was about a safari. Furthermore, and i seem to recall we've had this argument in CA, perhaps most people would be quite happy to leave the judgement of what is reasonable to a panel of randomly selected reasonable people, or a selection of wise professors or the House of Lords or Supreme Court or whatever. All of which seems quite reasonable and indeed is, for what we end up with is this: The writer writes with a meaning in mind and, by default, using the above, and i think your's and jenni's logic, that interpretation must be "right". The reader reads and places the same interpretation as the writer, in which case he/she is "right". The reader reads and reaches a different interpretation. That interpretation is then subjected to the reasonableness test as applied by the selected reasonable panel and a verdict of the "rightness" reached. A while back i would've probably been the first to agree that the argument ends at that point, now however i tend to think that there is no such thing as a "correct" objective standard by which to judge a piece of poetry. Although Brad has an extremely disconcerting way of arguing a position and supports his points with, to me, obscure literary and other references , I found myself over and over identifying with small segments of his replies.I'm still wrestling with the concept of the impossibility of subjectivity without an objective reference point and the apparent paradox that results, but I'm sufficiently clear to be able to agree that every individual's interpretation is potentially "right", or valid if you want to use that word (ugh), however ludicrous that interpretation might appear to another reader or indeed the writer. An interpretation of your poem as being about a safari is certainly a possibility for, say, for the sake of making the point, someone raised in a culture where houses are intimately connected with safaris. I thought Liz Santos was also on the right lines with: "It is interpreted according to one's aesthetic bias and culture. I believe it is irrelevant what the poet meant, and not always important to know." Strangely enough it was posting the "what she wrote poem" in CA which prompted a reply from you Jim which was, shall we say, not exactly what i had in mind...lol... which started me thinking about all this, and now I'd be the first to agree that all the interpretations of that poem were equally "right". Brad talks about "understanding" and "persuasion". This a slightly different issue relating not so much to the "rightness" of a particular interpretation as to the ability of an individual or individuals to convince others that their interpretation is the "best" one. Nothing wrong with that of course, it is after all.......... just an opinion ............ Philip PS Jim were those compliments !? .....lol PPS Brad, I see you've just posted again since i started this hours ago ... i agree ..lol |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
brad-- "But how do you know it isn't about Africa? Even if Jim tells you it isn't, couldn't his unconscious have some point, some symbolic association, that even Jim doesn't see? What about genetic memory? What about repressed memories?" in jim's unconscious or subconscious mind there could well be some symbolic association between seeing his old home and a safari (lord knows what really goes on inside his head, lol), but if so, he didn't communicate it to me or anyone else (except, perhaps, by mere dumb luck). i totally agree with your statement that "in order for any communication (in as many senses as I can think of) to take place at any level, we must share similar contexts in order to be understood." i guess i am simply taking a more practical view. yes, any interpretation is, in a sense, "valid," at least to the person making the interpretation; you can say a reader who sees jim's poem as being about a safari is simply operating under a different "context." but at some point, an interpretation can be so far from any kind of shared context with anyone else that, as a practical matter, one just has to say, "so what?" so, i can say jim's poem is not about a safari because i am operating (i hope, lol) in a context, a very complex context, to be sure, of language. sure, words can have any number of meanings to different people, conjure up all kinds of different thoughts, images, feelings, and "meaning." when i say "green," this can mean a ton of different things, and 1,000 different people can think of "green" in 1,000 slightly different senses, but in no way, in our shared context of the english language in current usage, does “green” mean any kind of "red.” yes, the context changes over time, and someday, who knows, "green" might mean "red;" a simple statement such as "that man is gay" carries, in most contexts today, quite a different meaning than it would have 100 years ago. and yes, a writer can create a special context; i can write an “opposite” poem, where “black” means “white,” or a piece of historical fiction set in the 1890s, where the statement “that man is gay” would clearly mean the man was happy and carefree. but to say that something has any number of possible meanings or interpretations because, outside of any context anything can mean anything to anyone, is pointless, because, as a practical matter, we all do operate under some context or other, whether it be broad or specialized, vaguely "accepted" or defined in some more specific way. and so, philip: i can't speak for jim. my whole point here is that you can NOT say any one interpretation is right, and all others wrong; and i do NOT think an author has the final, exclusive say on what something means. within any kind of shared context, lots of different interpretations are possible, and no single interpretation within context is right or wrong. all the same, that does NOT make ANY interpretation equally valid; just because something isn’t black, doesn’t mean it is white. if i write "the grass is green," and you interpret that as meaning "penguins come from mars," well...fine, go ahead. wallow in your own private idaho. and by all means, go ahead and write “penguins come from mars” whenever you mean to say “the grass is green.” but don’t complain when no-one else in the world understands you, or if you find out that you’ve been missing what other writers have been trying to communicate. you can, i am sure, construct after the fact here some silly rationale for how someone could interpret “the grass is green” to mean “penguins come from mars,” but even without resort to “a selection of wise professors or the House of Lords or Supreme Court or whatever” (which, btw, is utter nonsense), you know there is no way to get “penguins come from mars” from the statement “the grass is green,” and that any such “rationale” is empty sophistry. one more thing. your comment that it is “on the right lines” to say that “it is irrelevant what the poet meant, and not always important to know” is absurd. why bother reading poetry at all then? why not just sit down with a really good dictionary and flip through it, and revel in all your own little private interpretations? how about this poem for ya? “For Philip”, by Jennifer A. Patterson Cambric expectorate zygoma sinapism bullace corrode glomerule semicircle at mattock nombril astern folicolous shortcake isn’t this the greatest poem EVER WRITTEN? sure, it APPEARS to be 14 words randomly selected by the author from the 1989 edition of merriam-webster’s new collegiate dictionary, but the author’s intentions here are irrelevant, and oh, isn’t it just jam-packed with MEANING? i loved the part about the platypus, didn’t you? it brought tears to my eyes. and, OH, all those coal miners trapped underground, really makes you think, huh? the combined works of shakespeare, blake, shelley, byron, frost, heaney, pinsky and ted huges have but only 1/1,000th of the meaning sparkling out of this little gem, don’t you agree? i’m sending it in to the new yorker tomorrow, and the paris review; i’m sure they’ll be fighting over the publishing rights. of course, i’m interpreting the piece based on my own “aesthetic bias and culture,” but hey, maybe the new york times will hire me as their new poetry critic; after all, I’m the only one who caught the subtle allusion to david mamet’s “glengarry glen ross” here, as well as the hilarious crypto-falangist take on “king lear”, and isn’t my interpretation valid? ah, but perhaps it is not very persuasive. this is a different question, you say. but what good is it to say that a nonsensical interpretation of something is “valid” or “right”? whatever. ok, I’ll shut up now. jenni [This message has been edited by jenni (edited 05-15-2000).] |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
"ah, but perhaps it is not very persuasive. this is a different question, you say. but what good is it to say that a nonsensical interpretation of something is “valid” or “right”?" ....... ever so cautiously raising my head above the decimated parapet ..~smile~ er .. while you're reloading can i just say firstly, that the whole point is that something that's nonsensical to you (ie the average reasonable person) may not be to someone else, and secondly i never said it was "good", merely "correct" ......ok, that's it for now, it doesn't take that long to load six rounds ..... P PS i need to talk to my legal adviser before i decide to say more ....lol ....see ya!PSS and next time i hear the words "and so Philip ..." i'll know to duck faster ~grin~ [This message has been edited by Poertree (edited 05-15-2000).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
It's nice to see someone else serving as Jenni's whipping post for a change. I am simply amazed that you guys (Brad and Philip) are still pressing on after that lashing! Jim P.S. Jenni ... agreeing with you is kinda fun ... we'll have to do it more often. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
