Some Good Advice

[vagantes]

"How sad you are", he wrote,
Addressing Rahel Levin Varhagen,
"Be cheerful, no need to feel so sad".
Less than a month later,
In October 1811 by the Wannsee,
The writer of this letter,
Heinrich von Kleist shot himself.

[hallaig]

Historical snippet, not in any sense a poem. Thought the real drama would have been the suicide pact with Henriette Vogel.

[vagantes]

I wonder how many times do I have to define "a poem" or, perhaps, what a poem is not.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I wonder how many times do I have to define "a poem" or, perhaps, what a poem is not.

Such as the above not being a poem?

[vagantes]

A poem is not a form of words arranged in a particular way; nor does it employ types of words which are heightened or inflated or not in common use. Nor should we seek to restrict poetry to language which contains imagery or which has a rhythm.

If we say some writing is poetry because of technical reasons we are displaying an ignorance of cause and effect in poetry.

Like all good writing poetry communicates. It provides an experience, which needs to be evaluated when we read.

To me a poem provides an insight at some particular moment, which resonates far beyond the moment>

[MorpheusSandman]

Well, this is a poem in the sense that it has line breaks intentionally chosen by the author, but I know what hallaig is saying in that I'm not sure what else makes it poetic, per say. EG, I'm not sure what these line breaks add that would be absent if you wrote it out in prose. One minor suggestion would be to move "Heinrich von Kleist" to the end of the penultimate line and leave "shot himself" for the last line. That will put emphasis on the verb "shot" by being the first word in the line, and also by paring the last line down to only two words. It will also make a nice parallel to L2, which also opens with a verbal participle.


If we say some writing is poetry because of technical reasons we are displaying an ignorance of cause and effect in poetry.

Like all good writing poetry communicates. It provides an experience, which needs to be evaluated when we read.

To me a poem provides an insight at some particular moment, which resonates far beyond the moment>The problem is that if we don't define poetry in technical terms then we have no basis for separating it from any other kind of writing, because your second and third paragraphs here would apply to all kinds of writing that we would not declare poetry.

[vagantes]

So, poetry can only be something cast in a particular mode or method?

Why should this be? Why seek to limit technically?

I appreciate that creative writing is highly fashionable and that it is considered a good thing to learn how to produce different verse forms.

And what a lot of dullard numbskulls that has produced.

A poem is a moment of insight suddenly glimpsed. It is, almost by definition, fragmentary: like a shaft of sunlight in the middle of a cloudy day.

Or as something more solid and substantial such as the National Health Service in the UK, which is a great piece of poetry both in conception and in its working out. For American readers - perhaps the Gettysburg Address.

One of my favourite human beings was the poet A E Housman. Here are two poems about him:

1. He failed his exams at University, but became a celebrated and much respected Latin Professor devoting his life to a 5 Volume edition of Manlius- perhaps the most boring poet who ever lived.

2. Housman was diagnosed late in life with a heart condition. His rooms at Cambridge were on an upper floor and he would run upstairs hoping to induce a heart attack. I believe he died peacefully in bed.

Why are these poems?

Because they are startling in their insights into a mind of an extremely complex human being. And they are startling into their insights into life and the way we should live it.

And if you cannot grasp what I am banging on about then poetry has passed you by.

Study Mathematics as the lady once said to Rousseau.

[MorpheusSandman]

There's a lot of people of the romantic, muddled brain type that revel in the ambiguity of definitions especially when it comes to things they're passionate about like poetry. To them, to lock something as divine as poetry down to a cold and clinical "definition" is as welcomed as death. You can call those two statements about AE Houseman poetry all you want, but you can not change reality by changing definitions. Those two statements are not anything close to any works that are traditionally called "poetry," and if you showed them to random people, nobody (including poets) would label them as poetry. If you want to do so, then be my guest, but you seem to be living in a world where you get to define words any way you want without having to synchronize your definitions with other minds. The great irony is that all poetry would lose all ability to communicate if nobody agreed what the words meant, yet when it comes to poetry itself there are people that think poetry loses all meaning unless it can mean anything and everything. You'll pardon me if I don't find it useful to embrace a definition of poetry that allows anything written in the history of mankind to be poetry regardless of its technical features, intentions, what it provokes in others, etc.

Poetry is a moment of insight suddenly glimpsed? Well, the Einstein is the best poet that ever lived. Milton is one of the worst. I'm glad we cleared that up. And you'll pardon me if I don't find this piece poetry even by your own definition.

[vagantes]

You seem to be agreeing with me.

Glad I have convinced you.

[MorpheusSandman]

Considering you seem to think you can define words any way you want without the agreement of others, I guess you can glean from my last post that I'm agreeing with you. I think most wouldn't see it that way.

[vagantes]

Well you have chosen to describe Einstein as a great poet.

That means you have started to think and read imaginatively.

No writer could ask for more from their audience.

[MorpheusSandman]

Well you have chosen to describe Einstein as a great poet. That means you have started to think and read imaginatively. I read most imaginatively when I was 2 and couldn't read at all. That seems to be what you want to reduce your audience to: 2-year-olds.

[qimissung]

REMINDER


if you feel you are unable to show respect towards those who do not share your thoughts and beliefs.

Posts containing personal and/or inflammatory comments will be removed without further warning.

[MorpheusSandman]

qimi, you should really be posting that here (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68890) where vagantes has taken to attacking me directly. This thread is mild by comparison.

[miyako73]

This is a poem to me. The one bellow is a poem too.

Best Brownies

Preheat oven
to 350 degrees.
Grease and flour
a square mould.
In a large pan,
melt butter.
Remove from heat,
and stir in sugar,
eggs, and vanilla.
Beat in cocoa,
sifted flour, salt
and baking powder.
Spread batter
into the mould.
Bake until golden.
Do not overcook.

It is so because of how I internalize the text I read and how I create my own meanings in my reading.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

A poem is not a form of words arranged in a particular way; nor does it employ types of words which are heightened or inflated or not in common use. Nor should we seek to restrict poetry to language which contains imagery or which has a rhythm.

If we say some writing is poetry because of technical reasons we are displaying an ignorance of cause and effect in poetry.

Like all good writing poetry communicates. It provides an experience, which needs to be evaluated when we read.

To me a poem provides an insight at some particular moment, which resonates far beyond the moment>
Well, this poem did none of this.

I don't go along with the "anything can be poetry" mindset. Just because you take a simple sentence and throw in some line breaks, that doesn't make it a poem.

[cogs]

two enlightening ideas from both debaters on both threads:
morpheussandman: "You can intend whatever you want, but just because you have intended it does not mean that's actually what you've communicated."
vagantes: "Like all good writing poetry communicates. It provides an experience, which needs to be evaluated when we read. To me a poem provides an insight at some particular moment, which resonates far beyond the moment"

concerning "some good advice", i personally saw an ironic image that drew my interest to the last line. the title added a sardonic twist, which was satisfying.

i understand, after training oneself technically to create an image through poetry, how the definition of that creation gets conservatively narrow. i also believe in a wider, liberal acceptance of created images that relay a thought just as effectively, as that ensconced in precise form. the semantic division may be one of mechanism, rather than content. wouldn't you say that sometimes poetry walks a thin line above prose?

[Delta40]

I believe the poet has to accept that once a poem is published it is in the hands of the reader to interpret it at their own unique level. The poet has no control over this. They cannot factor another's personal views, experience, expectations and understanding of the world in which they live. For a poet to expect its audience to grasp the exact meaning, the exact spirit in which they themself wrote it is completely unreasonable and smacks of a need to control. The aim of a poet can only be to communicate, convey, stimulate the senses, create imagery which the reader then interprets to their own satisfaction - not the poets. To suggest that a poem has been misread is a denial of diversity. My poems are often misread yet at the same time another level is uncovered that I myself had not even noticed and it always gives me pleasure when a reader reveals a fresh angle on my work.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I believe the poet has to accept that once a poem is published it is in the hands of the reader to interpret it at their own unique level. The poet has no control over this. They cannot factor another's personal views, experience, expectations and understanding of the world in which they live. For a poet to expect its audience to grasp the exact meaning, the exact spirit in which they themself wrote it is completely unreasonable and smacks of a need to control. The aim of a poet can only be to communicate, convey, stimulate the senses, create imagery which the reader then interprets to their own satisfaction - not the poets. To suggest that a poem has been misread is a denial of diversity. My poems are often misread yet at the same time another level is uncovered that I myself had not even noticed and it always gives me pleasure when a reader reveals a fresh angle on my work.

Bravo! And that "fresh angle" might be the result that the subconscious plays in the composition of any poem. Indeed the images one chooses might be because of their association with some hidden preoccupation.

[vagantes]

We keep coming back to this like a dog returning to vomit.

The French scholar Michel De Certeau had a view of writing that was fixed and permanent, whereas reading is a more vagrant occupation:

Whether it is question of newspapers or Proust, the text has meaning only through its readers; it changes along with them; it is ordered in codes of perception that it does not control.

Reading adds complexity and variability by discovering nuances of meaning. Texts are open providing unlimited means of exchange between reader and writer.

However, if the two activities of reading and writing are to be of value there has to be a point where "the differing codes of perception" come together out of the way reader and writer approach the text. This expands meaning rather than seeking its delimitation. Far too often, on here, readers seek to reduce. A well-equipped reader tries to determine the writer's purpose from this meeting point.

All reader have a responsibility to respect the writer's intent whenever the reader confronts the text even if it is found there are in the text different layers of meaning from those placed by the writer.

[Delta40]

Give an example where readers on Lit-Net seek to reduce.

Give an example were a poet seeks to expand.

Define a well equipped reader.

Define a well equipped poet.

Outline what a readers responsibility entails

Outline what a poets responsibility entails.

I simply want to understand to expand on my learning. As a footnote, I'm a writer and all readers of this post have a responsbility to respect my intent whenever the reader confronts the text even if its found there are in the text different layers of meaning from those placed by the writer.

[Buh4Bee]

I believe the poet has to accept that once a poem is published it is in the hands of the reader to interpret it at their own unique level. The poet has no control over this. They cannot factor another's personal views, experience, expectations and understanding of the world in which they live. For a poet to expect its audience to grasp the exact meaning, the exact spirit in which they themself wrote it is completely unreasonable and smacks of a need to control. The aim of a poet can only be to communicate, convey, stimulate the senses, create imagery which the reader then interprets to their own satisfaction - not the poets. To suggest that a poem has been misread is a denial of diversity. My poems are often misread yet at the same time another level is uncovered that I myself had not even noticed and it always gives me pleasure when a reader reveals a fresh angle on my work.

I second this, Delta. It just makes so much sense what you say.

[MorpheusSandman]

The entire topic of the responsibility of audiences to artists is a large and complex one that has attempted to be answered in a variety of ways. Most early poetry was very concerned about communicating very exact meanings and they developed systems of culturally understood codes that seem to translate to the same thing, but as with much art it didn't take long before various artists were subverting this and creating ambiguity. One really finds that exploding in the time of Shakespeare, Milton, and Donne.

As times changed, critics and audiences (and maybe even artists, to an extent) began to abhor the notion of locking down texts to one meaning, as if art was merely a crossword puzzle to be solved. They discovered that great art is that which invited multiple interpretations from multiple viewpoints. The New Criticisms revolution of the early 20th Century with critics like Richards, Empson, Wimstatt/Beardsley, Brooks, Eliot, et al, sought to shift the focus from understanding texts through history and biography to understanding it through technique. In many ways, their concepts of close reading are still the strongest critical paradigm going, because it puts emphasis on what was said and how it was said rather than what was intended to be said or what what intended to be said would be understood in its particular time in culture. But eliminating biography and history/culture completely can be difficult because every culture builds up its own lexicon of meanings and symbols, and every individual (especially artist) develops their system within that milieu, usually in response to it.

I tend to find any absolute attitudes on how poetry should be read and understood limiting to some respect. The postructuralists like Barthes and Eco liked to show how if you completely eliminated the author that a text could shown to frustrate any interpretation by offering evidence by which to interpret it in an opposing manner. To them, texts didn't mean because they could never just mean one thing without also meaning its opposite to a certain extent. And, as ridiculous as it sounds, there is some merit to their claims (perhaps most famously displayed in Barthes' extended reading of Sarrasine by Balzac in a book called S/Z).

My own way of thinking is that the best art simply provokes people to interpret it however they want. If art is to last it can't afford to be locked down to one (or a few) meanings by its author, its historical context, or even the text itself. Our views on Shakespeare has changed as our society has changed, and is it wrong to say Hamlet can't be Freudian because Shakespeare wrote before Freud? The fact is that Shakespeare intuited so much about life and put so much of that into his work that he was tapping into things we didn't even have theories and ideas about yet. But if we were limited to reading his work in the context of 16th/17th Century aesthetic and philosophical theories then we'd be limiting his genius indeed.

I'm often immune to the poles that an audience has NO responsibility to an artist or an audience has ALL the responsibility towards an artist. If art is communication, and communication is a two-way street, then it seems to me there's responsibility on both sides, at least if you want anyone to care. Perhaps an audience misreads because they're only reading based on their personal reactions; well, then if they're that far off-base they probably won't influence others. Perhaps an artist just doesn't communicate something well and provokes all kinds of varying thoughts; well, then, maybe all the better because it will keep people talking about it.

But the absolute worst thing that can happen in that audience/artist dynamic is for the artist to scold and belittle and flame his audience, especially as long as they're not being nasty themselves. Engendering hostility is a sure-fire way to make nobody care enough to hold up their end of any responsibility they may have towards the artist to begin with.

[vagantes]

A reductionist reader is one who looks for a story in a literary work. Think of a journalist - forever providing a summary through paraphrasing . Such readers attempt to encapsulate what they read. Texts are closed down.

All literature seeks to expand.

So there is a conflict between a reductionist reader and the text. One closes down, the other opens.

A well-equipped reader respects the textual intent provided by the writer. He or she evades stock responses and critical preconceptions

[Delta40]

And the other three points?

[vagantes]

The other three points you can deduce from my answer.

Your question are themselves reductionist.

All readers rewrite what they read. But, what you read comes from the writer. Do not burden the text with your baggage or what you believe to be the baggage of the writer.

[MorpheusSandman]

Reductionism in science is about reducing every thing to its smallest element and understanding how those things come together to create the whole of what we observe. I don't like the term applied to critics who only looks for stories in texts, and I don't see anyone around here doing that anyway. If all a reader cares about is authorial intent then they've closed down the meaning as much as the person who only cares about story. Your theory contradicts itself.

[vagantes]

My theory is open, which means it cannot contradict itself.

Lawd help us.

Reductive is an adjective used to describe how a text is interpreted in a way which reduces and limits its meaning, rather than exploring and revealing every possible nuance. It diminishes and narrows the significance of the text.

[MorpheusSandman]

My theory is open, which means it cannot contradict itself. If your theory is texts should be open, but that they should also be reduced to authorial intent, then that is, indeed, a contradiction.


Reductive is an adjectiveExcept you said "reductionist," which just as equally applies to people who abide by the philosophic theory of Reductionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism). I would call Vendler a reductionist critic because she takes texts and analyzes them from the smallest parts on up. So I'm just saying be careful about tossing out the term "reductionist" out there because while it can mean simply "one who reduces" it can also mean "one who agrees with the philosophy of reductionism," and one is a negative and the other is a positive (in my view).

[vagantes]

For clarity: the adjective reductive is a critical term used for particular types of literary critics. I call that activity reductionist.

I would have thought it perfectly clear what was being discussed. - both from context and content.

Those reading skills need some attention, if you don't mind me saying so.

[MorpheusSandman]

See, there you go playing dictator of meanings again, thinking that everyone is obligated to only understand words in the way you understand them. Can I ask: exactly how long have you been God?

[vagantes]

My poem is,of course, a perfect example of non reductive thinking.

[Delta40]

The other three points you can deduce from my answer.

Your question are themselves reductionist.

All readers rewrite what they read. But, what you read comes from the writer. Do not burden the text with your baggage or what you believe to be the baggage of the writer.

So essentially you've reduced my willingness to expand on my own personal learning by
a) asking you to be more specific
b) go into more detail about statements you made without any detail,

You've reduced my enquiring mind to nothing more than baggage.

I do however appreciate your assumptions about my abilities to make deductions from your uninformative replies.

On this basis, I would conclude that it is important to you as a self-proclaimed artist to maintain that belief at all costs, place all responsibility entirely on the reader in regard to your 'work' with the expectation that at some point they must have the same meeting of the mind with you and to not lose sight of the fact that at all times you be given respect, yet feel you are somehow entitled to insult and ridicule those who threaten that which you so desperately need to hold onto.

Having said this, I have no intention of engaging in further discussion with you on any matter. That is my intent btw - as the reader can your mind meet with mine on this, not misread it and respect it at all times?

I truly wish you well in your pursuits.

Delta40

[vagantes]

My comments about reading and writing were an attempt to understand the complexities of the two activities, which I would have thought was of interest to everyone on this forum.

It therefore saddens me that your version is to reduce everything to the level of conflict between personalities which I would have thought belonged to those forums that draw their inspiration from the school playground.

[MorpheusSandman]

Ahem. (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68921)

[Logos]

To ALL and ANY concerned..

Learn to ignore people you're irritated by.

Continuing dramatics, bickering, and arguments throughout the fora will get you a TIME OUT.

--