What does a poem mean?

[Angeline]

So. Did we decide what "a poem means"? Sorry Chuck, but that's one dumb question. A poem means what it says - perhaps a different thing to each reader. It can't mean any one thing - unless it's in a Hallmark card.


P.S. I stil think you're hawt stuff.

I'm rethinking the whole Hallmark thing. Those cards are expensive; I'll bet they pay writers well. And then I could go home and write what I want. And I would insist that the poems in my cards mean at least three things.

 

[Angeline]

It was apparently a good question in grade 9 to 13? Does a poem mean what it says? Or only what a poet wants it to say? Therefore how the hell do we as poets get our meanings across? What DOES a poem mean, exactly?

PS: you know I want you, sexy!

It only means the same thing if you and I are the same person. Otherwise it means what you think it means, and with any luck that's fairly close to what the poet meant, too.

 

[Senna Jawa]

[...] Senna Jawa was explaining in one of the threads what his poem 'Silver' might mean. it's interesting to realise that a poet may have (will likely have) more depth in their work than what i first see.

i like it when a poet explains the ins and outs of their words.

the flip side to that coin is, does the poet need to explain 'better' to give more depth in their work?

Almost every time I comment on one of my poems I feel bad afterwards. A poem, like a person, may have a secret shine to it, but once you say that it has something secret about it, it is not secret anymore, and the discrete effect is gone.

I hardly ever provide any interpretation of my poems anyway--in that respect I can be only one of the readers, no more. Instead, I can point to certain objective elements in the poem. E.g. I may mention that a certain word in the second stanza is an echo of a word in the first one. Something like this. In the case of "silver" I mentioned the title. As somone has observed, it has added some light to the poem. I have mentioned things which were still more, so to speak, material.

A good critic, being a pro, can assist readers by providing the historical background, by recalling the conventions of the time, connections with other authors (perhaps from the past) or with other pieces by the same author. For instance, when you read about flowers in a Chinese poem from the eight century then keep in mind a possibility that flowers were a common metaphor for girls/young women. Let me add a personal touch: if you read about green butterflies (or "zielone motyle" in Polish) in my poems, then it is perhaps also about money (dollars), for sure. Feel free to use this metaphor. It started as my kenning of money "the green butterflies of my pocket".

And yet, the author cannot make his poem any deeper by explaining it. That would be a defeat. Once the poem is born, it lives its own life. Whatever the author had to say should be in the poem itself.

I see only one exception, a kind of, not really. A poem can be a part of a larger piece, perhaps of an artistic diary, traveler's journal... Then it may be not necessarily a stand alone poem, but just a part of a greater artistic entity. Then it should not be considered as a complete artistic piece. The whole journal, or the whole chapter of that journal would play the role of the complete item, not the poem alone. Some haiku are like this. A critic may miraculously understand an obscure haiku but only due to her/his familiarity with the whole related entry in the journal.

So no, the author cannot add to the depth of her/his poem as the author by explaining it later. That would be a lost cause.

Occasionally, an author does explain her/his poem, but then s/he wears the hat not of the author but that of a critic. It's a tricky situation, perhaps more easy to accept when it happens some fifty years after the poem is written .

Regards,

 

[CharleyH]

It only means the same thing if you and I are the same person. Otherwise it means what you think it means, and with any luck that's fairly close to what the poet meant, too.

Well then why bother to study TS. Elliot, Shakespeare et al?

 

[CharleyH]

Almost every time I comment my poem I feel bad afterwards. A poem, like a person, may have a secret shine to it, but once you say that it has something secret about it, it is not secret anymore, and the discrete effect is gone.
,

To you. But why does a person write poetry for people to see? What would be the point in secrecy?

 

[Liar]

It was apparently a good question in grade 9 to 13? Does a poem mean what it says? Or only what a poet wants it to say? Therefore how the hell do we as poets get our meanings across? What DOES a poem mean, exactly?

PS: you know I want you, sexy!

Like I said, it's user defined. The meaning is determined by the active agent. Be it the writer or the reader. A specfic poem in any giver situation means two things. What the reader think it means and what the writer indends it t mean.

However, if your question is more along the lines of what a poem (or rather the act of writing a poem) signifies... That's an interresting conversation piece over a dandy brandy some late night.

Edited to add: ...which was what you just asked in your latest post, when I wrote this. "But why does a person write poetry for people to see?"

 

[Angeline]

Well then why bother to study TS. Elliot, Shakespeare et al?

Because even if you don't understand every nuance of what the writer meant, it can still be great poetry. Is the point of reading a poem to underdstand what the poet meant or to understand and appreciate what it means to you?

 

[CharleyH]

Like I said, (and you glossed over as what...a joke?), it's user defined. The meaning is determined by the active agent. Be it the writer or the reader. A specfic poem in any giver situation means two things. What the reader think it means and what the writer indends it t mean.

However, if your question is more along the lines of what a poem (or rather the act of writing a poem) signifies... That's an interresting conversation piece over a dandy brandy some late night.

Edited to add: ...which was what you just asked in your latest post, when I wrote this.

Well a dandy brandy is in order then. I did not mean to gloss over your posts, I took them as making fun, and never saw this thread going beyond it.

Seriously, is it (poetry) user defined only? Should not a poet be able to articulate something for the many? How can we posiibly study poetry if they don't? Or lyrics and music for that matter?

 

[Senna Jawa]

Almost every time I comment on my poem I feel bad afterwards. A poem, like a person, may have a secret shine to it, but once you say that it has something secret about it, it is not secret anymore, and the discrete effect is gone.

To you. But why does a person write poetry for people to see? What would be the point in secrecy?

A misunderstanding. A reader may be taken by the secret layers or light without realizing it consciously. You may enjoy a meal without knowing the ingredients which made the food tasty. And if you are not into cooking but only into enjoying the food, you may not like to know too much.

It's like with the beauty of someone. If you start tinkering, pointing that the subtle effects are due to a certain asymmetry of eyes, to a repetitive gesture, to... And the element after element, the magic charm may be gone.

I myself don't feel this way about the poems. I want to know what makes them subtle or great or poor or cheap or... It doesn't take for me anything from the poem, it may even add to my initial, naive admiration. But if I do it publically to my poem, which I did several times, than I am left with bad taste in my mouth. (Thus I gave up on readers getting my poems a long time ago without feeling much loss--it's rather a nice surprise when on rare occasions someone gets something out of them; and to avoid another misunderstanding--"silver" is only on fringies of poetry, it is pretty close to being an aphorism, and it's not a big deal; on the other hand the comment in the feedback portal was ignorant and wrong, hence on a whim I felt like reacting. Oh, well ).

Regards,

 

[CharleyH]

A misunderstanding. A reader may be taken by the secret layers or light without realizing it consciously. You may enjoy a meal without knowing the ingredients which made the food tasty. And if you are not into cooking but only into enjoying the food, you may not like to know too much.
Regards,

Tasty analogy But why pay 100 for a steak when you can get it for 20, or 10 if you cook it yourself? Why read a poem if the poet does not even attempt to speak to a wider audience than his or her own ego? What is poetry than? For ones self?

I understand what you are saying, I will respond better tomorrow ... tired now, though. NIGHT ALL!

 

[Liar]

Well a dandy brandy is in order then. I did not mean to gloss over your posts, I took them as making fun, and never saw this thread going beyond it.

Seriously, is it user defined? How can we posiibly study poetry then, or lyrics and music for that matter if there is only user, or even the argument of personal definitions??

Because I believe that one of the things that makes good poetry (or art generally) good is that the artist is precise enough in his or her communication, that the gap between intention and intepretation is minimized. (Although the intention can well be a multitude of intepretations.)

 

[CharleyH]

Because I believe that one of the things that makes good poetry (or art generally) good is that the artist is precise enough in his or her communication, that the gap between intention and intepretation is minimized. (Although the intention can well be a multitude of intepretations.)

Yes I think we agree. I see your point more clearly now, Thank you. I cant comment though, right now, practically falling asleep (not because of you) I will revisit tomorrow or Sunday.

 

[Tzara]

It's like with the beauty of someone. If you start tinkering, pointing that the subtle effects are due to a certain asymmetry of eyes, to a repetitive gesture, to... And the element after element, the magic charm may be gone.

This is an excellent explanation. I was going to suggest that it was like explaining a card trick--if you're shown how the trick was done, it is no longer magic.

Now for some people, aspiring magicians for example, knowing how the trick was done is the important part. The trick is just a trick; the technique is where the interest is.

 

[Bigman923]

This may sound simplistic, but I think it is a poem if the writer thinks it is a poem. I think to fften other people judge poems based on legnth or style and the truth is that a poetry is poetry, and what that is is dependent on the person who wrote. And is not for the readers to say "this is more of a short story" or any such.

 

[Tzara]

This may sound simplistic, but I think it is a poem if the writer thinks it is a poem. I think to fften other people judge poems based on legnth or style and the truth is that a poetry is poetry, and what that is is dependent on the person who wrote. And is not for the readers to say "this is more of a short story" or any such.

Well, what forms of writing are subsumed by the word "poetry" can be quite broad for some (form poetry, free verse, prose poems, concrete poetry, sound poetry, etc.), but I don't think you can say just anything is a poem because you, the author, say it is. Otherwise whatever junior Juris Doctor who originally authored this could merely say "this is a poem" and we'd all have to agree.

At which point, the word "poem" doesn't mean anything. What is not a poem or not potentially a poem, if it merely requires that the author assert that it is?

If you're sensitive about whether you have written something you consider to be a poem and someone else calls it a "story," I think you're worrying about something that isn't very important. Aren't you more concerned about whether they liked it or not? Whether it is good or not?

I, at least, would much rather someone call one of my poems a story than what they usually call it: "garbage."

 

[annaswirls]

..... but I don't think you can say just anything is a poem because you, the author, say it is. Otherwise whatever junior Juris Doctor who originally authored this could merely say "this is a poem" and we'd all have to agree....

...which brings us back to DuChamp's hanging piss pot

 

[Tzara]

...which brings us back to DuChamp's hanging piss pot

Actually 1201 got that wrong, I think. It was displayed lying flat, not hanging. Check the orientation of the "signature."

Not that that matters.

So, I guess if you're influential enough in the world of poetry and you call whatever you want a "poem," it probably is one.

Which is how you get concrete poetry and sound poetry to be poetry in the first place--by extending the semantic envelope of what "poetry" means.

 

[annaswirls]

Actually 1201 got that wrong, I think. It was displayed lying flat, not hanging. Check the orientation of the "signature."

yeah, I think it is upside down
hope no one tried to use it

ever see his pieces in Philadelphia?

 

[Tzara]

yeah, I think it is upside down
hope no one tried to use it

ever see his pieces in Philadelphia?

No. Just the reproductions in the Tate Modern in London. Never been to Philadelphia. It's one of the few big cities in the US I've never been to.

 

[Bigman923]

Well, what forms of writing are subsumed by the word "poetry" can be quite broad for some (form poetry, free verse, prose poems, concrete poetry, sound poetry, etc.), but I don't think you can say just anything is a poem because you, the author, say it is. Otherwise whatever junior Juris Doctor who originally authored this could merely say "this is a poem" and we'd all have to agree.

At which point, the word "poem" doesn't mean anything. What is not a poem or not potentially a poem, if it merely requires that the author assert that it is?

If you're sensitive about whether you have written something you consider to be a poem and someone else calls it a "story," I think you're worrying about something that isn't very important. Aren't you more concerned about whether they liked it or not? Whether it is good or not?

I, at least, would much rather someone call one of my poems a story than what they usually call it: "garbage."

Here is the thing that was not written to be anything other than what it is (I admit I didn't read it past two or three words) but had the writter been writing it and thought I am writing poetry, then I would say it is poetry if only to him.
I know there are proper forms of poetry but I do not think that any form of art can be limited by names or typing. If you read some poem you cant identify a type it simply means it is a new type, or not a type and that is fine too.
Maybe I draw a distinction between stories and poems, and yes poems tell stories, but it is diffrent. I think .. oh hell whatever it is my opinion and that is yours and both are cool with me.