Questions about Interpretation

[bek andoloro]

Hi, I hope that I've found the proper section of the forum for this post. I have questions about interpretation that I'm hoping others will help me clarify.

First, as someone new to the practice of critiquing others' work, I've been finding myself greatly focusing on interpretation rather than mechanics. I am aware of this and am trying to avoid making interpretation my primary focus. So far, the separation is difficult.

Secondly, I'm very confused about whether or not I'm "reading too much" into poems and unsure about how to determine if that's the case. From what I'm gathering I should spend a great deal of time with each poem -- whether here or when reading published poetry. Is it advisable to approach a poem with the assumption that I can read as much as possible into the meaning of the words? I'm assuming so since each word is strategically chosen and representative of the poem's overall meaning. It starts to feel like I'm staring at one of those photos where the imbedded image appears when you focus beyond the immediate picture. But, then, when that image appears I wonder if it's actually there.

I hope I'm being clear about what is unclear to me.

What I am gathering so far is that, upon first read, a poem should peak my interest/senses enough that I want to further explore it for more of interest/more sensations and more understanding of the theme. That's all making sense. What I cant yet determine is, by reading and rereading and spending a great deal of time critiquing/analyzing a poem -- how do I know if I'm overanalyzing? Can I actually convince myself that the emperor does have clothes if I picture him in a tuxedo for a long enough time?

I canceled a critique I was going to post today because it seemed I was doing just that -- possibly reading way too much into it.

Any insights/suggestions will be appreciated and thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

[HowardM2]

The answers to your question are the same three answers to the question, "How do I get to Carnegie Hall?" -- "Practice, practice, practice."

Ultimately, it comes down to a question of experience. Serious beginners, quite honestly, often make too much out of issues of this sort as a consequence of wanting very much to do what's right and avoiding anything that could be construed as wrong. Confidence comes with experience, and experience takes time.

If you want something specific as a guideline, and that's somewhat difficult to come up with, it would probably best be found in statements like "Everything in moderation."

[bek andoloro]

for the quick and concise response. I've been reading so much - the blurbs, blogs, books. Well, I start to. Trying to provide critique here is definitely exercising some part of my brain that's been dormant for awhile. It's a very overwhelming task and I bet that makes it worthwhile. Moderation, eh? Interesting concept, thank you.

[larryrap]

I'd say don't worry too much about it, write what occurs to you as meaningful and add "I may be reading too much into this but..." disclaimers if you want to hold both sides of the stick.

It's not like someone will be shot for our misjudgements.

[bek andoloro]

Hi and thank you for the reply. The disclaimer makes good sense. The act of trying to constructively critique is exercising parts of my mind/imagination that are very stiff and creaky. I hadn't realized that it would feel much different than writing. Seems to be a very unique composition of endorphins. Weird.