Ezra Pound To T.S. Eliot

"Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot
Are fighting in the captain's tower,
While calypso singers laugh at them
And fishermen hold flowers.
Between the windows of the sea,
Where lovely mermaids flow,
And no one has to think too much
About Desolation Row."

-- Bob Dylan

(his best song, evahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.)

caw

For the most part, I disagree. Only some metaphorical strands can I agree. Communication requires decoding and decoding requires understanding.

'Communicate' is here meant as an emotive or transferal sensation. When I read well written poetry, meaning and context are the last things I look for - the sonic nuance and melodic quality of phrase, the rhythmic elements communicate to/with me first - such aspects can already excite, and emote without defined meaning.

I see it as what the poet's intention is -- i.e. should the poet want/intend to express something to be understood, then that is what the poem should do. If the poet simply writes to write, expresses through verse and word, then the matter of the poem being understood is second to the nature of the poem having resonance with the reader. I always say that a degree of a poem should be with the reader, a gift almost. If your or my readers enjoy what they have read, they will enjoy it more if they can put a personal stamp on it through their own interpretation and individual idea of how they wish to understand it.

Understanding has a few concepts attached to it.

There is the understanding of an order so that you may do a task, but not understand why that task was done or what it was to accomplish. "When I say jump, jump!"

There is the understanding of what the to be accomplished but not understanding what the order for the task is. "You said jump?"

Then there is complete obfuscation.

Xelebes said:

Understanding has a few concepts attached to it.

Click to expand...

Like mutual understanding in terms of respect, recognition, emotive reference, and of course interpretation and conceptual insight - creative intelligence?

Xelebes said:

There is the understanding of an order so that you may do a task, but not understand why that task was done or what it was to accomplish. "When I say jump, jump!"

Click to expand...

I guess not - are you saying poetry should command the reader to interpretation? Should a poem be granted the right and power to make such demands?

Xelebes said:

There is the understanding of what the to be accomplished but not understanding what the order for the task is. "You said jump?"

Click to expand...

So, those that read and enjoy my poetry - or any poetry written without meaning or context, that contains absurdity or surrealism to any gradient or extent are idiots? Or is it the opposite you are saying in those that fail to understand the beauty of words over definition?

I suppose we could say the same about people who listen to instrumental music...

Xelebes said:

Then there is complete obfuscation.

Click to expand...

Ah, ignorance is such a blissful way to go through life.

An order, or missive rather, begs to be decoded. Sometimes it is not decoded and we understand what it means. Sometimes it is decoded and we understand, but not understand what it means overall.

I agree with:

"Poetry can communicate before being understood."

We do the same thing with, say, body language, picking up all kinds of things very quickly while perhaps not yet having more than the barest intuition about what's going on.

I don't agree with:

"Poetry can communicate instead of being understood."

The poet must be on the hook for something.

kborsden said:

'Communicate' is here meant as an emotive or transferal sensation. When I read well written poetry, meaning and context are the last things I look for - the sonic nuance and melodic quality of phrase, the rhythmic elements communicate to/with me first - such aspects can already excite, and emote without defined meaning.

Click to expand...

I look for a unified experience. In fact, I don't know exactly what I am looking for when I start, but I do expect a developing whole.

And meanwhile, not too many interruptions brought to you by tonight's sponsor, the poet's ego.

Steppe said:

The problem I have with the idea that we must write our poems so they can be understood is, understood by whom? What level of intelligence, age, experience, experience in poetry, customs, traditions, etc.

Click to expand...

Why not assume people have an ordinary level of intelligence instead of presuming anything other?

If we worry over much about everyone being able to understand, we will wind up writing nothing more than "see Jane run", "the ball is red".

Click to expand...

This shows contempt for the reader. It is not true that everyone is a moron.

I believe that even the most difficult poetry can communicate in a meaningful way to someone who buys into the language, as the port Richard Hugo suggested.

He wrote, "Don't worry about your readers. Their on their own and will find meanings for your poems in their histories and yearnings. Let language go where it wants. If readers respond to your language, the poem can't help but mean."

Click to expand...

This does not obviate the need for a central thread of meaning. In this aspect poems do not differ from any kind of fictive writing or even from good essays. People will read something and find in it things that relate to their own lives and consciousness. How could they do other?

Blarg - whether I agree with you or not, I always enjoy the breadth of your posts in discussion threads.

Blarg said:

not too many interruptions brought to you by tonight's sponsor, the poet's ego.

Click to expand...

I both agree and disagree with this () - without a passing ego, the poem has no individual character with regards to the poet.

Blarg said:

This does not obviate the need for a central thread of meaning. In this aspect poems do not differ from any kind of fictive writing or even from good essays.

Click to expand...

Really?

haste,
lulling gloss-lashed lace;
trace-paced faith paste
lap-long lips; lasting
glance - tranced space,
wasted last grace; lost -
wait!

The central thread of meaning is subjective, the reader will discover and interpret it based on their own personal wealth of experience and/or knowledge, intelligence and world view - as you say here:

Blarg said:

People will read something and find in it things that relate to their own lives and consciousness. How could they do other?

Click to expand...

and I agree totally, but this does not mean the first point of a poem needs to be the absolute communication in literal terms -- as I said, it can communicate on many levels before actual content or any logical thread of words and phrase by narrative or progression otherwise; emotive, sensual (sonic, visual) etc...

As you say, people will read something into a poem, ergo into those other communicative factors, regardless of absolute intention.

You believe in the sufficiency of the dream-nature of poetry more than I do. I think that eventually the author has to be on the hook for something. Word salad is amusing, but I don't think it has much chance of lasting or even stimulating for long more than a very small, incestuous crowd. I believe it drives far more people away from poetry (and certainly not just morons and philistines) than it could ever hope to bring in.

this does not mean the first point of a poem needs to be the absolute communication in literal terms

Click to expand...

I believe that poems should communicate, and that it is simply good writing to do so without delay -- indeed one of the earmarks of good writing -- but that each can unfold in its own way. There need be no disconnect between communication and art. If there is, then I believe the author has fallen down on the job.

Speaking of T.S. Eliot, he advises one should seek out the "objective correlative," that is, the manifestation in the world of the poet's internal state, meaning, or intention, and use it to figure one's poems. In doing so, he avows a purposeful, clear connection between image and intent.

When one supplies reference without referent, one chooses the private language of the ego over the act of communication that makes art. One might as well be playing stinkfinger in the dark.

Blarg said:

I don't think it has much chance of lasting or even stimulating for long more than a very small, incestuous crowd.

Click to expand...

Incestuous? Really?

Chance of lasting -- I suppose just short of a century since Dada first emerged is a relatively short period of time.

Perhaps my poetry isn't stimulating to everyone - perhaps the idea of offering a tantalization or sensual gift to the reader rather than drum into them my ideas is a silly and dull ideal -- but at least it is original and not overly literal or simple reiteration of what has already been said a million times before and (more skillfully at that too). Experimentation is what you make of it, as is word salad. If you look at an inkblot and see only an inkblot, who is at fault? The one who is looking, or the one who blotted?

I appreciate a cerebral and sensual offering when I read poetry - the artistry of language used to evoke and emote, convey and paint rather than spell out what is expressed. There is communication in this world of many sorts - humans communicate through smell, body language and voice. Poetry can communicate on as many, and more levels - it is not and never will be harmful to strip away any one of those.

There's nothing harmful about any of it. I don't think book burning is involved.

There is a narrowing that comes about with some choices rather than others. One has the freedom to narrow into as tiny and rarefied a niche as he prefers, and might as well enjoy it. At some point, one is simply preaching to the choir, though, and one's readers become more and more simply others writing the same thing. Few are or can be recruited from the public at large. Sometimes that is taken as a point of pride. Incestuous is the word.

I wouldn't call exploring alternatives broadening the audience. I would say it broadens the art.

Blarg said:

There is a narrowing that comes about with some choices rather than others. One has the freedom to narrow into as tiny and rarefied a niche as he prefers, and might as well enjoy it. At some point, one is simply preaching to the choir, though, and one's readers become more and more simply others writing the same thing. Few are or can be recruited from the public at large. Sometimes that is taken as a point of pride. Incestuous is the word.

Click to expand...

That applies to mainstream(? - ) and populist poetry as much as it does niche, alternative, speculative and unorthodox, and is the very reason why poetry on the whole has expanded and diversified to the various forms, styles, genres and audiences that we see today, and why it will continue to evolve for many years to come - no form of poetry can ever be excluded or treated as less than the other as it is an expressive and communicative art that is specific to the reader and their personal preference and individual interpretation of what they choose to present themselves with...

Blarg said:

I wouldn't call exploring alternatives broadening the audience. I would say it broadens the art.

Click to expand...

...and broadening the art diversifies potential audiences - creates new audiences - thus also broadens the audience for poetry in general.

We define broadening differently and to different effect.

I mean broadening the audience in absolute, numerical terms and in terms of penetration of the culture at large. You mean it in terms of creating a space for different types of artistic preference and an expansion of the definition of art.

Poetry has all but died in large part because for a long time poetry has abandoned the notion of appealing to most people, contenting itself instead with ever more obscure narrowcasting and rarefying itself into the absence from public life it has come to deserve.

There is nothing wrong with pursuing one's muse. However, every artist understands audience. That is why we have all heard of Stanley Kubrick but almost nobody has heard of Maya Deren. The artist implicitly chooses his audience. Some choose small ones and some larger ones. When the large one is ignored and spoken down to with vigorous disdain long enough, it looks elsewhere and the art begins to die.

Blarg said:

We define broadening differently and to different effect.

Click to expand...

Go on.

Blarg said:

I mean broadening the audience in absolute, numerical terms and in terms of penetration of the culture at large. You mean it in terms of creating a space for different types of artistic preference and an expansion of the definition of art.

Click to expand...

Which allows for wider appreciation by making ready new areas for fresh audiences in absolute numerical terms.

Blarg said:

Poetry has all but died in large part because for a long time poetry has abandoned the notion of appealing to most people,

Click to expand...

No it hasn't/didn't ever.

Quite the opposite is true. It is because poetry now is written and read by the general public that the traditional publishing industry of poetry is in decline - outlets and markets are still very much alive - and there are many that favour individual audiences and 'obscurities' or dedicate themselves to those, making sure that every reader can have what they prefer.

Blarg said:

contenting itself instead with ever more obscure narrowcasting and rarefying itself into the absence from public life it has come to deserve.

Click to expand...

Elaborate please.

You mean like the advent of free verse which took poetry into the public forum by shaking off at least some of the academic aspects of it that scared so many would be poets of the lower classes away (generally because of a lack of formal education).

Blarg said:

There is nothing wrong with pursuing one's muse. However, every artist understands audience.

Click to expand...

You clearly don't - nor do you seem to understand markets.

Blarg said:

The artist implicitly chooses his audience. Some choose small ones and some larger ones.

Click to expand...

I think the individual chooses the artist - a number of individuals equal an audience - popular culture equals fashion and popularity which creates a larger audience - a larger audience equals a market - supply and demand influence the growth of a market

Blarg said:

When the large one is ignored and spoken down to with vigorous disdain long enough, it looks elsewhere and the art begins to die.

Click to expand...

People are only sheep to an extent and I found this comment actually rather insulting first time I read it... but then I thought: who exactly is ignoring who in this comment? Also, this all reads kind of drastic...

I think you should start a new thread to discuss these particular points - 'poetry climate of destruction - just paranoia?' - as I personally fail to see what this has to do with the current discussion at hand.

I believe that poetry can communicate on many levels - individual people relate to some of those more than others. An example of this is classical poetry, some of which may have lost its direct relationship with the reader in terms of subject matter or language, but there are still remaining layers of communication by way of imagery, sonics and the mere fact that most people today enjoy putting their own spin on things. Because of this, I don't feel a poem has to attempt more than just that - communicate in any sense. Yes, I agree with Pound. Now, I'm done with this conversation.

This is devolving into insult, and as you have long known from crossing that line many times before, that automatically ends our exchanges and usually puts you on ignore for a good long time. I suppose you know what you're doing. To each their own.

Steppe said:

"Poetry can communicate before being understood"

Do you agree with Pound? Why?

If not, why?

Click to expand...

Why, yes I do! Also thought it a step up from "A Poem should be and not mean" a la Archibald MacLeish And thanks for a cool topic on such a hot and muggy day. If I were a weather-thief, I would definitely mug today and steal away 10 or 15 degrees of sheer energy, if I had a better fence, that is. I think the manner and method of human understanding is multi-layered and nuanced, and so much depends on many variables, including whether the poem is heard or read; how often the poem is read/available and how slick the glaze of rain. . .

ETA: In reference to OP quote, it seems to imply "to be understood" is a different before/after kind of knowledge beyond simple "communication" IMO.

Blarg said:

snip . . I think that eventually the author has to be on the hook for something. Word salad is amusing, but I don't think it has much chance of lasting or even stimulating for long more than a very small, incestuous crowd. I believe it drives far more people away from poetry (and certainly not just morons and philistines) than it could ever hope to bring in.

I believe that poems should communicate, and that it is simply good writing to do so without delay -- indeed one of the earmarks of good writing -- but that each can unfold in its own way. There need be no disconnect between communication and art. If there is, then I believe the author has fallen down on the job.

Speaking of T.S. Eliot, he advises one should seek out the "objective correlative," that is, the manifestation in the world of the poet's internal state, meaning, or intention, and use it to figure one's poems. In doing so, he avows a purposeful, clear connection between image and intent.

When one supplies reference without referent, one chooses the private language of the ego over the act of communication that makes art. One might as well be playing stinkfinger in the dark.

Click to expand...

Blarg said:

I agree with:

"Poetry can communicate before being understood."

We do the same thing with, say, body language, picking up all kinds of things very quickly while perhaps not yet having more than the barest intuition about what's going on.

I don't agree with:

"Poetry can communicate instead of being understood."

The poet must be on the hook for something.

Click to expand...

Have I already agreed with you on this? Also, that "objective correlative," is spot-on and something I've utilized for a while now. Also think the totally undecipherable poem is not fair whether written or spoken but love a poem full of phrases that mean more than one thing -- so what'dya gonna do?

Blarg said:

This is devolving into insult,

Click to expand...

No insult intended - I'm discussing and agreeing on several points - but differing in opinion on others - especially those with regards to the marketability of poetry and supposed decline of an art form. I happen to use candid language, at times sarcasm and other forms of wit and banter - I'm not a nasty person and do not, as I said, intend insult --- so I'll apologize if your ego has been stung.

Blarg said:

and as you have long known from crossing that line many times before, that automatically ends our exchanges and usually puts you on ignore for a good long time.

Click to expand...

I hadn't noticed to be honest.

Blarg said:

I suppose you know what you're doing. To each their own.

Click to expand...

Aye... okay then, if you say so.

Magdalen said:

...think the totally undecipherable poem is not fair whether written or spoken but love a poem full of phrases that mean more than one thing -- so what'dya gonna do?

Click to expand...

I agree that a sense or semblance of logic should be present (at least that's where I try to steer my efforts) - but that doesn't mean the poem actually has to mean anything absolutely, just that it merely appears to.

I personally don't like or enjoy passive poetry because it leaves me cold - same goes for regurgitated phrase and clichés about the soul - I can't stand overly literal poetry or didactic poems... absolutely hate with a passion flat prose pretending to be poetry -- but I can't deny that they do communicate with me, whether my response is repulsion or otherwise; the same can be said about nonsense poetry, and the undecipherable - but with all of these the option is open at least to find a connection or look away. No one says anyone HAS to read or like anything in particular - but poetry, regardless of how it is written or why will communicate on some level, as will anything written, visual or listened to - and that says to me it does not need to be understood in full to be appreciated on a communicative level.