Understanding Poetry

[Koba]

Hello all! I am a relative newcomer here starting my first thread. What I want to write about is understanding a poem. It is something that sometimes I find very difficult. And I'm sure we all must as there is no doubt some poems are cryptic, some deliberately so. Some are just plain badly written defying understanding. But what if the poem was written by a recognized giant of the art? Recently I read "The Drunken Boat" by Arthur Rimbaud. A few lines in I was lost. I couldn't finish it because it made no sense to me. I found it frustrating. I guess I also felt a little dumb. So I decided that I would overcome this lack of understanding. I gathered up four translations of the poem (he wrote in French, which I don't understand) and I scoured the internet for interpretations. I spent many hours going over the interpretations while carefully going through the poem line by line. Slowly the meaning came to me. Then it came even more to me. And even though I am still going over the poem I think I now have the crux of it. It is such a joy! Once I put the time in I could see the beauty and the genius in the poem. What blows my mind is that he wrote it at the age of 16! Anyway, I thought I would share these recent observations of mine and ask if anyone out there has had similar experiences with certain poems and what you did to achieve better understanding of them.

 

[vrosej10]

This might not help, but literary theory has it that there is no meaning to literature except that which is arrived at by the interaction of reader and text. Who you are determines what each of us gets out of a poem. It is not s easy as one standard meaning as a concept but much more beautiful and democratic.

 

[twelveoone]

Hello all! I am a relative newcomer here starting my first thread. What I want to write about is understanding a poem. It is something that sometimes I find very difficult. And I'm sure we all must as there is no doubt some poems are cryptic, some deliberately so. Some are just plain badly written defying understanding. But what if the poem was written by a recognized giant of the art? Recently I read "The Drunken Boat" by Arthur Rimbaud. A few lines in I was lost. I couldn't finish it because it made no sense to me. I found it frustrating. I guess I also felt a little dumb. So I decided that I would overcome this lack of understanding. I gathered up four translations of the poem (he wrote in French, which I don't understand) and I scoured the internet for interpretations. I spent many hours going over the interpretations while carefully going through the poem line by line. Slowly the meaning came to me. Then it came even more to me. And even though I am still going over the poem I think I now have the crux of it. It is such a joy! Once I put the time in I could see the beauty and the genius in the poem. What blows my mind is that he wrote it at the age of 16! Anyway, I thought I would share these recent observations of mine and ask if anyone out there has had similar experiences with certain poems and what you did to achieve better understanding of them.

You are a better man than I. That is a difficult poem to begin with. I spent something like two years in the "The Waste Land" , really had to get out. I still have to guard against "unconscious plagiarisms" .

 

[butters]

welcome to the posting house, Koba

tenacious reader - that's a good thing, that desire to understand better, to discover the deeper meanings behind a write by going on a treasure hunt rather than complaining the author's rubbish for not making the write more easily accessible.

ok, we all know some are badly written, obscurity more accidental or important to the poet over and above the voice of the poem. but it's so damned rewarding to peel back the layers of the well-written, to find those nuggets, those gems.

if i come across a piece i don't understand, then a lot will depend upon who's written it as to what i do next. if it's by someone i respect, or the poem is so intriguing it feels worth my time, then i'll google first the author and read up on them, then follow references as i stumble across them. LOTS of allusions and previously hidden meanings become clearer this way.

little beats that satisfaction of coming to understand a write the way a poet intended to show it as seen in their own thoughts. the fact we have to work for it isn't a bad thing, imo; a poet ought not to write 'down', treating their reader as an idiot... no-one knows who's reading them, and to write to suit the lowest common denominator would be wrong all round. the poet needs to write what the poem is in its own right, and let people unfurl its petals as they may. of course, by the same token, to be deliberately exclusive is rarely beneficial to the poem as it makes it more about the writer and drives readers away.

in an otherwise straightforward poem, certain obscure allusions might be addressed with short footnotes.

 

[twelveoone]

in an otherwise straightforward poem, certain obscure allusions might be addressed with short footnotes.

Off to write a poem, with more footnotes than poem. Thanks chippy, for the go-ahead.
correction

inverted syntax - avoid that.

 

[butters]

Off to write a poem, with more footnotes than poem. Thanks chippy, for the go-ahead.
correction

inverted syntax - avoid that.

:cool emote: well, depends on how much you :rabbit:

 

[greenmountaineer]

Hello all! I am a relative newcomer here starting my first thread. What I want to write about is understanding a poem. It is something that sometimes I find very difficult. And I'm sure we all must as there is no doubt some poems are cryptic, some deliberately so. Some are just plain badly written defying understanding. But what if the poem was written by a recognized giant of the art? Recently I read "The Drunken Boat" by Arthur Rimbaud. A few lines in I was lost. I couldn't finish it because it made no sense to me. I found it frustrating. I guess I also felt a little dumb. So I decided that I would overcome this lack of understanding. I gathered up four translations of the poem (he wrote in French, which I don't understand) and I scoured the internet for interpretations. I spent many hours going over the interpretations while carefully going through the poem line by line. Slowly the meaning came to me. Then it came even more to me. And even though I am still going over the poem I think I now have the crux of it. It is such a joy! Once I put the time in I could see the beauty and the genius in the poem. What blows my mind is that he wrote it at the age of 16! Anyway, I thought I would share these recent observations of mine and ask if anyone out there has had similar experiences with certain poems and what you did to achieve better understanding of them.

I think what you describe is to some extent a function of our "hustle and bustle" modern life. We have been conditioned repeatedly and subliminally over our lifetimes (and I'm including even socialization of younger children) to "get it" instantaneously whatever it is. "Sound-bite" journalism comes to mind.

Upon first reading, I'd like to "get it" as much as anyone, but I've discovered in a good poem if the poet (and I include ones I've read on this site) left me intrigued enough for a second reading, I understand a little more. More often than not, I'll read a poem I like several times, and, like you, gain satisfaction by putting the pieces of it together in my mind.

There are others, I'm sure, who comprehend a poem more quickly; more power to them, but when was poetry appreciation ever a function of quick wit? I used to think so but not anymore.

 

[Senna Jawa]

This might not help, but literary theory has it that there is no meaning to literature except that which is arrived at by the interaction of reader and text. Who you are determines what each of us gets out of a poem. It is not s easy as one standard meaning as a concept but much more beautiful and democratic.

What about interaction of a horse and text?

 

[Angeline]

I think of poetry as another language. Sure I can read it in my native English but unlike straight information or even a lot of fiction there's more in what it doesn't say than what it does.

So how should I read something that isn't straightforward? Sometimes it just is and what you see is what you get. Sometimes you think what you see is what you get and you go back and keep reading and rereading and understanding there's more there. But most of the time you are reading a poem and thinking what the hell is this trying to say to me?

I believe the more poetry you read, write and think about (and you have to try at least a little every day), the more you will see that different things are working in poems to communicate the messages. Sometimes it's images: I have to look at all of them in a poem and consider their similarities and differences to get the big picture as well as the details. Often it's rhythm which I "read" in rhyme and alliteration and assonance and stress patterns. Combinations of these things can give a poem a pace or tension--or lack of tension--that I can sense from all of that. Some poems sound like music and some, I believe, are meant to just be enjoyed, the sounds or the music of them.

I also look things up when I read poems. If I don't know a word or a reference, I check. If I like what I'm reading and don't know why (that is, can't put in words what specifically I like about it), then I study the poet and try to figure it out. Often I learn about references I may have missed and (even better!) things I can use in my own writing.

I'm not sure if this is making much sense but really the key is time spent reading and thinking and writing. It's like piano practice: most of us aren't Mozart and it won't come without work. I am also sorry to say that I believe it involves some degree of obsession.

 

[Koba]

Many thanks for all your helpful replies. I think a lot of it is exactly as said; the interaction between the poet and the reader. I think Walt Whitman went into great detail about this in Leaves of Grass. And it is also just pure effort. Poetry (especially writing it!) compels me to use my dictionary A LOT. I think I need a new one for the pages are beginning to fall out of the one I've been using for 35 years.

I am still reading and rereading The Drunken Boat. It is funny in that I already see the influence it has had on me in my latest effort (which I should be posting here soon!).

 

[twelveoone]

I think what you describe is to some extent a function of our "hustle and bustle" modern life. We have been conditioned repeatedly and subliminally over our lifetimes (and I'm including even socialization of younger children) to "get it" instantaneously whatever it is. "Sound-bite" journalism comes to mind.

Upon first reading, I'd like to "get it" as much as anyone, but I've discovered in a good poem if the poet (and I include ones I've read on this site) left me intrigued enough for a second reading, I understand a little more. More often than not, I'll read a poem I like several times, and, like you, gain satisfaction by putting the pieces of it together in my mind.

There are others, I'm sure, who comprehend a poem more quickly; more power to them, but when was poetry appreciation ever a function of quick wit? I used to think so but not anymore.

Agree,
if you understand a poem too quickly, it probably isn't much of a poem. Frost, Yeats are two poets who have a great knack for writing something that is easily accessible but always leave you with the feeling there is something more. Eliot to a lesser degree. But this includes the "craft" also.
If you can do that, you are assured of being a great poet.

 

[vrosej10]

I like the kind of poetry that has levels. Something you can walk up and get something from and then more on closer examination and then when you think about it, you spot something else. I also like visceral poetry, the kind that smacks you in the face. I find the really difficult stuff tiresome but I am not a fan of the classics myself (this is just my opinion, others love em).

 

[theognis]

Agree,
if you understand a poem too quickly, it probably isn't much of a poem. Frost, Yeats are two poets who have a great knack for writing something that is easily accessible but always leave you with the feeling there is something more. Eliot to a lesser degree. But this includes the "craft" also.
If you can do that, you are assured of being a great poet.

And I also agree. My favorite poems are those which say a lot with a little; especially those where you keep finding possible new meanings from only a few words, or sometimes just a single word.

 

[bronzeage]

Agree,
if you understand a poem too quickly, it probably isn't much of a poem. Frost, Yeats are two poets who have a great knack for writing something that is easily accessible but always leave you with the feeling there is something more. Eliot to a lesser degree. But this includes the "craft" also.
If you can do that, you are assured of being a great poet.

I like the kind of poetry that has levels. Something you can walk up and get something from and then more on closer examination and then when you think about it, you spot something else. I also like visceral poetry, the kind that smacks you in the face. I find the really difficult stuff tiresome but I am not a fan of the classics myself (this is just my opinion, others love em).

Difficult and leveled poetry should be reserved for Master classes.

I think it is a mistake to attempt to write levels into the words. If there are levels in the subject, they will stratify and settle out. It is much more important to speak clearly and let the reader's mind recreate the image which was in the poets mind.

It's possible to see meanings in lines and words which never occurred to the writer.

The following verses of "Casabianca" have been considered a hymn to courage and loyalty, but in the past few decades have been seen as an example of paralysis due to inexperience, or the failure of leadership. I do not believe either of these things were in the mind of the author.

The boy stood on the burning deck
Whence all but he had fled;
The flame that lit the battle's wreck
Shone round him o'er the dead.

Yet beautiful and bright he stood,
As born to rule the storm;
A creature of heroic blood,
A proud, though child-like form.

The flames rolled on–he would not go
Without his Father's word;
That father, faint in death below,
His voice no longer heard.

He called aloud–'say, Father, say
If yet my task is done?'
He knew not that the chieftain lay
Unconscious of his son.

 

[twelveoone]

Difficult and leveled poetry should be reserved for Master classes.

I think it is a mistake to attempt to write levels into the words. If there are levels in the subject, they will stratify and settle out. It is much more important to speak clearly and let the reader's mind recreate the image which was in the poets mind.

It's possible to see meanings in lines and words which never occurred to the writer.

Totally disagree, both Frost and Yeats are easily accessible. And Frost has that nasty little trick of it seem like you never quite get it. Poetry has to operate on at least two levels. The surface story and that little thing behind it (whatever it is), an analogy would be song lyrics, which if read, shall we say sometimes suck. It is the music that completes it.
Consider the concept of the "hook".

Difficult to start with, well that limits your audience. Leveled by a master, no that is what makes them great, even to the point of making a living from it.

 

[twelveoone]

for Koba
http://www.mag4.net/Rimbaud/index-en.php
'cause it's free.
plus everytime I think I want to write a sonnet, I read the Idol. Most of the time it cures me.

 

[twelveoone]

Many thanks for all your helpful replies. I think a lot of it is exactly as said; the interaction between the poet and the reader. I think Walt Whitman went into great detail about this in Leaves of Grass. And it is also just pure effort. Poetry (especially writing it!) compels me to use my dictionary A LOT. I think I need a new one for the pages are beginning to fall out of the one I've been using for 35 years.

I am still reading and rereading The Drunken Boat. It is funny in that I already see the influence it has had on me in my latest effort (which I should be posting here soon!).

ya know, you could have started with something easier
http://www.bartleby.com/104/119.html
#1 on the hit nature parade

 

[Angeline]

ya know, you could have started with something easier
http://www.bartleby.com/104/119.html
#1 on the hit nature parade

I lived in the Joyce Kilmer dormitory one year at school. Is this an advantage. He was already dead but there were a lot of trees.

 

[bronzeage]

Totally disagree, both Frost and Yeats are easily accessible. And Frost has that nasty little trick of it seem like you never quite get it. Poetry has to operate on at least two levels. The surface story and that little thing behind it (whatever it is), an analogy would be song lyrics, which if read, shall we say sometimes suck. It is the music that completes it.
Consider the concept of the "hook".

Difficult to start with, well that limits your audience. Leveled by a master, no that is what makes them great, even to the point of making a living from it.

I am being facetious.

I think it is a mistake to sit down one day and say, "I am going to write a poem which explores the allegory of man's reduced humanity in an increasingly industrial age."

The poem is the story. Every story, even the most banal has a subtext, but the text must be written first.

 

[vrosej10]

Difficult and leveled poetry should be reserved for Master classes.

I think it is a mistake to attempt to write levels into the words. If there are levels in the subject, they will stratify and settle out. It is much more important to speak clearly and let the reader's mind recreate the image which was in the poets mind.

It's possible to see meanings in lines and words which never occurred to the writer.

The following verses of "Casabianca" have been considered a hymn to courage and loyalty, but in the past few decades have been seen as an example of paralysis due to inexperience, or the failure of leadership. I do not believe either of these things were in the mind of the author.

The boy stood on the burning deck
Whence all but he had fled;
The flame that lit the battle's wreck
Shone round him o'er the dead.

Yet beautiful and bright he stood,
As born to rule the storm;
A creature of heroic blood,
A proud, though child-like form.

The flames rolled on–he would not go
Without his Father's word;
That father, faint in death below,
His voice no longer heard.

He called aloud–'say, Father, say
If yet my task is done?'
He knew not that the chieftain lay
Unconscious of his son.

I strongly agree with this statement. I've seen poems like that and they tend to be pretenious. I am not saying it's impossible. A REALLY good poet could do it—nothing is impossibly with talent—but it is out of the reach of meer mortal such as we. If you such matter is good enough, layers will appear.

 

[bogusagain]

I'm not sure poets/artists/musicians have to consciously write/paint/play on multiple levels but I think the best do, which is the the reason one returns to certain works time and again. Personally I like multiple layered complexity and the better it is the more deceptively simple a work appears to be. Single layered work tends to end up being a rather straight forward narrative that is rather quickly discarded. Nothing wrong with that, it does its job, you just move on quickly that's all and don't tend to return to it unless there are nostalgic reasons or similar.

 

[twelveoone]

I am being facetious.

I think it is a mistake to sit down one day and say, "I am going to write a poem which explores the allegory of man's reduced humanity in an increasingly industrial age."

The poem is the story. Every story, even the most banal has a subtext, but the text must be written first.

Do you mean I have to guard against the possibility of two meanings.
You bad.

 

[Epmd607]

TS Eliot was answer on Final Jeopardy last night.

Rimbaud wrote five great poems as far as I can tell. It seems all you need is five great short poems to be recognized as the best of your time.

 

[twelveoone]

TS Eliot was answer on Final Jeopardy last night.

Rimbaud wrote five great poems as far as I can tell. It seems all you need is five great short poems to be recognized as the best of your time.

if you can write one great poem, you've done something.

epm that is a very big IF you can write five great short poems.

I'm still at Koba's point, I'm still trying to understand poetry. I don't quite "get it" either. Why don't I "get it". I'm not great. It's that fucking simple. However looking around, I don't see...anybody here...that is.

I'm sorry what prompted this set of cynicism from you?