»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Meaning and Effect
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Meaning and Effect |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Should a poet answer questions posed? Yes and no. I usually don't have a problem answering specific questions, but I don't understand the question, "What does it mean?". It means two things to me: One, you learned somewhere that all poems have secret meanings and that you don't want to figure it out yourself. This doesn't fit with Howard Nemerov's comment (famous on the internet) to Mary Kinzie when she asked the same question. He responded, "You never ask a poet what he means, you tell him." Two, the poem failed. In a very real sense a poem can't be paraphrased except as a kind of caricature. You may not 'get' every line but there should be some effect, some moment that transcends the very question itself. If that doesn't happen, it means the poem didn't work for you and nothing the author says is going to help you or the poem. This doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions but, I think, they have to be more specific than "what does it mean?" Otherwise, I'm stuck asking what does 'what does it mean?' mean? :-) I'll talk about it, I'll talk about technique. But a poem is almost always too big to be lumped together under one all encompassing question. One rule of thumb might be that if talking about the poem ends up with less words than the number of words in the poem itself, then something is going wrong. I have argued in CA that meaning is less important than this effect. Now, 'transcend' is a tricky word. I suspect many people tend to see it as almost synonymous with 'sublime' but I mean it very specifically here. A poem does not have to be serious, it does not have to talk about important things. Making you laugh is just as important as making you cry, making you smile is just as important as pontificating on grave matters. It doesn't have to put you in awe. It simply has to do something so that asking what the meaning is secondary to the reading of the poem itself. I'll use an example: quote: What does that mean? I don't know, I may go do some homework at some point, but the reason I would do homework is because the overall poem creates an effect, one that gets most people immediately, for the last line of that stanza is quote: [This message has been edited by Brad (05-08-2008 11:28 PM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
What does it mean? it="Should... light." We want meaning and effect on everything, poem, prose, picture, song, any writing, talk show, cooking. And I believe that every poem means to have Meaning and Effect because it is one way of expression. I write as non-poet. Poets shall write whatever they want and I pick those that fit my taste to enjoy...the ones with clear meaning and clear effect.  If poet choose to ignore my question. then I pretend that he is not available. But I can be trained to appreciate some poems that I thought that they were plain or blur or meaningless. Author can help. Other poets or learned people can help too. I want to feel how the poet felt when he wrote the poem/to get maximum of it. Together with my own inspired thought, the reading will bring out the most beautiful feelings. (happy , sad or some provoked thought) But if someone want to train me to read some poems that look like great trees that I have to climb long, long way up along the dry hard bark to get to the lush green, which no doubt is extremely beautiful, I would rather be a bear. Not that grizzly kind, a panda would be good enough. which means, it really need thorough, decent education on literature.(and English, history of poem, Greek etc). I may have selected ADD on history book. [This message has been edited by Seoulair (04-24-2008 02:11 AM).] |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, I think that most who ask these kinds of questions would simply like to hear the poet's own version of in-depth analysis that you would so delight to hear from readers. Some still think that being the writer gives one a special, more authoritative insight into the verse under consideration. I know you might challenge that idea, but it is still widely held by most commoners. You almost have to go to school to learn that you shouldn't think like that. But I agree with much that you've said. Especially how readers shouldn't seek this in lieu of exploring the poem for themselves. And so writers may also decline to answer such questions, even if for no other reason than to encourage others not to be lazy. I kinda get that feeling from you and your sometimes evasive replies. Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Should a poet answer questions posed. Is there a reason you chose to use declarative punctuation for the topic sentence of your persuasive argument when the question mark is more appropriate? I reserve the right to question everything. Sometimes I learn more from the evasion of my questions than an actual answer.  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Karen, Fixed. Do you see anything else that you screwed up on? But asking questions already involves some kind of interpretation, it already involves some way of 'reading'. Which is more irritating, not answering the question or being told that you're asking the wrong kind of question? Stephen, Commoners?  I don't know if it's being lazy or just being sure about something that you probably shouldn't be so sure about. Authorial authority is an aspect of a poem, but to use a phrase I haven't used in a long time, origin and identity are not the same thing. Seoulkim, Sometimes the assumption that a poem is difficult is the stumbling block to the enjoyment of the poem. A poem should almost always be read at least twice (Paradise Lost -- maybe not). Remember there are two people working here, the poet and the reader. If you don't understand it, it's not always your fault. I just don't see how answering 'what the author was thinking when he wrote the poem' always helps with the meaning of a poem. They are related but different. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
One of the problems with authorial authority is not that they are wrong, it is that they generally don't tell you everything that was going on when they wrote the poem. I don't mean they're being sneaky, I mean they don't remember everything that was going on. If you step back and see what is popping in your head when the actual writing is happening (allusions, jokes, technique anxiety, memories, visions, interruptions, half-formed thoughts, sudden pictures, sex, violence, cigarette breaks, epiphanies of impotence and power, poem envy etc.), how can they explain it? Look at "No Second Troy" for example. Now read that again after you've seen a picture of Maud. I don't just mean with the great. I really do think that happens with the rest of us, too. The only time that doesn't happen is when you're doing some kind of associative/automatic writing, when no thinking was going on at all. And in that case, there is no authorial intention. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you Brad. I do beg your patience as you humor me a little further. I'm having problems with the definition of "critique". I agree with your points, but only generally. Help me with my reading comprehension. Is there a difference between "critique" and "review"? I think I'll need both to be clearly defined for me, as well as have those definitions reconciled with the rules and guidelines of Pip. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: It is not my assumption. It is the feeling that I did not get it after at least two times reading. Such as yours David Foster Wallace /pip/Forum28/HTML/002046.html When I first read it, I truly had no clue. (plus no knowledge about that person). My first impression was "why a poem like this?" Later, with a simple answer from you, I started getting it. And Today I read it again without the line breaker, then I sensed more of the poetic part of it. Not as dry as I first read it. You have my best wish of longevity. A poem should almost always be read at least twice (Paradise Lost -- maybe not). Yes, sir!!! quote: Not exactly the thinking, also the author's mood, and I read his biography to help me to understand his poems. I have read almost all your poems (not all in CA1) and I read your other posts in other forum to learn your life philosophy and life attitude. Today I read two new poems of yours. One is about your wife's first pregnancy. Another one is about your first child birth. Both are good. But they did not surprised me with your usual tightly measured feelings. I am not afraid of misunderstanding other's poem, and it is much fun esp for the purpose of intentionally diving someone crazy but to miss what the authur thought as the most beautiful point will be a great loss. It is like that I saw the crown but I did not see the diamond, which is the usual way of me, I guess) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: No. Or at least I can't think of a good distinction. Crits are interpretations. Reviews tell what you liked and didn't like. The distinction is intentionally blurred here because I don't see a point in worrying about it. quote: I have no idea what the rules and guidelines have to do with this. Why should they be clearly re-defined? Do you see a distinction between critique and review? What are your definitions? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Well, then it didn't work for you. That's okay. I don't mean to discourage homework or rereadings, but at some point I think it should also be at the author's discretion as well (see the Nemurov quote). It takes two to tango. Okay, I'm reading Karen's and Seoulkim's posts and I think I've missed something. I'm just not sure what it is. I'm thinking or trying to think what it might be. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm unsure if you deliberately missed my point when answering my first question. If I hadn't asked your intent on punctuation, I would not know (and perhaps you still would not know) that it was error. In poetry, if I am not allowed to ask such a thing, how am I to know? I do see a difference in critique and review. To my mind, critique is an interactive process, whereas "review" is simply opinion and acknowledgement. How does it relate to Pip guidelines? I will concede that it is not my job to to question intent--but judging the difference between intentional insult and poetic license ought to be somebody's. I do believe someone once assured me that questions were not only "okay" but part of the process. If I am wrong, I will own my error, and forthwith apologize. But because I find questions and answers integral to learning, if it's not welcomed in C/A, I will no longer participate there. It's too bad, too. I had a very satisfying experience with input from A.Grace and others on my last offering, and my exchange with Sunshine was actually fun. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Well, my earlier comment was intended as a joke ('screwed up'). I guess you're not in the mood for those kind of jokes. I made a mistake, you saw it and pointed it out, that is always a good thing. But I'm at a loss as to how that could be read, even with the error, as an argument against asking questions. Asking questions is fine, but they aren't all powerful and if asked too much, if you depend on them too much, something, I think, is lost. There is a difference between solitary moments of 'transcendence' and interactive discussion. I guess they can overlap but the two moments are quite distinct in my mind. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Yeah, and I know one guy who read it and saw precisely the kind of poetry that he could like (he posted it at his school). He hated Halla. He thought it was too sappy -- too much like a poem. This is something that is difficult to deal with. Sentimentality and over-sentimentality are real problems for most poets. We have never really shed ourselves of Romanticism. I know I haven't and yet precisely because I know this I do work consciously to tone everything down. I get the feeling that many, many people want more. I think less is more. I guess. Now, have I ever posted a sappy poem? It takes all types. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Ah, and yet, Jim was right when he said that I'm still very much an organic poetry guy. I think a poem lives or dies on its own and if it can't live on its own, it should die. That is how I want my stuff to be read. The two tools that I think can be used are at your fingertips: the internet and the dictionary. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: I am sorry sir, you are not available any more.  Seriously, Can you ask people how to read your poems? No, I don't think so. You don't even know how I read your poems. truly. Mt.Halla ...I like it very much before any explanations but your answer brought more emotions out of me when I read it again. ( at least 15 times or more) |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Jack & Jill The rising sun casts a red glow through blue air Your house on the corner lies still in gray shadows I see a lamp come on in your attic room On our yards a light snow drifts down .......................... Posted By: David Curtis Date: 3/12/04 2:35 a.m. Re: Jack & Jill Dear John, “ What is it about this that so impresses you? “ Well, I’m no master of critique. It’s hard to put into words… like you said, it is a mood piece. Simply put, I like the way it made me feel. It made me feel something – unlike so many other poems out there. I’m not trying to be evasive, but… what is it about Van Gogh that makes his paintings move me? For the life of me I could not tell you. I do like the way you start with color… then switch to the house in grey shadows… and then the lamp in the attic, and snow following that… I may be off base on your intent – but for me there seemed to be a sense of hope there… or something mysterious happening…. Most of all I found it to be a thing of beauty… the way you worded it… I don’t know… it just moved me. And the most important test of any poem (for me) is if it stays with you… this stayed in my mind hours after I read it, and I found myself reflecting on it. … it made me feel. There is so much well crafted poetry that seems hollow inside that I read. This is well crafted AND it does not seem hollow. . . Sorry I can’t be more precise. But I did like it – a lot. Cordially, David Curtis : Over time I have come to understand that this is probably the best poem I ever wrote. John . [This message has been edited by Ron (04-25-2008 11:11 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: You're right. If I can't tell you how to read, however, you can't tell the writer what he/she should do either. Doesn't that make sense? John, Nice addition there. |
||
|
Seoulair Senior Member
since 2008-03-27
Posts 807Seoul S.Korea |
quote: I agree. But why did you say this? Because no reader could ask such thing to a poet as to tell the poet how to write a poem. But John's post raised two questions. 1. If a poet thinks that he wrote a good poem, does he also need (expect) the readers to proved it? 2. If you wrote a poem one day and you thought that it was good(average good). But after certain time, you realized that that one was one of the best. What caused the feeling to change? It seems that like rocks in Grand Canyon, It changes color with different lighting by Sun. (I missed a NOT in the reply of your poem in CA1 so comment changed from "not very bad" to "very bad". I am very Sorry for that. I also missed one in the reply of Sir balladeer's reply this morning. ) [This message has been edited by Seoulair (04-26-2008 04:06 AM).] |
||
|
Earl Robertson Senior Member
since 2008-01-21
Posts 753BC, Canada |
To me a poem is an experament in human nature. What thoughts and feelings you get out of a poem is a direct interpretation of what thoughts and feelings you already have. My feelings as an author direct only the general content not the message. Whenever somone gives me an interpertation of a poem I wrote I take it as just that. It is no more or less valid, after they have told me that then I will tell them what I got out of it. /pip/Forum105/HTML/000056.html Here's a poem of mine sort of to that effect. "We all lead such elaborate lives, We don't know who's words are true." Aida |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
JC, Roshi, is it possible that people who kick start threads might consider spelling people's names correctly? "Howard Nemurov" I'm sure he might exist, but he ain't the poet Howard Nemerov. I know this is an old thread with good intent, and I haven't been around much lately, but I'm dismayed by what I am seeing. I wouldn't want to be around me either right now, but I don't have that choice. John -- You're too good to ever have to justify or explain what you do. Blarg. Jimbeaux |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I was wrong on the 'e'. I make that mistake perennially. When the name is Russian, I have never been able to decide which is correct. You see, Russian names are pretty much by definition malleable in terms of English spelling. Unless, of course, you haven't seen different translations. My mistake, I'm sure. A slip of the finger. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. HAMLET Will you play upon this pipe? GUILDENSTERN My lord, I cannot. HAMLET I pray you. GUILDENSTERN Believe me, I cannot. HAMLET I do beseech you. GUILDENSTERN I know no touch of it, my lord. HAMLET 'Tis as easy as lying: govern these ventages with your lingers and thumb, give it breath with your mouth, and it will discourse most eloquent music. Look you, these are the stops. GUILDENSTERN But these cannot I command to any utterance of harmony; I have not the skill. HAMLET Why, look you now, how unworthy a thing you make of me! You would play upon me; you would seem to know my stops; you would pluck out the heart of my mystery; you would sound me from my lowest note to the top of my compass: and there is much music, excellent voice, in this little organ; yet cannot you make it speak. 'Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe? Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you cannot play upon me. Act 3, Scene 2 . Underlying the initial question is an assumption of some special insight, talent, or authority which I don't believe exists except in the vanity of poets. I've always liked Elliot's reply to someone asking the meaning of a poem he had written some twenty years before: that he had no idea. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Does the conclusion of this thread have more to do with linguistic philosophy (which says texts cannot have meaning), or the belief that the original meaning is not all there is? I can go with the latter wholeheartedly. I still think original context holds more importance than total innovations. That's why the book of Isaiah (which contains much poetry) is best interpreted with an understanding of Jewish Theology, history, and culture. That's not to say a first time reader with no knowledge of this couldn't enjoy or benefit. I find it not a little amusing, and ironic that the most memorable poetic expression of this idea ... quote: ... has such a voice that it denies, and holds as much meaning as effect, and is not lessened thereby. I think a realistic approach would be to admit that readers are drawn toward particular (though not slavish) meaning, and that good poetry has been employed to express it; and that readers are also drawn to skillful and sheer description, and that poetry is about that as well. Yes, I do think it is possible to be lopsided in one's enjoyment of poetry. And folks like Brad are good at pointing out the asymmetry (or slavish insistence upon symmetry if you prefer). Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Keeping me on my toes. I've fixed it, I think. I just wanted to let you know that it'll probably happen again. Be kind, point it out, and I'll fix it again. Stephen, Who says texts don't have meaning? It's the other way around, isn't it? All meaning is textual. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad, "texts cannot have meaning" was perhaps too strong. I'm just wondering if this prescription for poetry (effect over meaning) has to do with philosophical critiques of the literary theories of structuralism? Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Here. An offering? http://www.123helpme.com/search.asp?text=Rhetorical&page=1&sort=rating Some interesting reading for those inclined, which I found when I started pondering subliminal impact of words (which relates to a question I've asked in the forum before--somewhere. How much responsibility does an author have for the effect he/she has on their reader? Or any artist utilizing any art form, for that matter? (I don't have an opinion to offer to that, by the way. I'm just honestly interested in reading the thoughts of others on the subject.) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Poor Brad! People always want to know "What DOES that poem mean?" I've been thinking, This might be an answer: IPVTU POOXF OIBWF OBOQS PCMFN FOEJU! You see this is a line of reasonably simple code. Believe me, if Mr. Non-mathematics here can come up with it, it's simple. The difference between this line of code and "I am the self-consumer of my woe," A lovely line of poetry by the poet John Clare, has to do with the kinds of meaning we are talking about. In my line of simple code, I can actually tell you what it means. I can de-code the code for you. There is an actual answer to the question. "What does it mean?" because we are talking about information that is, for all practical purposes, non-symbolic and digital. It functions like in most cases a laundry list. It means nothing beyond what it says it means with a few small hints and dribbles of feeling that, once you decode it, you will probably read fairly well from context. A traffic Stop sign might be less ambiguous. A sign for a bathroom these days might be more ambiguous with all the cute variations loading secondary meaning onto the basic information (Setters and Pointers, Guys and Dolls). Any of these can have a meaning that can be explained in a fairly straightforward way. The straightforward statement I have rendered into code was once pretty much unambiguous, but over time layers of symbolic meaning have been grafted onto it. Even so, it's still straightforward; a meaning can be ascribed without too much difficulty. Poems however are deceptive in this way. Even those which seem to have a photographic clarity have a certain amount of symbolic structure, and symbols cannot be reduced any further than they already have been. Symbols do not MEAN anything; symbols alter the way we see the meaning of other things. If you were to pick up a magnifying glass, look at it closely, and think about it, you would not ask yourself what does this magnifying glass MEAN; and a poem or a good piece of prose has a function something like that magnifying glass. It changes our ability to look at the world because it shifts our empathy and understanding in one direction or another. A poem is a machine made of words for changing people into better people. If you are Catholic, it may seem difficult to answer what the Mass means. The Mass doesn't really MEAN something so much as it DOES something for the communicants. (There is an interesting essay on the transformation symbolism of the Mass by C.G. Jung that's worth banging your head against, should you have the spare time and Ibuprofin.) if I understand correctly. It takes the celebrants from one place of the spirit to another and helps them more fully experience being a part of the communion of the Church. It accomplishes something literally wonder-full. Now I am not Catholic, but I've seen how the Mass affects believers. It's certainly real enough. Whether you believe in God or not, and there are many times I don't, something pretty fantastic happens for those who participate. A question about "What does it mean?" may only be meaningful to people who've missed the core of the experience. The question itself misses the point. The same with poems. What you can do with poems is essentially talk about how they go about doing that voodoo that they do so well. You can give the specifics for the prescription for the lens that the poem uses to transform the vision of the reader or listener, to enable that person ever afterward to experience the world in some essential way transformed, different, changed from the way they were before they met this goofy looking poem drinking coffee in a diner one day. Or taking a snooze between covers in a bookstore. Or wherever. You can talk about use of metaphor, meter or breath units, use of sense impression, abstraction, quality of verbs, length of lines and sentences and get some feeling for how the transformation from one state of being to another was accomplished. But if you're asking what that poem means, the truth is it may not mean anything to you. Not every poem has magic for everybody. Not every poem is any good, and even with great poems, this particular great poem may have been a failure for you. This isn't your failure, you know. You may have been off that day or the poem may have been off that day. (I think poems can have off days too; some of them are very old and forgetful, some of them are plain silly, and some of them don't care very much for us and demand that we do more work than we think we should have to. If we don't have exams about them to deal with, they can darn well wait for us to get around to them or, better yet, they can learn to treat us better. It's only polite.) Who knows what the silly things are doing when we don't keep a close watch on them, anyway. A poem's supposed to change who you are and the way you see things. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Often it helps if you read the things out loud. Asking what they mean simply means they've not done their job for you. Try reading them aloud. Do what you can to clean the window they're trying to open, but don't bang your head on it. Move on, take a deep cleansing breath and move on to something that's more fun. Come back later and play with it if you still feel drawn to it, but put it aside if you feel that sense of frustration that you don't know what it means. It's an instrument for viewing the world, not a crossword puzzle. Enjoy it. For what it's worth: HOUST ONNWE NHAVE NANPR OBLEM ENDIT Or Houston we have a problem The extra N's function as nulls or place-holders. End it. Bob K. I hate code. [This message has been edited by Bob K (05-09-2008 10:56 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Not to take this discussion into Ecclesiology or Theology, but I think you're minimizing the role of 'meaning' in the Mass, or artificially separating the meaning from the experience. Devout Catholics would tell you that both meaning and experience are essential. And "what does it mean?" is a perfectly good introductory question to such things. That's why in most religious settings, Catechism (or something like it) usually precedes rituals and deep religious experience. It is hard for me to imagine anyone even coming to Mass without some prior communication of what it means in relation to Christ and his passion. Does that mean that the experiential cannot precede communication of "meaning"? Not at all. I just don't think it is so neatly separated as that. So, back to the subject, why can't we say that both meaning and experience (or effect) are important in relation to poetry? I don't think it is accidental or incidental that Brad is perennially questioned about meaning, though his complaint of how it can lead to a narrow experience of what poetry is about, is a valid one. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, I went to mass without Catholic education. I went to Quaker Meetings without education by The Society of Friends. The Presbyterians and the Methodists were gracious to me as well. I've been to a lot of services and been pretty impressed by most of them. Some I've followed up in significantly more depth than others. I've had some substantial religious experience in some; lesser and none in others. I don't expect anybody to duplicate my experience, though they may. I don't regard my experience as prescriptive; I barely regard it as descriptive. I do think that if religious experience could be reduced to smaller and more precisely defined and commonly accepted pieces, there would be less disagreement about it. By its very nature, it is a unitary way of experiencing the world. It's like a lens. Any attempt to disassemble it further to assign meaning, simply confuses rather than clarifies. Religious experience does not mean something, it is a meaning in itself. As with poetry, you might talk about how the experience of religion goes about creating meaning in the world, how it gives the world this or that sort of transformative structure, catalyzes this or that reaction from this or that person, but the poem doesn't change. It doesn't mean; it makes other things change and mean differently around it; or, sometimes, it fails. It's not the fault of the Tao you're not a Taoist. The teachings are there. They've changed me, and though I could not tell you explicitly what they mean, I have found them useful. This is pitiful poor excuse for clarity at this point. I say tentatively at this point that revelation is what happens when the symbolism within a faith becomes available, somehow; and suddenly a person is able to use that symbolism to look at the world differently, and shazam! their world is transformed. If you can explain what the prescription is for that particular lens, the mathematics of it, that would account for the difference in vision, wouldn't it? pre- and post-revelation? But I suspect it would still leave Seoulair asking for an explanation of what all that math meant. People are dreadfully uncomfortable with the notion of symbol. People find symbols extraordinarily difficult to live with. When you talk about God, many people won't be satisfied until they can force you to lie to them and get you to give them a mug shot with height, weight, gender, age, race and fingerprints: You'd better be sure to include God's religion and country of origin while you're at it, because they will be satisfied with nothing less. Most people can't get out of bed in the morning without breaking the first commandment, simply because they can't imagine what Nels Ferre called The Living God of Nowhere And Nothing. I've just wasted a large amount of time rehashing in theological terms what I was trying to cover in terms of poetry last night. I'm sorry, Stephanos, and anyone else who's listening, for wasting your time this way. Though I do confess a ratty little piece of enjoyment. Don't tell. Thanks for putting up with me here, BobK. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, I was merely pointing out that your description of Mass was not a particularly Roman Catholic one. Of course I understand that you aren't presently concerned with the claims of Orthodoxy, and even doubt whether it matters. I still think that the Cardinal beliefs (or the realities behind those beliefs) hold a kind of primacy, when it comes to something like the Mass, or Eucharist, or Lord's Supper, etc... Religious experience is valuable, but not as self-reliant. It isn't intrinsically good or trustworthy on its own. Doctrine, meaning, significance are the illuminating guides if not the strict judges of experience. For example, a profound religious experience in a Methodist gathering would not be compatible with a conclusion that there is no God. The moment you settle there, the "religious" has parted altogether. In a similar way, if someone were to say that "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" did not mean to communicate an ethos of love as opposed to reckless hate, they would be stepping out of textual bounds in order to say so. In simplest terms, they would be wrong. Of course all poems are not so didactic, nor should they be. But sometimes we are somewhat obligated to extract a particular thought or truth, dictated by context and words. It isn't iron-clad of course. It is much more organic than chisled. But flesh has boundaries as well as stone. That's not to say there aren't poems without any "meaning" at all ... simply meant to transport and engage the nerves (so to speak). But I think it would be presumptuous to say that either tendency in the history of poetry is better. Most of the time there is a mixture. Personally, I think it is postmodern philosophy that shies away from the question of meaning, whereas the poetry of another age often took simplistic concepts like 'meaning' for granted. Neither is wrong in my opinion, only different. Consider yourself "put up with" ... at least as much as I hope to be. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Stephanos, That's what you see when you look at the world after looking at it after reading Coleridge. That and much else as well. That's not what the poem means, it's what the poem does to you. You can't see the world quite the same way again. You also see the the world as a much more driven place, a much crueler place, a much more fated place. You also see the world as a more beautiful place, with visual wonders especially presenting themselves you might never have imagined otherwise. The poem MEANS none of these things. After reading the poem, maybe after reading it aloud, your experience of the world changes afterward. You change a little bit afterward. This is the nature of symbolic experience. There is no one to one correspondence between one thing and another. This is the difference between symbolic and allegorical modes. In Bunyan, for example, there is a one to one correspondence between the characters and the various traits Bunyan discusses. Sloth, the Character, is Sloth the sin. The one stands for the other; this, however, in my view puts these sorts of allegorical inventions into the realm of sign rather than symbol. The internationally recognized and standardized design of the outline of a stylized woman in a dress painted inside a circle, by convention, actually MEANS a women's Loo. Nobody is likely to mistake it for a ski run. Possible, of course, as are carnivorous sheep, but unlikely. If, however, I were to show you a copy of "The Rime of The Ancient Mariner," and ask you what it meant, you could get two hundred years of literary critics to give you opinions and thoughts on its meaning and still find considerable room for more work and though on its meaning to be done. I'm talking about it's MEANING now, not the various other fascinating side-lights that the poem offers. You may have read already The Road to Xanadau by Livingston Lowes. Thanks for opening up this interesting piece of conversation. It really does have to do with how people look at poetry. Much of poetry is taught as though all poetry was written as allegory, and if one only had the key, one would have the answer. That was in fact the point of my little side trip into code. I guess that example didn't help out the way I'd hoped it might. Best, BobK. [This message has been edited by Bob K (05-11-2008 01:21 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob: quote: Usually Bob, when there are discussions like you and I are having, I begin to suspect that there is more agreement than disagreement ... only we can't agree that it is so. Asking whether something "changes the way you see the world", or "holds meaning", is to drift into semantics. To put it more simply, meaning is a description of the intended scope of direction for the change you are referring to. It was "meant" to change the way you see things. Of course the author of a text is not the absolute determiner of this "meaning", but is still most likely the best place to start in one's consideration. Others can still "get it wrong". To give you an example, Dostoevsky's "Notes From Underground" was intended as a powerful critique of Enlightenment Rationalism and Atheism. Later writers of course, such as Nietzsche and Sartre, saw only the demise of rationalism (ignoring Dostoevsky's piety) and therefore missed the primary meaning. It's not that one view is right and the other wrong, it is that one is more right than the other, or more complete. What was birthed was something that "meant" something radically different than the Theistic Existentialism of Dostoevsky. In a Theology book I have which discusses the philosophy of Deconstructionism, ala Jacques Derrida, I found written that two principles emerge in this philosophy: 1. Anything that is written will convey meanings which its author did not intend and could not have intended 2. The author cannot adequately put into words what he or she means in the first place (Alister McGrath) I'm not arguing whether or not, or to what degree this is true. But I do believe the discussion we're having is because of this philosophical pedigree, not because of the experience of reading poetry itself. But I will end by suggesting that while you are right that not all poetry is "allegorical", much of it is, or has a mixture of that very tendency. And if so, then it is at least proper to think that way part of the time as a reader of poetry. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, I don't think a poem is "meant" to change the way you see things. A poem is an object of obsession that is worked on for its own sake until abandoned. If it is for purely personal use and it is successful, it may do what needs to be done only for the author. "What needs to be done" in this case is to serve as what psychoanalyst D. W. Winnicott in another context called a transitional object or transitional phenomenon. It helps soothe a frightened child like a teddy bear (that would be the 'transitional object' part) or a lullabye (which would be the "transitional phenomenon" part). If the poem can't be understood by anybody else, but it's good enough to soothe the writer, its job is done and everything is fine. Its meaning is in the soothing, and it holds that for one person only, who doesn't know how to or doesn't care to or isn't obsessed enough to take the poem further. That's one heck of a terrific poem if a poem can do that. Most folks will never see any poem of that sort unless it belongs to a son or a daughter or a very very close friend. Its purpose has already been fulfilled, and sharing it is pointless. It is made by groping around with the primitive magic a child has among sounds and rhythms and pictures and making something pleasing, something soothing out of those things that provides direct relief from distress. It's pretty tailored to a single physiology. Actual poems that mean something to other people have to be able to speak the primitive language that everybody in that language group speaks. You skip over a stage, because while a very young child can sooth itself with proto poems of chanted sounds and rhythms, once you get language, it's almost always one language at a time. You will sometimes get three and four year olds singing or talking what's called plain-chant, listing the things they're going to do to the monsters under the bed or what they have to do during the day. These still have the function of relief of anxiety and fear with transitional objects or phenomena. The exact meaning doesn't have to be known for the soothing to take place. Frank McCourt, for example, the author, talks about learning the prayer "Hail Mary" as a child and only later realizing that there was no monk swimming through the prayer, but instead the phrase, "amongst women." It made more sense, he felt foolish, but the soothing of all those prior repetitions of the prayer had still been there, as much as possible for a young boy. Still later, if you still find yourself writing, something happens to what it takes for you to feel the poem is complete. I myself have never worked to put meaning into a poem, I've only worked on the poem itself, the language, the sounds, the sense, the swing, the feel, the smell, the pictures, the movie of it, and I depend on my sense of closure to tell me when it's done. (I'm sure there are others out there who write other ways, but I don't know how to go about it.) If in fact you're paying attention to those details, then who you are, your personal demons and obsessions, the very forces that shape you as a person psychologically, emotionally, archetypally and spiritually are coming to bear on that same piece of work and are being integrated into it. You can't help it. What you are, what you are reaching for and what you hope to become are there as well. When the poem is finished, there the whole thing stands. It doesn't mean anything, Stephanos, it is something. If it's a good poem, then every time somebody goes back to it they will see somebody coming to terms with the unbearable edge of experience, sad, ecstatic, clear, whatever it may be at that particular moment, and soothing themselves through it. A poet may do this in all sorts of ways. You have to write the poem yourself to discover what that way is this time. Even if you've read it before, if a poem is a good one, you'll feel the top of your head come loose because once again you've arrived at an unexpected place and once again you don't know quite how you've gotten here. That's when you'll feel most tempted to ask, "What does this poem mean?" The poem is a "symbol." If a symbol could be paraphrased, it wouldn't be a symbol, it would be, instead, a "sign." You can translate signs, like code, into something else that means the same thing. A Cross or a Mogen David is a symbol. If I asked you what either one meant you would probably say it's a symbol for Christianity or it's a symbol for Judaism. You could still spend close to forever trying to explain the Cross as a symbol and what that symbol meant. The more you explained, there more there would be to explain. The same with the Star of David. The more you know, the more there is to say, the more connections there are to make. I once knew a guy with a horror of discussion of symbolic material. I sympathized. The guy called those discussions "everything is everything" discussions. As for the poet, the poet's far better off writing the next poem than trying to tell people what to think about the last one, especially about what it means. You might have gotten the 16th century writers of Allegory to do otherwise, or Dante, all wonderful poets. Every time I try to read them, however, I find them not to my personal taste and my eyebrows fall off. A reader ought to be able to follow what's happening in a poem. A poem, as Ezra Pound said, should be at least as well written as prose. ( I only wish Pound had been able let folks be clear about what was happening, but that's my value and not his.) A poem ought to be a pleasure to hear, with wonderful sounds and effects that don't distract from the sense of the thing, and the overall effect should be clear and definite. The poem ought to yield the same surprise and pleasure with each reading and reveal more of itself with time. The poem should give the same sense of comfort as a treasured friend. The overall effect of this should yield a sense of the symbolic value of the poem, how the fit of these elements changes the reader's experience of the world. Any attempt to pick one element or another of the symbolic structure of the poem to designate as "the meaning" produces a sense of the reduction of the sense of the wholeness of the poem. It is a reductio ad absurdum that in effect damages rather than enhances the overall understanding of the poem, which is best sensed as a whole. I don't know if I'm rising to the challenge of clarity here or not. I love your use of theology as lit crit. I've tried to keep the discussion rolling as best I could here. You do have a lively way of thinking about things. I wonder how Brad's taking all this, and the rest of the folks. I hope we're not skewing the discussion too far away from their interests. Best to you, your wife and kids, BobK |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: But this would be true only when it is true. Not all poetry is written "only for the author". Poetry is, in many instances, consciously more than a form of self psycho-therapy ... It is that sometimes, of course. Or perhaps it is all of the time. But it isn't only that all of the time. It seems that you are interpreting the whole of poetry from a psychoanalytic perspective, a very recent movement. But there is much more to it ... and many other motivations for writing involved. And as to your discussion of symbol, the inherent value of a symbol (as separate from that which is symbolized) is only part of the story. It is still always representative of something else; and if not a highly specific "something", at least something which is identifiable. My whole point is that the question of meaning is not everything in poetry, but it is still a valid one ... only stigmatized perhaps by its overuse, or by the influence of fairly recent linguistic philosophies. quote: No, you're right. I'm not saying that anyone always has to "work" on conveying meaning. Though sometimes they may consciously do so. Much of this is automatic in writing. But this isn't so surprising, since we are personal linguistic beings, creations of the "Logos", always ascribing meanings small and great. Bob, I have enjoyed this discussion. And yet I still think we agree more than we know. Regardless, I believe this is a good excercise to try and express our thoughts on the matter. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, Wonderful note. Thanks. In one sense at least every poem [/i]is and cannot help but be written solely for the author. And that sense is that the poem must satisfy that author's sense of well-formedness as a poem before it goes anyplace for anybody other than that author to see it. It is not [i]a poem without that imprimatur. Much of the time it may be given with reservations, but without it, the poem never leaves the desk other than to take the trip to the wastebasket. In Emily Dickinson's case, they may not have left her desk, but they clearly had her imprimatur. She bound each of them by hand. As for psychoanalysis, I use the language of psychoanalysis because psychoanalysis has language specifically designed to talk about this sort of experience. Winnicott was a pediatrician before he was a psychoanalyst, and he preferred worked with children through most of his career. You don't have to use his vocabulary, however, if it offends you, since once the basic ideas about soothing have been stated they seem clear enough and they don't require you to sign on to any of the Freudian theories that folks these days find upsetting. They're actually pretty practical. I sometimes find myself humming a familiar tune when I'm on an airplane take-off or landing, or while I'm getting an uncomfortable injection at the dentist. The stress there is greater than the kind that kick-starts the process in many of us poets. Poetry is not only that. I agree. A symbol, however, is not the thing symbolized; it is something of a different order. As they say in General Semantics, "The map is not the territory." (I would go further and say that the symbol is not even a map, though that would have to be a different thread.) Sometimes people fight when they forget that distinction. Mostly I've been talking to Brad's comments about being asked what a poem means, and the impossibility of answering that in a meaningful way, and how that comes down to the nature of symbol. The other leg of that question is how does a poet make a poem so clear and concrete and realized and filled with sights and sounds that it doesn't seem abstract enough to even have any relationship to a symbol at all, and that the question of what does this poem mean feels as out of place as it does in some of Kipling's verse, or in Houseman's verse. In Kenneth Koch's wonderful long poem, "The Art of Poetry," he remains absolutely clear at least to me about the process of writing while being wildly funny. At the end of the poem, I have a tough time imagining somebody asking, "What does it mean?" So, we need to ask ourselves, what are we doing that so puzzles people. As in, "What the heck do you mean, what does it mean? Exactly what do you find so confusing?" I have deleted my own expletives. Sincerely yours, Bob K. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hey guys, I'm reading. Just wanted to let you know that. I don't have time to respond to any of it right now, but it's interesting. To be honest, I wasn't really thinking theoretically (at least not consciously). I was thinking more along the lines that while it's always okay to ask questions, it's also okay for the author to avoid answering. Later, I began to think more about the whole problem of answering as such. I think the allegoric/symbolic is a problem, but my guess is also the show/tell distinction. People tend to see poetry, today, as purely lyrical, emotional, etc. and if that's not clear, they tend to want to see it as allegorical for that (Maybe. I don't know.). Somewhere the whole idea of a dramatic monologue where the scene is not overtly explained is/has been lost. I'm not sure. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Brad, of course it is. And if you die (as most poets have), you positively can't answer. Of course then, we'll get to rummage through all of your belongings, talk to all the people who knew you personally, and analyze your entire corpus of writing (including posthumous) for a better understanding of what you really meant when you wrote that roses are red. Stephen |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Sometimes there are no questions, just an awe or a feeling of possession, as with an old leather-bound book of poetry found amongst a pile of moth dusty belongings in an attic. The author is unfamiliar. The pages are yellowed and so frail they fear the fingers to touch, but every nerve ending still feels and knows: Poetry. Meaning is as different from one to another as it is for the value of the book; Tossed out as garbage, lost until it becomes an organic measure of nothingness, or treasured on a table. I think it's very appropriate to ask questions, but it's probably a great indication that the inquirer has a personal placement value with the piece in question. Toss it, lost, or treasured? If the poet answers the question properly the reader may well place the poem in esteem. They may come to an "Ah ha" conclusion or they may simply be wasting the writer's time without any noble intentions. They might just be trying to get your phone number! Lmao. As for effect, some need props, a stage-band, and explanations. Others simply see the world as an audience, dance without any music, and are acquiesced by the scent of leathered words and antiquated ink. My appreciations aren't always appreciated by the hierarchy of poetical authority and that's quite alright because there really isn't one. Dr. Seuss demoted them. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
