What They Give or What You Get?

I think we've covered just about all we can on this, I have to add that if a poet had done his job, and anyone came up with a meaning, totally out of line with the poet's original intent, I would highly suspect that they were bringing outside influences into their interpretation rather than simply misreading any secondary meaning that may have been implied

In my example, I intended NO religious meaning, and don't believe that I, in any way implied one. Those who saw the Poem as a flawed "Religious" statement were bringing their own preconceptions and beliefs to what they read. and were, therefore, dead wrong, in their interpretation.

In any case, I've enjoyed this dialog and hope others have gained from it.

JRH

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone on this thread...so much to think about and some of you really went deep and its much appreciated good reading!

Trish -

William Haskins said:

i appreciate everyone's input, and hope we didn't run too many people out of the forum with this discussion.

Click to expand...

I think it draws people to the forum.
Now, my poetry on the other hand, might run them out holding their noses!

I was thinking about intent being sacrosanct..........and I thought of an instance where an artifact of a lost culture had been excavated. Originally, the artifact had been a primitive urn used for religious purposes. As an artifact representing a primitive culture, the object becomes a work of art. The artifact is sold in a shop to a tourist. The tourist takes the object home and proudly puts it in a prominent place with artificial flowers in it.

1) the object is, in fact, a sacred vessel and the paintings on it do represent the high art of that culture that serves on many levels the artist and the responding culture.

2) the object goes through a transformation of value, becoming just an interesting object.

3) the object, for it's artistic appeal, is appreciated as common household decor and the owner derives much satisfaction from it's perceived artistic statement as a flower holder, which profanes the original intent.

My point: If the human body was, in fact, created and is the createst work of art to date, it has been tortuously misconstrued from the original intent of the artist.

All works, inevitably, are misconstrued, misalligned, and are trash on some level, as well as beautiful, received, intriguing and has some merit of worth, albeit, sometimes, miniscual.

I know this isn't "the" perspective to have, but this is said from someone who loves the smell of manure in a barn.

I think a problem does occur when upon "experiencing" art, regardless of medium/form, that the result is harm. Usually, the observer has the opportunity to exercise free will and opts not to read/buy/observe the offending art. I have a serious problem with beautifully, perfect written poetry that lauds the experience of child molestation as I have two daughters that were sexually molested.

Again, the standard for any and all art, regardless if from perspective of artist or observer, is: beauty/eye/beholder.

Addendum: I heard a story of some famous artist who was acclaimed. Later it was discovered that all the beautiful/macabre paintings of women that he did were corpses of prostitutes that he brutally killed and then posed as he wished for painting. How would his extremely beautiful expressions be interpreted?

I don't think it is possible for a reader to completely get any poem (especially one that is complex in tone, message and imagery). A poem should have layers or at least add a complexity to the subject that isn't normally seen.

Having said that, I expect people to misread poems, stories, movies, songs, etc.

Is that okay? It is within reason. Take for example, the songs of the Beatles and Charles Manson. In a phrase: "not an okay misreading of the artists intent"

Take for example Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies. In a phrase: "Okay, not a bad reading."

I have a friend that wants to direct a production of Othello, casting Iago as a man displaced in the affections of his friend, and who can't accept that his love and jealousy of the his friend is based on a desire to be his lover. This is a pretty radical reading of the source, but is supportable without going through tremendous gymnastics and contortions. I also think it could be a really powerful production.

"Zoo Story" by Edward Albee is about a middle aged man stuck in a routine and a chaotic, disturbed young man who confronts him and eventually forces him into being party to the young man's own suicide. (Trust me, it is better than it sounds). The Middle Aged man is Peter, the young man is Jerry. I once did a production and cast Jerry as Geri. By making the younger character female, it REALLY affected the perception of the play and gave it overtones Albee NEVER intended.

Poetry is like drama -- it ultimately is a collaboration between the poet and the reader. It is more direct than Theatre, but the same rules of interpretation hold true. Those are two excellent examples above. One bad example, in the 70's there was a professional production of "Titus Andronicus" in which the director tried to cash in on the whole "Star Wars" thing by setting it in a SciFi environment. BAD BAD BAD reading.

Interpretation is part of the art of poetry. Our intention as poets may be solitary, but for our art to go out, it must play with others.

ddgryphon said:

A poem should have layers or at least add a complexity to the subject that isn't normally seen.

Click to expand...

All poems? Every single one? Is this a critical criterion you would use to judge poems as good ones?

NeuroFizz said:

All poems? Every single one? Is this a critical criterion you would use to judge poems as good ones?

Click to expand...

I would use it to move a poem above the level of a diversion. As I said, I think of poetry as serious work, not mere diversion. This is what elevates something from "Oh, that's nice" to "Wow" and it is what I strive for in writing (not just poetry, but prose, plays and music).

Any composer worth his salt can come up with an attractive melody. It takes genius to forge a great work out of something as simple, yet as complex as the motif for Beethoven's fifth symphony mvt. 1.

NeuroFizz said:

All poems? Every single one? Is this a critical criterion you would use to judge poems as good ones?

Click to expand...

Regarding complexity:
if it is, then I suck at poetry. Normally it simplifies, boils down, and gets to the quick for me, rather than adding any sort of complexity. I don't want anyone to walk away from something I wrote utterly confused, I want them to understand the parallels I have put in place. they can agree disagree, like, dislike, but I want them to at least understand it.

I'm just trying to sort all this out. Can a poem be a moving experience and simple at the same time--no layers, no complexity, just beautiful in its simplicity of thought or emotion? Can't a pure melody carry a person away?

NeuroFizz said:

I'm just trying to sort all this out. Can a poem be a moving experience and simple at the same time--no layers, no complexity, just beautiful in its simplicity of thought or emotion? Can't a pure melody carry a person away?

Click to expand...

I hope so!!!!!

Actually, a poem can just be. As anything can just be. How something that is just being is interacted with, is really what the discussion is about.

NeuroFizz said:

I'm just trying to sort all this out. Can a poem be a moving experience and simple at the same time--no layers, no complexity, just beautiful in its simplicity of thought or emotion? Can't a pure melody carry a person away?

Click to expand...

If it can't, I'm angry. The height of poetic talent for me is rich, clever use of language that (to paraphrase what I said in a thread a while back) blankets the topic, defining it almost in terms of negative space. So, the meaning that the words cover is the thing to be seen, what the author intended to show you.

I have a difficult time believing that any piece can intentionally have that many layers. If it's a more a 'mood' piece, then the blanket of words may be wooly and and thick, presenting a more indistinct shape. But deliberately obscure poetry, I find irritating and inadvertant complexity, at its worst, can seem schizophrenic.

NeuroFizz said:

I'm just trying to sort all this out. Can a poem be a moving experience and simple at the same time--no layers, no complexity, just beautiful in its simplicity of thought or emotion? Can't a pure melody carry a person away?

Click to expand...

Yes, it can. Is it nice? yes. Is it good? Yes. Do people derive enjoyment from it? Yes. Is it of great importance? Maybe? You can never be sure.

WCW (William Carlos Williams) is for me one of the most boring reads in the world -- but many people enjoy him. Do I think they're crazy for that or stupid or foolish? No. I think they like and receive something from WCW that I apparently don't. I'm okay with that. But I'm not okay with talking about what a great poet he is. He may be. Just not for me.

In the end, my opinion is just that, and not any more valuable in judging what is great or what isn't. Posterity judges, groups pass judgement not individuals or pocketbooks. I can write my behind off, and if three people on or off this board think I'm valuable or get something out of my work, that's great. I'm not obsessed with being remembered as a great poet, but I don't care about my work any less for it. I respect anyone's desire to write poetry to reach out or create. I have my criteria for what I think makes something more than a diversion. I have things I love that I don't think are great or important. In fact, I worry if you only love that which you consider great or important. If you do that, you are missing so many of the joys life has to offer.

To carry my music analogy on a bit: JS Bach's the "little" fugue in G minor is one of the most perfect pieces of music ever written (IMHO, of course). It has a wonderful melody, soaring, carry-you-away moments, and is complex (well, it is a fugue). It is, in my mind, an ideal, and as such deserves attention. I feel that way about much of Ann Sexton's "Tranformations" series of poems. I think everyone should read them. Do I expect everyone to read them? No. Some people feel the same way about Anne Sexton as I do about WCW. Different Strokes and all of that.

In musical theatre, there's Andrew Lloyd Webber and Stephen Sondheim. In my opinion, I'd rather sit through something like Assassins (which again, in my opinion) is brilliant, complex and engaging over and over than have to sit through Starlight Express ever again. (YMMV)

I don't so much worry about what people get as what I intend. People say things all the time that get misconstrued. Sometimes it's disasterous, sometimes, not so much. I'm resigned to die unheralded as a poet -- though I work hard at it, I have no overt expectation of greatness, rather, I'm trying. People will make of my work what they make of my work. I will, in the meantime, make every effort to conform to the standards that I feel are needed for my poetry to have value. There is an old saying, usually uttered in a sarcastic tone: "It takes all kinds." Oddly enough, it does take all kinds, and we are all the richer for it. No sarcasim intended.

kdnxdr said:

Actually, a poem can just be. As anything can just be. How something that is just being is interacted with, is really what the discussion is about.

Click to expand...

It most certainly can, (as Archibald Macleish proved so well in "Ars Poetica"

I'm not posting that poem here as it's under copyright but it can be viewed along with a brief discussion of it at: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/188.html

JRH

ddgryphon said:

I don't so much worry about what people get as what I intend. People say things all the time that get misconstrued. Sometimes it's disasterous, sometimes, not so much. I'm resigned to die unheralded as a poet -- though I work hard at it, I have no overt expectation of greatness, rather, I'm trying. People will make of my work what they make of my work. I will, in the meantime, make every effort to conform to the standards that I feel are needed for my poetry to have value. There is an old saying, usually uttered in a sarcastic tone: "It takes all kinds." Oddly enough, it does take all kinds, and we are all the richer for it. No sarcasim intended.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with this and operate under the same principle.

As for the examples you used of "near perfect" works, I would add "Tiny Alice" by Edward Albee, (Drama), "Stranger In a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein, (SF Novel), "Vincent" by Don McLean and "Piano Man" by Billy Joel, (music) "You, Andrew Marvel" and "Ars Poetica" by Archibald Macleish, "The Lovesong of J.Alfred Prufrock" by T.S. Eliot and any of Yeat's major poems, but ""Second Coming" in Particular,(Poetry). as well as many more examples that could be used, (far too numerous to mention)

To answer a couple questions raised by others in this thread, If one is pointing to parallels in one's work, it is complex, no matter how simple it's original purpose. and to the person who doubted poems can have that many "levels of meaning" I refer them to the Poems I referenced above.

May we all continue to "enrich" each other.

JRH

I know I'm going to regret this, but what are the esoteric layers of meaning in Piano Man?

Great. Now it's stuck in my head.

Hi Perks,

No particularly esoteric meanings in "Piano Man', (other than providing a interesting look at many aspects of society). Alll the works I mentioned there were meant only as examples of "extremely" well crafted works.

JRH

Perks said:

I know I'm going to regret this, but what are the esoteric layers of meaning in Piano Man?

Great. Now it's stuck in my head.

Click to expand...

While the Piano Man brings relief to the incomplete and lost people sharing the drink they call lonliness , he is just as lonely and incomplete as they are.

The parallels are among the guests, while each story is different it is the same, and while they admire his ability to make them forget that, and look up to him as someone who has made his dreams come true, he continues to play to the lie that life is somehow better for someone somewhere. More specifically he plays to the lie that he is someone worthy of their respect and admiration.


At least, that's how I read it.

ddgryphon said:

While the Piano Man brings relief to the incomplete and lost people sharing the drink they call lonliness , he is just as lonely and incomplete as they are.

The parallels are among the guests, while each story is different it is the same, and while they admire his ability to make them forget that, and look up to him as someone who has made his dreams come true, he continues to play to the lie that life is somehow better for someone somewhere. More specifically he plays to the lie that he is someone worthy of their respect and admiration.


At least,

that's how I read it.

Click to expand...

Well said DD, I simply hadn't thought of those points as being particularly esoteric. (To me theyre obvious and straightforward, and what make the song so powerful).

JRH

Without a doubt, ddgryphon, and that's a good summation, but I'd be surprised if that escaped most listeners. I was just wondering if it meant something else when played backwards. As an example to refute my doubt of the prevalence of intentionally multi-layered works, I was skeptical. But apparently, JRH was just being tricky and throwing it in with the other recommendations to encourage my excavation for deeper meaning in poetry and Sci-Fi.

It's a good song and I'll appreciate it more when it stops looping over my internal dialogue. Aaarrrggghhh!

Howdy Perks,

Didn't mean to come across as tricky. I simply fail at times to anticipate how people might take what I try to say in dialogs like this. (hopefully, I do better with that in my poetry).

JRH

You see we're different here ("We're all mad here, I'm mad, he's mad, you're mad")-- we're readers and writers and we pick things like this up by instinct/training/intuition. No one writing here is going to say something like "Every Breath You Take" that's our song. Or "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad" is our song without some serious sarcasm going into it.

I have however, heard people, quite seriously declare those as their "couple" songs and only once believed they understood what they were saying. Part of it is the way we've undervalued language and reading and part of it is just a simple lack of culture (some folks just ain't got no culture).

People will butcher what you write -- if you're a playwright, get used to the idea of actors butchering what you write too. (bad enough people do it, but actors, they're supposed to know how to read things!)

La, la, la-la la, la la. . .

Perks said:

Without a doubt, ddgryphon, and that's a good summation, but I'd be surprised if that escaped most listeners. I was just wondering if it meant something else when played backwards. As an example to refute my doubt of the prevalence of intentionally multi-layered works, I was skeptical. But apparently, JRH was just being tricky and throwing it in with the other recommendations to encourage my excavation for deeper meaning in poetry and Sci-Fi.

It's a good song and I'll appreciate it more when it stops looping over my internal dialogue. Aaarrrggghhh!

Click to expand...