What They Give or What You Get?

trumancoyote · Mar 14, 2006

Looking from the standpoint of someone who translates, authorial intention doesn't mean crap -- what you've got to work with is what you have in front of you. Intent can be wishy-washy, ill-founded, not well-expressed, whereas the text itself is immutable; not perfect, necessarily, but there, concrete.

That's not to say that people should run willy-nilly with their pants around their ankles in interpretting a work. I had a friend in high school that thought these famous lines from Brave New World

Slowly, very slowly, like two unhurried compass needles, the feet turned towards the right; north, north-east, east, south-east, south, south-south-west; then paused, and, after a few seconds, turned as unhurriedly back towards the left.

were referring to the Savage's indecisiveness -- being unable to decide which path to take, which way to go. That's ridiculous. It's a goddamned corpse hanging from a rope, and that's clear. Hers was merely an error made of careless reading.

On the other hand, if there are subtle things in, say, The Makioka Sisters, that make you think that it's being politically subversive... well, if you can support that, by all means do -- you might just convince me. And moreover, you might just convince me in spite of the fact that I knew that Tanizaki didn't have, and rather despised, political agendas in literature.

If it's there it's there.

But then again, there's the case of "The Red Wheelbarrow". Masterfully written poem, yes, but all the more so when you taste the meat around its bones.

It's hard to say. Very hard to say.

As someone who writes, I'd like to think that what I intend for my work matters. But you know, I'll be dead one day and nobody'll be able to ask me whether or not I'm a child molester.

PrettySpecialGal · Mar 14, 2006

So, Truman, are you?I'll still keep reading your stuff, as long as you're posting it.
hehe

But really, folks- the author's intent is so much of where things are just coming from. Can a writer know everything each of his/her readers will bring to the table when the piece of work is read? Of course not. Does a writer hope that somewhere, I can reach every reader that reads my work- on a deep, meaningful level? Sure- at least I do, but providing insight into myself, or another character, and even creating characters and situations or poetry with many layers of meaning does not necessarily mean that a writer can predict how each reader will interpret the writing, and therefore, cannot be responsible for the interpretation of his or her work- at least past a certain extent. Sure, the writer has the responsiblilty of getting their point across (not sure how I'm doing on that one here), but the interpretation cannot be the complete fault of the writer.

So what am I saying?

Both- that the interpretation is both the responsibility of the writer and reader, however, a writer cannot be faulted for the reader's obscure interpretation based on the reader's emotional or mental baggage. However, if the piece triggers something for the reader, and helps that person connect with the writing, then, the writer can be lauded for that.

NeuroFizz · Mar 15, 2006

Interesting discussion. I'm all in favor of some flexibility on the reader's end, and some of the most beautiful poems, to me, give the reader an opportunity to take the theme and apply it to any number of personal experiences. However I suspect, in most forms of poetry, the skill of a poet is measured in more than his/her ability to paint with language. Equally important, even more so, is his/her ability to steer the reader in the direction of his/her inspiration and theme. If we write confusing prose, we correct it. If we write confusing poetry, shouldn't we do the same instead of falling back on the rather lame (maybe even lazy) excuse of freedom of reader intepretation?

Perks · Mar 15, 2006

trumancoyote said:
Looking from the standpoint of someone who translates, authorial intention doesn't mean crap -- what you've got to work with is what you have in front of you.

I like this. Although, Mr. Coyote, you know it's hosed, if only because you came down opposing me.

Actually, this is reality. All you have is what is wrote. If it is a thing of beauty, and with words - beauty can be hideous, then there is merit. But to me, it is a betrayal for the author not to pursue his intent to the limit of his craft.

rhymegirl · Mar 15, 2006

I didn't read all of the above posts, so I'll just try to answer the question as I understand it. I think it's a very good question.

Ideally, BOTH of these things should matter. A writer wants to make a connection with his/her reader AND the reader wants to understand and enjoy what the writer has written.

Which matters more? Neither. In terms of poetry, many times a poem is open to interpretation. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, when I was studying poetry in college, I was pretty much taught that as long as you can back up your interpretation by giving examples of why you think as you do, your interpretation is fine and dandy. I had a poetry instructor who used to call on someone and say: "How would you construe these lines?" He never told anyone they were wrong. He might challenge them a bit, but he was willing to consider their interpretation.

As for the poet or writer's intent--A writer might succeed or fail to get his/her point across. You can't really blame the reader for the writer's failure to make his/her point clear. But some poets/writers want to be ambiguous.
They want their writing to be open to interpretation. If not, they better spell it out very clearly, no hidden meanings.

And if a reader doesn't like a poem or story, so what? There could be many reasons for that. Just look at films. Some people love horror movies; some people hate them. Some people love romances, some people hate them. In terms of poetry, a poem could be very well crafted, but if a reader doesn't like the subject matter, he or she probably won't like the poem.

NeuroFizz · Mar 15, 2006

I agree, top to bottom, Kathy. But it's a matter of degree to me. If a poet has a vision, a theme, and a subset of readers totally miss the theme, should he/she puff out his/her chest and say, "I'm good because people can see so many different things in my work." Or should he/she say, "Jeez, maybe I should work on that one a little more"? I think the poet should pay enough attention to get the reader in the vicinity of his/her theme, but from there, aim for or at least appreciate a wide range of personal interpretation. But to have readers totally miss the theme of a piece would tell me I need more work in how I'm expressing my ideas here. No writer deserves a 100% free pass, and poetry is one of those areas of writing in which both a great precision and significant vagueness are appreciated, or at least allowed. This seems a little contradictory to me, but again, as a matter of degree. It would bother me to hear someone say, "His use of words is brilliant, the images wonderful, but what the hell is he trying to say? It doesn't really make much sense to me." Again, in my opinion, one shouldn't approach poetry with a "see if you can guess what this is about" attitude. It should be more about a gentle coaxing to "see what I see, feel what I feel, or pull out your own experiences that come from this particular root of emotion."

These words, from a greenhorn.

rhymegirl · Mar 15, 2006

NeuroFizz said:
It would bother me to hear someone say, "His use of words is brilliant, the images wonderful, but what the hell is he trying to say? It doesn't really make much sense to me."

But doesn't this remind you of art? I know I've seen paintings--who is that artist who used to just splash paint on a canvas and call it art? Jackson Pollock? What about that?

It's pretty much the same argument. How do we judge art? If I see a painting and I think it's crap or it does nothing for me, but a lot of important, artsy people say it's great art, who's right?

NeuroFizz · Mar 15, 2006

I guess the question is really two-fold. How do we judge other people's poetry, and how do we judge our own? My arguments are really based on the second one, not the first. Introspection on my own abilities would have me looking for a majority consensus that my intent is getting across, realizing that the overall data set forms a bell curve, possibly a broad one, although I'd prefer to work to narrow it as much as I can. Judging other people's work is more of a yes/no thing with me, again realizing that my opinion is merely a single point on that bell curve. I guess, at this point, I am happy to judge my own successes and failures, but not those of others. And to pay attention to mentors and role models, both of whom I'm finding right here--in the poetry and discussions posted at AW.

oneovu · Mar 15, 2006

When I write something it's with hope that it will be taken exactly as it's meant, but more important than an intellectual nod is that it touches the reader, so if one or the other is off, I'd rather it be the former.

So, I guess I wouldn't mind if readers argued over what something I've written means, as long as it meant something to them. I can be quietly correct

(which is the long way of saying the writer is ultimately right).

MacAllister · Mar 15, 2006

I rather think that the text exists at its most pure as a bridge between writer and reader--that the point where the two experiences meet, and the words defy gravity, that is text as its most exquisite, and its most effective.

The problem with saying the writer's intent is all, is that it negates those happy accidents that are nonetheless true.

Essentially, yes, of course you must control every word absolutely to the limit of your personal ability.

When your subconscious decides to play peek-a-boo with the underlying meaning, though, you have to respect that too. Perhaps even marvel at it, a bit, as something substantially more wonderful than your deliberate word choice.

MacAllister · Mar 15, 2006

I'd also like to point out that the above post was both much longer and more clever before the board ate it.

Twice.

poetinahat · Mar 15, 2006

rhymegirl said:
But doesn't this remind you of art? I know I've seen paintings--who is that artist who used to just splash paint on a canvas and call it art? Jackson Pollock? What about that?

That's not what he did. Give him some credit. You may not like his technique or think much of his talent (I'm not a big fan myself), but don't presume his intentions.

Check out his earlier work. That wasn't his only trick.

rhymegirl · Mar 15, 2006

poetinahat said:
That's not what he did. Give him some credit. You may not like his technique or think much of his talent (I'm not a big fan myself), but don't presume his intentions.

Check out his earlier work. That wasn't his only trick.

Hey, I saw the movie about him. That's exactly what he did.

poetinahat · Mar 15, 2006

Well, it's in a movie. It must be true.

William Haskins · Mar 16, 2006

i think it would be erroneous to think that pollack didn't exercise some artistic intent (his position over the canvas, choice of color, thickness of its application, etc could all point to some conscious or unconscious manipulation of the work).

JRH · Mar 16, 2006

The secret to Artists like Pollack, Miro, annd Klee and those like them was that they eliminated "intellectual" content in their works and their artistic intent was limited to appealing to natural aesthetic responces to color, shape, form, contrast and balance, and their relationships to each other, (although it's equally obvious that their overall intent was to be different enough from what classical artists were producing in such a way that they could call positive attention to themselves, on the basis of those aesthetic elements and hopefully gain fame and make money - which they did).

"Instrumental" music pieces of all kinds do the same thing, appealing to the natural aesthetic responces to Rhythm, Tempo, Tone, Melody, and Instrumental Color, but elimininating the intellectual focus provided by "Lyrics".

In other words, their appeal of all those mentioned above is on the subconscious level and based on appealing to visual or audio elements that most respond to.

It's not quite the same as the interaction between a poet and a reader because that exists on an "intellectual" level, regardeless of whatever, rythemical, visual, or emotional elements might be called upon to support it.
(and I still stand by Browning's position that any reader is entitled to any interpretation he wants to make as long as it can be supported within the context of the individual poem).

Think about it.

JRH

William Haskins · Mar 16, 2006

i think my concern would be to what degree one's interpretation could be supported within the context of the poem. one can't just go about tossing out pieces of a jigsaw puzzle because they have a different picture in mind.

but, before we leave the subject of painting for (hopefully) more of this riveting discussion, i'd like to state a displeasure of mine that, in many ways, illustrates what i'm getting at here.

most people, even those who aren't into art, are aware of edvard munch's recently-stolen masterpiece "the scream".

it's reached iconic status, making its way onto mousepads and coffee cups, satirized in the movie poster for "home alone" and co-opted for all sorts of advertising.

and most people buy into the general description of it: that it's the seminal depiction of man's existential anxiety, that it represents the ultimate psychological unraveling in the face of unspeakable modern horrors.

this feels good to some people. when i was 14 or 15, it felt good to me. i was already a big fan of existential writers like camus and sartre, and it fit in the paradigm of art as a way to look into man's soul and see what a powerless, lonely creature he was.

what i didn't know at the time (and what a lot of people don't know now) is that "the scream" is actually the final panel in a series of paintings ("the frieze of life"), which illustrates the love affair of a man and a woman and its ultimate disintegration.

what we know as this epic work of modern pain is actually the final chapter of an intensely personal tragedy, and the anguish we see is not someone awash in the crushing tyranny of modernism, but a man whose heart has been broken.

"so what?" some people might ask. but for me, the distinction was an important one. i felt cheated out of knowing from the beginning what it really meant and, in a way, i felt that munch was cheated in an ever-escalating misrepresentation of the work in schools and in popular culture.

i'm glad i learned the real story about the painting, and my appreciation of it took on a whole new dynamic.

anyway, sorry for the long post. but this discussion reminded me of this...

Perks · Mar 16, 2006

It's something that you picked that painting. Everytime I see it, it gives me a jolt. It's the first piece of artwork I remember. (My mother is a painter and art books were our bedtime stories.)

I did not, however, know the story behind this painting, nor the more common interpretation. It's always represented to me, elemental horror and desperation. The reality of its inspiration I could only have understood as an adult, but it pings back to that nebulous fear I always felt from the painting at the very outset. I couldn't have named it (I was three) but I knew it. Amazing.

I'd say his intent shone through for me. I'm glad. It's a masterpiece.

ETA - The figure in the foreground always struck me as so helpless. Horrified, helpless and an island of torment - everything surrounding is just fine. It really crawls into my head, this one.

Stew21 · Mar 16, 2006

William Haskins said:
"so what?" some people might ask. but for me, the distinction was an important one. i felt cheated out of knowing from the beginning what it really meant and, in a way, i felt that munch was cheated in an ever-escalating misrepresentation of the work in schools and in popular culture.

i'm glad i learned the real story about the painting, and my appreciation of it took on a whole new dynamic.

...

I would have felt cheated too. This is something I didn't know previously and I feel differently about it now knowing. So thanks for telling us, and also, I think it proves the point beautifully in regards to the interpretation of poetry.

JRH · Mar 16, 2006

The simple truth, William, is that, if that painting is taken out of the context of a "series" it was part of, (and it was), it can NOT be interpreted properly.

Moreover, Munch was a German "Expressionist", and as such bore little relation to the artists I was using as an example because his paintings did have meaning on an "intellectual" level, (and was thus subject to misinterpretation), particularly when taken out of context.

As for Browning's position, I assume he would have intended that it be practiced in respect to the total context of each entire poem, rather than being based on part. I know that's how I would wish such to be interpreted
in relation to any poem of mine.

JRH

P.S. For the record Munch's style reminds me more of Van Gogh than anyone else (as it should for Van Gogh was a Dutch Expressionist painting mostly in France, at roughly the same time).

Shwebb · Mar 16, 2006

That is a good point, William.

I must confess that when a piece of art--be it poem, song, or something on canvas--strikes me, I try to look up more information about it or about the artist. I do like to have the complete picture.

Perks · Mar 16, 2006

I think in painting though, it is much easier to ascribe meanings hung on more personal interpretation - the viewer assigns it words in their internal dialogue, because, by its nature, it has none.

But poetry gives the words, in very specific arrangement. We don't have to construct the construct. It's already there. The reader has a responsibilty, a charge more to poetry than to visual art, in my opinion.

William Haskins · Mar 16, 2006

my post was in no way meant to contradict your earlier post on painting, james.

and not to beat the browning thing to death, but it seems to me that it would be a rare thing indeed that a poem could completely mean what the artist intended and something completely different. there would, in my estimation, have to be a square peg that couldn't fit into a round hole.

this, in turn, would lead to stretching logic or meaning, which is even more insidious.

JRH · Mar 16, 2006

William,

I don't know about you aout you, but, for myself, I am well aware that I may, and probably do, add things "subconsiously" to what I "consciously" intend in any poem, and that those elements are important in tems of levels of meaning and understanding to that which I "consciously" intended.

If and when, people perceive them, and they will, they are perfectly entitled to include them in their interpretation of my poem's meaning as long as they can find the clues that show those elements are present, particularly if they reinforce any secondary levels of meaning that I had intended.

That, in fact, is why I used my poem "On Hallowed Grounds" as an example because I had not "consciously" reallized that the phrase "Gay Basilica" could represent more than a reflection of opposiing images. That it could be taken as more, (and has been over time) I fully approve of, and may well have been thinking of subconsciously.

That, of course, does not change the meaning of my poem, only clarifies it, but it is proof that the subconcious can validly add elements that we are not "totally" aware of at the time, and that are just as validly subject to interpretation.

Hope this explains my position.

JRH

William Haskins · Mar 16, 2006

it does, but i already understood it.

the reading of the subconscious thing is a much discussed element in literary criticism, but i find that, most of the time, it's just so much reaching.

What They Give or What You Get?

My Name is Sweet Thing

roll, roll, roll in ze hay

The grad students did it

delicate #!&@*#! flower

It's a New Year!

The grad students did it

It's a New Year!

The grad students did it

'Twas but a dream of thee

'Twas but a dream of thee

say it loud

It's a New Year!

say it loud

poet

practical experience, FTW

poet

delicate #!&@*#! flower

practical experience, FTW

She's the creepy-looking dude

delicate #!&@*#! flower

poet

practical experience, FTW

poet