Post here if you dare taking on a perky editorial!

[Rybka]

Re: Well you know

my college Shakespeare professor said if you can use examples from the text and fit them to your hypothesis, you can stand by it. If only you hard written this poem 400 years ago and thus were not around today to argue otherwise, I could have convinced everyone my theory was right!

No one has said that your interpretation can't be correct!

Regards,                 Rybka

 

[phatcat]

I'm allowed to be disappointed

cuz I am.

 

[_Land]

Rybka, I saw the religious theme, but prefered to stick to issues of mortal men, feeling that that was how most people would relate to it. Some of the key phrases also lent them self to mortality, not immortality........... The first time i read it, i felt a semi-religous tone, but the more i read it the more i felt like it was between mortal beings, why? WHo the hell knows. But I like you interp too.......... Pretty damn amazing considering how this poem was cranked out! ;P




Regards_Land

 

[Senna Jawa]

Re: Well you know

my college Shakespeare professor said if you can use examples from the text and fit them to your hypothesis, you can stand by it.

This statement while true when clarified properly, is otherwise a bit ambigous and may introduce a wrong impression.

Let's for the sake of this discussion introduce terms   (total) interpretation   and   association. A (total) interpretation explains the whole text; in particular, it is consistent with the whole text. An association explains only a portion. Associations may be compatible with the whole text or not. Even when they are not they may form a positive part of the artistic event. They even may be something on which the author was counting, while the rest of the text may dispel such an inconsistent association. All these notions are useful as long as we are aware of the distinctions.

An author is playing on a reader like on a musical instrument, is composing and getting all kind of reactions/associations.

Best regards,

 

[Angeline]

Total Interpretation

Senna, if I understand you correctly then a total interpretation is the correct interpretation--that is, the one the author intended-- versus the association, which though logical and even defensible may not match the author's intent?

 

[OT]

Rybka,

In answer to your question:
"Now does it all seem to make a bit more sense?"

My answer is no.

Even with your interpretation, many parts are pretty obscure and confusing.

For example, expecting a reader to pull apart the word "farthing" into "far thing" and make the connection to "Sky" is a bit much.

As a reader, I'm willing to work... but not quite that hard.

(I still like the title)

O.T.
stuff

 

[Rybka]

Rybka's Secret

I guess we've had enough fun with this poem: My Father's Sky - Growling

I originally submitted it for perky baby's critique, but she kind of opted out, so I asked/nagged others to give it a try.

Interpretations ranged from claiming the work has no meaning to a tendency of several to read it as a father dying and a son's anger/response. I myself prefer the grander God/Jesus/world sense that almost seems to be there. But I must admit that all interpretations are equally valid, or invalid. The poem has no meaning or any meaning that you find within it.

You may remember that earlier this year I asked if anyone knew of any software for help in writing poems. I was looking for something that might be able to create "fill in the blanks" templates for various formal forms of poetry; give instructions, etc. and maybe have a rhyming dictionary. I still would like to have something like that, but I haven't found it.

What I did find was a "poem generating" program. This program comes with various works from various poets in files. You can use any one poet or combine several to produce a poet "personality". Once that is done the program will use that "personality" to assist you (suggesting lines, rhymes, next word) in writing a poem in that style. Or it will write a poem in entirety!

That Is what I did with this poem. I used a "personality" composed of all the "modern" poets in the computer files and it generated the poem virtually as you see it. I did change a verb tense or two and a pronoun here and there so it read better, but essentially it is all computer generated! - Others were very close, but Angeline nailed it when she asked:

When I was in college, my friend Sanford and I "created" poetry by flipping the channels on TV and writing down whatever we heard. The result was stupid, very funny sometimes profound. Were you doing something like that here, Rybka?

OT posted

(I still like the title)

Thank you, OT. The title is the one thing that I did create.

So, is it mere gibberish, or does it have meaning? - I think it does "sound" well when read aloud, but as Angeline also mentioned C. L. Dodgson's and John Lennon's nonsense verses do to. I guess the question is, "Can a non-sentient thing create meaningful art? - What do you think?

It was also asked why Senna Jawa was let off the fish hook. The answer is that he immediately saw the lack of consistency in logic to this work. - Don't reject his criticism just because he does not sugar coat it! (Also, don't take his words as gospel. He can be wrong too, and is, more often than he will admit. But he is a very valuable member of our Lit. poet community.)

That being said, he didn't get off easy. I fed all of the poetry that S.J. had posted on Literotica into the computer "Cyber Poet" program and created a "Senna Jawa personality". Then I asked it to generate poetry. Here is the result that I have entitled, "Automatic Jawa".

#In Homage humble (automatic Jawa produced by a computer program)

i am a chance felt
both families
and friendly gesture.



know your two beams
from their forearms form an
"X" in the answer



stranger?
she advised you prefer it to the dark in him
across the States of birds
(would be my friend)?



#that i don't trust

room on the right with a stone for her
if you simply smile
room of my dreams
room on
do not ask me thru the front of night



i'll make u 1der
Y would warm your monogram



I only once
passed by a lady dream
while around the surface
watching the evening
fuels
the morning after
a woman gets up children


the holidays each
with all around her
dress
and bring on a song

So, Did he get off easy? Are you next? Do you want to be?


Regards,                 Rybka

 

[Senna Jawa]

Re: Total Interpretation

Senna, if I understand you correctly then a total interpretation is the correct interpretation--that is, the one the author intended-- versus the association, which though logical and even defensible may not match the author's intent?

Oh, no, Angeline--a total interpretation is an interpretation which is consistent with the entire poem. It follows that there can be more than one (total) interpretation, they can even contradict one another. It also follows that what an author thinks about his/her poem can be faulty and may not form a (total) interpretation. Indeed, the author may miss this and that. It can be also worse than that, when a poem was intended to make sense but it doesn't and it admits no total interpretation.

It is common for short poems to allow for more than one interpretation. They are like paintings consisting of just two-three crisp dots. Then there is more than one way to extend such a painting/poem to a full image/interpretation. In the case of haiku such a possibility of multiple interpretations is called "suggestiveness", and it is desirable.

Now, if I had energy, I would provide a bunch of examples. Perhaps it is an equally good exercise for everybody, not just for me .

Anyway, by association, in this thread, I meant an explanation only of a portion of a poem. It is rather preferable that such associations do not contradict another part of the poem. But they may have a positive role even when they do, as long as the contradiction and partial character of the association is recognized by the readers.

To summarize, the notion of a total interpretation and of an association are not related to the author and her/his view of her/his poem--in this sense these notions are objective.

Best regards,

 

[Angeline]

Thank You SJ

for the clarification--upon going back an looking at your post, I see that you were quite clear the first time on the definition. Maybe I just wanted you to type it twice, lol. Don't know why I did not see that earlier.

And Rybka, when I was writing my interpretation of this poem, I kept wanting to add a caveat relating it to the fairy tale The Emporer's New Clothes. There was something not right about it that I couldn't quite get, but I kept feeling. I suspect that is what lead me to the comparisons to nonsense writing, particularly to the electronically generated poems my friend and I wrote in college. (Wish I knew where they were today: a few of them were very funny.)

It strikes me that there is something to be said in all this--recent developments in artificial intelligence notwithstanding--about the current capacity of computers to produce anything that replicates human creativity.

You have shown us what kind of poetry a computer can make. I have worked with programs that evaluate writing samples, and I find their (the programs') inability to recognize the worth of writing that achieves its purpose in an uncomventional format, an interesting corollary to the poem generator.

I suspect we may all feel sort of hoodwinked, Rybka. Still, it was a very interesting exercise!

 

[dragonhearted]

ahem

bump

 

[Rybka]

Hoodwinked

And Rybka, . . .

It strikes me that there is something to be said in all this--recent developments in artificial intelligence notwithstanding--about the current capacity of computers to produce anything that replicates human creativity.

You have shown us what kind of poetry a computer can make. I have worked with programs that evaluate writing samples, and I find their (the programs') inability to recognize the worth of writing that achieves its purpose in an uncomventional format, an interesting corollary to the poem generator.

I suspect we may all feel sort of hoodwinked, Rybka. Still, it was a very interesting exercise! [/B]

I was actually surprised by the number of people on this site who questioned the poem. I must admit, that I was hoping that more posters would be completely "hoodwinked", or at least fooled/mislead.
The exercise has increased my opinion of the intelligence/value of the comments/suggestions of the poets who frequent this board.

So, here is another poem for your review:. . . Well Then. . .
The first line was computer generated. I liked it enough that I wrote the rest of it, as well as creating a title (for OT).

So what do you think? Can you at least be "inspired" by a computer?

Regards,                       Rybka