There's a lot of opinions out there on the meaning of poetry, and I'm sure there is here too. Some say we should look for it while others say it only matters what the poem means to you. But I think most are of the opinion that the author of the poem should, at least in some way, put some meaning into their work, otherwise they're just words. But here's where my real question comes in. If it's true - and I think it is - that each individual will interpret a poem in their own way, and take from it different things, and also that poem analysis is largely subjective (unless the author has decided to publicise the meaning behind their work), what is the point of there being meaning there in the first place? Is it there purely so the author feels the work required is worth their time? Or are they hoping the meaning will be clear to all on reading? Maybe they want the poem to defy interpretation so that people talk about it? Take WCW's The Red Wheelbarrow as an example (which I think I've talked about before) - a (seemingly) simple poem about a red wheelbarrow in the rain beside some white chickens. Now I've watched a video where some guy prattles on about this poem for 15 minutes, suggesting all kinds of metaphors and symbolism. Frankly I thought he was talking out of his arse, but what if Williams was just describing what he saw out of his back window one day? There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but if true it goes right against the majority view which states poetry has to have meaning to be worth both the author's time and the reader's. I must confess my poetry has all but no meaning. They're observations, feelings, thoughts. This concerns me, but only because of the general consensus that poetry should have meaning; a belief that, in itself, I'm now beginning to question.
Deep thoughts, Jud. In this matter you will only find opinion, as there are no rules surrounding meaning. My opinion is that poetry is a form of expression and if the author believes that the poem expressed their thoughts then the poem is a success. Yes others will assign an interpretation, but that doesn't diminish the author's intent in in any way. Most author's are just happy that the poem spoke to someone on some level.
My thoughts to a T, @John Grant. I often wonder how many poets out there seek out discussion of their own work, laughing their arses off at how wrong people are in their interpretations.
I read this & thought of you @OurJud http://observer.com/1997/11/hart-cranes-hieroglyphs-the-unmentionable-truth/
Interpreting a poem is a whole science in itself, and, depending on your approach, can be highly complicated. Yes, some poets might laugh their arses off when they read what others say about their poetry - but in most cases that doesn't matter. Roland Barthes once wrote a famous book called The Death of the Author, a highly influential book in literary criticism, which argues that the writer's intention essentially doesn't matter, because a writer doesn't exist on an island, but is necessarily influenced by his or her surrounding land/sound/thoughtscape. An even older form of criticism, still favoured by many Oxbridge dons, is called Practical Criticism, where you pay no heed to the history/culture/philosophy surrounding the writer, but only concentrate on the text itself. In both cases, the author's intention doesn't matter - and I like those approaches, to be honest. If a text contains something which you can prove with the words in front of you, it's valid (as long as it is internally consistent). The author might express something he/she didn't intend originally. Ezra Pound once wrote that poets nowadays (that is, in his day) were conscious about things they oughtn't be conscious about, and unconscious about ones they should be conscious about... anyhow. Why is it I always end up quoting Pound on your threads, OurJud? Edit: it just occurred to me: I think many amateur poets (mostly teens and young adults) make the mistake of thinking that a poem is essentially a riddle, in which you have some statement which you pack into 'poetic' language (whatever that means), leaving only one interpretation open... but that's a gross misunderstanding of the medium, if you ask me
I both agree and disagree. I agree in as much as the author's intentions and meaning don't count for a lot once it's out there, as readers are going to draw their own conclusions no matter what. But I disagree in as much as this: If I had written a poem that became well known (for want of a better expression) that was merely, and simply, an observation about the red wheel barrow and chickens I have in my rainy back garden, I'd like to think I had the authority to tell some pretentious plonker who's prattled on for 20 minutes about how my poem is actually a metaphor for old age and death, and that the chickens represent regret for unrequited love, that he was talking through his arse hole.
Yes - very true, despite all theory and literary criticism, it can result in waffling around aimlessly and pointlessly for ages, and the poet might have had quite a different vision when writing it. Nevertheless, in some cases, it might also be a lack of clarity in the poem itself which invites such pretentious readings (not always, of course... academia needs to justify their pretentious plonkers in some form or another, or else universities would very quickly run out of funding!). In the end, I suppose, reading a work of art is always a subjective experience and bound to invite sometimes conflicting interpretations... the thing is, those views aren't automatically universal, obviously...
