Why has this subject got my name on? There;s something I don't understand
about this system. Help!
Trish
----- Original Message -----
From: "arthur seeley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: sub - Our Song (Mike and Trish)
It is perhaps valid to argue that a poem exists in three possible states.
There is the poem the poet thought s/he wrote, the poem that was actually
written and the poem the audience perceives as being written.
When writing a poem I think it fair to say that in most cases, the reason
and direction of the poem is chosen by the poet and to that end s/he bends
such craft and art as are available to them. The poem's direction may well
mutate in the creative process but in the main the direction and any changes
will feel to be under the control of the poet. The end result will be the
poem the poet thought s/ he wrote.
However poems do tend to have a life of their own and some sub-conscious
input from the poet can hide a different purpose and direction in the poem,
I say sub-conscious to indicate that it is beyond the conscious control of
the poet. It may be this other input is part of the creative ecstasy. I use
'ecstasy' with care and precision. During writing I find two processes at
work one is the ecstatic process where words seem to come of their own force
and volition and the other is the craft process. It is not a good thing to
rely entirely on the ecstatic process since poems written entirely in that
state are deeply personal, obscure and often without coherence. Sessions of
' speaking with tongues' might amaze and awe but they are rarely understood.
A poem is ultimately a form of communicating if it does not do that because
of obscure syntax, lack of structure and coherent sense of direction it
fails in its purpose and it fails as poem. However, the poet is entitled to
expect some intellectual effort from the audience but should never leave it
entirely up to them
However the mind has ways of communicating through metaphors and that is
part of poetry it is also where the second poem emerges. Crafting is an
essential element I think. Many of us write and re-write our work and we
should do so, that's when we can expurgate the ecstatic outbursts and shape
them for universal access.
The third poem is the most interesting. The reception of your work by an
audience. I have mentioned at other times the problems of connotations.
Connotations for a word or grouping of words can be universal or very
special and personal. That is when the third poem is written in the mind of
the audience. Of course, the third mode multiplies by the size of the
audience so that apart from the poem originally conceived there is the
proliferation that occurs when a poem is shared or broadcast, with the
potential for their to be as many poems as there are members of the
audience.
It will serve us to remember that as readers of poetry we are as much a part
of the creative process as the poet.
There is always the poem where all three poems merge as one poem , where
ecstasy and craft have worked together and the essence of a time and place,
a person or emotion the poet sought to convey is recaptured perfectly by the
audience. Unfortunately it does not happen often but what fun there is in
trying.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Horwood" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: sub - Our Song
Sarah wrote:
Perhaps I should make this clear in the title - what do you think?
Hi Sarah,
I think this question is really one which can be asked of all
poetry in general, namely, how far is it necessary for the reader to
understand a meaning in the poem which is the same as the one the writer
believed themselves to have put into it? Simply and briefly, I donīt believe
it is necessary. So you might write a poem which for you is about an
extra-marital relationship and I might read it and interpret it as being
about relationships in general. I donīt think thatīs a problem. I do think
though, that the language and imagery of the poem need to create a coherent
and unified tone/feeling and that that tone will be conveyed to the reader
whether they interpret the narrative as a. or b. or even something else.
Having said that, Iīm sure that even in this reaction to the tone of a poem
there will be personal differences.
Sarah wrote:
The playing of the song represents passion, and the dying of the music the
gaps between passion (which can't, let's face it, be maintained
indefinitely), into which the underlying conflict of the relationship
creeps. This cycle tends to repeat itself in such relationships.
Me again!
This is a good example of what I mean. One reader might feel that the
playing of the song, especially the repeated playing of the same song, and
even more especially if the song in question is a pop song and not therefore
not likely to wear well on repeated hearings ( not to this reader, at least)
such a reader might feel that the song represents boredom rather than
passion. Itīs true that in your poem there were lines that suggested an
equivalence between the song and love, but there were other lines that
suggested the boredom e.g. round and round and round... I therefore felt a
failure in the need for that emotional/affective coherence in the tone of
the poem.
These are difficult issues and they become more so the deeper one goes into
them. Iīm certainly no expert and others can probably point out gaps in my
reasoning or suggest wonderful poems that contradict my theory. But the
great thing is to play with the ideas. Thanks for giving me the opportunity
to waffle on about mine. Do you have your own ideas on any of these
questions?
Best wishes, Mike
|
