How do you read a poem?

[Blythe]

Something that I think we all do differently, and which interests me immensely.

[tygerlilly72]

well, i try to read a poem thru three times...
first with emphasis on the line breaks
second as though it's a great big run-on sentence
third with an attempt at getting a feel for what the writer is trying to get across...what kind of expression they are conveying (or trying to, anyway!)
i've found that the three run-throughs help me tremendously in my understanding of the poem...
of course, i'm sure the rest of you do it differently! http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif
>^..^<
tyger

[This message has been edited by tygerlilly72 (edited 11-10-2000).]

[LauraJ]

Originally posted by Blythe:
Something that I think we all do differently, and which interests me immensely.

This depends entirely on whether I am reading it for critique or just reading poetry.
For critique, I read a poem only once. Then I re-read line by line as I critique, only re-reading so that I can state clearly what bothered me in the first reading. If that makes sense.
For reading, I just read it once. If it moves me, I read it aloud to see if it resonates in my brain, and if I can feel the author's voice. Then read a third time, my favorite bits and concentrate on their meaning.
If it doesn't stir me, I just say, "hmm. okay." and begin the next.

[MSPav]

I have a fairly limited attention span, so if the poem doesn't draw me in quickly, I lose interest. That said, I just read the thing! Then, if critiqing, I examine the word choice, the flow, phrasing, punctuation...hell, I don't need to tell you how to crit!

[Kemmer]

I read straight through once to see if I care. Then (if I care) I read it a second time for nuances. If a poem intrigues me, I'll keep reading to find out just how the poet got the effect.

If the poem is really good, I won't even notice rhyme, alliteration, etc until the 3rd reading. Unless they're annoying, I don't really notice line-breaks until the third reading. (I love line-breaks that move a poem forward, or twist the lines into double meanings. Janus-faced line-breaks, I guess. Wish I could write them.)

If I'm going to try to crit, I always read the poem at least 3 times, usually more. But I can see the reason for offering the poet your first impressions. That first reading is so, well, critical.

Kemmer


------------------
Life is not a zero-sum game.

[daughter]

blythe--
my first read is pure interest. if the work does not grab my attention within the opening lines, i then decide whether to continue. this is decided by my familiarity with the poet or if i catch a line that is interesting elsewhere in the work.

on my second read, i try to figure out what the poet wants me to understand. depending on the complexity of the work, this might take several reads.

if i'm doing a critique, i look first for meaning, then i examine how the poet tries to accomplish this.

i am more comfortable evaluating prose. on this board particularly, i tend to shy away from critiques. i lack solid technical skills and experience with formal analysis of poetry. if the poet/writer is a clearly a new poet who could benefit from some basic observations, then i'll consider commenting.

currently, i am reading mary oliver's "poetry handbook". i'm committing time to learning more about the technical side of writing poetry.

peace,

daughter

[Blythe]

Thanks for all of your replies.

I find it interesting that three reads is a common feature of everyone reading for critical thought. When I was learning French we would read a passage or a poem three times without a dictionary and see how much we could understand; many times we could get a pretty accurate translation from things that we knew and intuiting or examining other words.

Man that "want to bookmark this page" thing is distracting me.

I would have once said, before educating myself, that the first impression is the only one that matters. I no longer think that it is true. Though the first read may be very important, I don't think that it is the most lasting nor the most important impression that we get of the work. What is more important is how we relate to a work over time and thought processes. In that way nuances which our own emotions or intellectualizings (!) add can be examined, as can be the more concrete aspect of the relationship, the poem itself.

Then there's the frustration of stupid websites with names like buy.com. ugh.

We can find poems in the most unlikely places - used car lots or conversations with an imaginary companion. I have only become really interested in poetry over the past few months, and though I have studied many of the Eastern and Western classical poems I have done it so incompletely. There's an aspect of poetry that is so seperate from the more general aspect of art.

Thanks for all of your thoughts, I look forward to hearing more.

[jsdb]

Thanks for all of your replies.
I find it interesting that three reads is a common feature of everyone reading for critical thought. When I was learning French we would read a passage or a poem three times without a dictionary and see how much we could understand; many times we could get a pretty accurate translation from things that we knew and intuiting or examining other words.

***for me, even more important than rereading a poem (in translation) is hearing a native speaker read it aloud.

Man that "want to bookmark this page" thing is distracting me.

I would have once said, before educating myself, that the first impression is the only one that matters. I no longer think that it is true. Though the first read may be very important, I don't think that it is the most lasting nor the most important impression that we get of the work. What is more important is how we relate to a work over time and thought processes. In that way nuances which our own emotions or intellectualizings (!) add can be examined, as can be the more concrete aspect of the relationship, the poem itself.

***it´s very true, I think, that the only real way of reading a poem is not reading it: or in other words, reading it, and then letting it settle in, and become part of your family. But then the question arises for me of whether this is the same poem it was before: some say that you have changed, others that you are the same, but your vision of the poem has altered. I think this is a very important question, because it might be true that we can never read a poem on its own merits, but always must bring it to us, and change it in the process (a little like the so-called objective world). Perhaps then Plato´s warnings about writing being only one-sided are very accurate. The poem is a fervent companion who never ceases to break down your defenses, yet who must always undergo immutable change when "understood."

Then there's the frustration of stupid websites with names like buy.com. ugh.

We can find poems in the most unlikely places - used car lots or conversations with an imaginary companion.

**I hope your imaginary companion has good taste in poetry!

I have only become really interested in poetry over the past few months, and though I have studied many of the Eastern and Western classical poems I have done it so incompletely. There's an aspect of poetry that is so seperate from the more general aspect of art.

****that´s a very mysterious last line. I don´t know if I agree with you since I don´t understand what you mean by "aspect," and "separate." Certainly poetry relies on music...

Thanks for all of your thoughts, I look forward to hearing more.

[MSPav]

Originally posted by Blythe:
Something that I think we all do differently, and which interests me immensely.

The obvious (and lame) answer would be: with my eyes.

[Blythe]

Originally posted by Strangefire:
The obvious (and lame) answer would be: with my eyes.



h-

(that was almost a laugh)

[Blythe]

Originally posted by jsdb:


***for me, even more important than rereading a poem (in translation) is hearing a native speaker read it aloud.

Yes that would be nice.

***it´s very true, I think, that the only real way of reading a poem is not reading it: or in other words, reading it, and then letting it settle in, and become part of your family. But then the question arises for me of whether this is the same poem it was before: some say that you have changed, others that you are the same, but your vision of the poem has altered. I think this is a very important question, because it might be true that we can never read a poem on its own merits, but always must bring it to us, and change it in the process (a little like the so-called objective world). Perhaps then Plato´s warnings about writing being only one-sided are very accurate. The poem is a fervent companion who never ceases to break down your defenses, yet who must always undergo immutable change when "understood."

Jacob I'm sure you know what Borges said about a poem only existing in its meeting with a reader. And your last sentence is very interesting to me. I love relationships that define understanding, like the wave equation. Pieces of knowledge are nothing until the -oh, what was Kierkegaard's word, imperfect? Unknowledge? Help me, jacob - learner approaches it and enters into a bond with it. The uncertainty of our world is such a wonderfully inspiring thing. God...


We can find poems in the most unlikely places - used car lots or conversations with an imaginary companion.

**I hope your imaginary companion has good taste in poetry!

The best, Jacob!

There's an aspect of poetry that is so seperate from the more general aspect of art.

****that´s a very mysterious last line. I don´t know if I agree with you since I don´t understand what you mean by "aspect," and "separate." Certainly poetry relies on music...

Of course you'd ask me to explain the hardest statement.

One thing about comparing art and poetry is in the origins. Art is a manmade thing by definition, whereas poetry almost comes from outside of us, distilled parts of the world. But not made by us, painted and shadowed and colored. Instead we filter the world through a language or through understanding, translating it before anyone else translates our words or meaning.

There is interpretation in any art, but if you're looking at a picture you understand purple (maybe not the artist's use of it, but that it is purple.) The elements of painting are these hues and tones, while the basic units of a poem are symbols which are undefinable at best. Music is constructed by tones and times, also more immediately understood by the nerves, not requesting that we assimilate the meaning of a G note before we have to break down what Bach meant by it. That jerk.

Thanks Jacob, looking forward more than ever to seeing you

[jsdb]

Jacob I'm sure you know what Borges said about a poem only existing in its meeting with a reader. And your last sentence is very
interesting to me. I love relationships that define understanding, like the wave equation. Pieces of knowledge are nothing until the -oh, what was Kierkegaard's word, imperfect? Unknowledge? Help me, jacob - learner approaches it and enters into a bond with it. The uncertainty of our world is such a wonderfully inspiring thing. God...

//// actually I wasn´t aware of what you quoted from Borges. relationships that define understanding are very fascinating, but because of that I´m surprised that you aren´t more interested in Kant, considering his view of knowledge. I can see why Hegel appeals to you though. It´s like the old refrain (was it originally Goethe?) who commented on the sadness of color, how it´s not specifically made for us...which is true in many ways, but the rainbow´s beauty defies a mechanistic explanation (water, etc). I still don´t know whether thinking is a relationship that defines knowledge, since there are oh so many types of thinking about things. The whole argument based on a supposed difference between feeling and thinking is way off the point. People generally say the difference is the rational versus emotional, but I think it has to do exactly with the relationship defining knowledge, the sudden bursting forth of a new relationship, and thus a new knowledge.

We can find poems in the most unlikely places - used car lots or conversations with an imaginary companion.

**I hope your imaginary companion has good taste in poetry!

The best, Jacob!

//so have you finished pessoa yet? I´m waiting.

There's an aspect of poetry that is so seperate from the more general aspect of art.

****that´s a very mysterious last line. I don´t know if I agree with you since I don´t understand what you mean by "aspect," and
"separate." Certainly poetry relies on music...

Of course you'd ask me to explain the hardest statement.

One thing about comparing art and poetry is in the origins. Art is a manmade thing by definition, whereas poetry almost comes from outside of us, distilled parts of the world. But not made by us, painted and shadowed and colored. Instead we filter the world through a language or through understanding, translating it before anyone else translates our words or meaning.

///I know some painters, sculptures, and architectures would argue with this (among them Gaudi, who fancied his Sagrada Familia and his buildings in general to imitate nature, thus using it as a source. Or even clearer Monet, who used his gardens at Giverny to paint his waterlilies. In fact the whole impressionist movement was a turning towards nature, the taking of canvas to the woods and lakes and painting.) But maybe I´m not addressing your statement. You say that "Art is a manmade thing by definition, whereas poetry almost comes from outside of us, distilled parts of the world." I´m tempted to argue that the word is the same regardless of the medium (painting, writing, music). Why should divine truth reside in specific mediums or channels? Your last sentence is very significant, but I´m not sure I´m able to address it here.

There is interpretation in any art, but if you're looking at a picture you understand purple (maybe not the artist's use of it, but that it is purple.) The elements of painting are these hues and tones, while the basic units of a poem are symbols which are undefinable at best. Music is constructed by tones and times, also more immediately understood by the nerves, not requesting that we assimilate the meaning of a G note before we have to break down what Bach meant by it. That jerk.

////what is the meaning of a perfect interval, or that harrowing blue in Van Gogh´s self portraits? Does it fit easily into our understanding? Can we compartimentalize it like so many rehashed phrases? It´s true that every word is a symbol (if you get a chance, there´s a wonderful short essay by Octavio Paz about the function of poetry and history--I can email it to you if you want, where he talks about poetry as symbols), but isn´t everything? As Rilke says, "the animals are aware that we are not at home in this interpreted world" (or something to that effect): everything takes on interpretation, Rodin´s amazing sculpture of Paulo and Francesca, locked in a moment (as in Keats´ grecian urn) of ecstasy that is so revealing and yet so foreign at the same time: foreign because I don´t understand fully his sculpture, I can´t entirely decipher everything Rodin meant, the fact that Paolo´s and Francesca´s lips are so close it´s almost impossible to tell if they are even touching. It´s a different type of symbol than a word, but it´s just as powerful. Need one mention as well, with regard to painting, that the hues and colors can be understood in different ways, whether physiologically or aesthetically or perceptually, likewise with music (wavelength, that wonderful equation). And we haven´t even discussed film, whose symbols (i.e., in a Tarkovsky film) are practically infinite. In fact, Tarkovsky wrote a book about the function of symbols in films and said that they are undefinable, among other things. There are so many similarities across the arts that I hesitate to highlight writing as unique.
Jacob

[Ted]

Left to right,
Top to bottom.

Duh.

[Blythe]

Originally posted by Tedward:

Left to right,
Top to bottom.

Duh.

Thanks, Tedward. I'm doing a monkey dance of joy. Cretin http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/wink.gif

Jacob, I will be back for you later.

[Neophyte]

Originally posted by jsdb:
There's an aspect of poetry that is so seperate from the more general aspect of art.

////...You say that "Art is a manmade thing by definition, whereas poetry almost comes from outside of us, distilled parts of the world." I´m tempted to argue that the word is the same regardless of the medium (painting, writing, music). Why should divine truth reside in specific mediums or channels?

There is interpretation in any art, but if you're looking at a picture you understand purple (maybe not the artist's use of it, but that it is purple.) The elements of painting are these hues and tones, while the basic units of a poem are symbols which are undefinable at best. Music is constructed by tones and times, also more immediately understood by the nerves, not requesting that we assimilate the meaning of a G note before we have to break down what Bach meant by it. That jerk.

////what is the meaning of a perfect interval, or that harrowing blue in Van Gogh´s self portraits? Does it fit easily into our understanding? Can we compartimentalize it like so many rehashed phrases? It´s true that every word is a symbol (if you get a chance, there´s a wonderful short essay by Octavio Paz about the function of poetry and history--I can email it to you if you want, where he talks about poetry as symbols), but isn´t everything? As Rilke says, "the animals are aware that we are not at home in this interpreted world" (or something to that effect): everything takes on interpretation, Rodin´s amazing sculpture of Paulo and Francesca, locked in a moment (as in Keats´ grecian urn) of ecstasy that is so revealing and yet so foreign at the same time: foreign because I don´t understand fully his sculpture, I can´t entirely decipher everything Rodin meant, the fact that Paolo´s and Francesca´s lips are so close it´s almost impossible to tell if they are even touching. It´s a different type of symbol than a word, but it´s just as powerful. Need one mention as well, with regard to painting, that the hues and colors can be understood in different ways, whether physiologically or aesthetically or perceptually, likewise with music (wavelength, that wonderful equation). And we haven´t even discussed film, whose symbols (i.e., in a Tarkovsky film) are practically infinite. In fact, Tarkovsky wrote a book about the function of symbols in films and said that they are undefinable, among other things. There are so many similarities across the arts that I hesitate to highlight writing as unique.
Jacob

I agree with Jacob.

You might not have to decipher the note 'G' in music (provided, of course, that one of the following is true: 1. You've got the music in front of you and can read it; 2. You have perfect pitch; 3. You know what key the piece is in and have decent relative pitch; 4. You can see the instrumentalists hand/finger position and know the instrument well enough to know the pitch being sounded. http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif ) But even if you do know what a 'G' is without any deciphering, that doesn't mean you would necessarily understand its role in the piece.
Likewise in poetry, you could very well recognize a word without need for deciphering it, but that doesn't mean you would necessarily understand its role.
I don't think any work of art is different in this respect. All forms and genres (including poetry) have essential building blocks that might very well be understood individually, whether those blocks be notes in music, words in writing, or color in painting etc. The true meaning/understanding of all art forms comes not just from the individual pieces, but also from the whole and how those pieces contribute to that whole.

That's my take on it, anyway.

------------------
Heidi
music.jd.2b@justice.com
www.geocities.com/music_jd_2b/index.html (http://www.geocities.com/music_jd_2b/index.html)

[This message has been edited by Neophyte (edited 12-19-2000).]

[Neophyte]

Originally posted by jsdb:
...Instead we filter the world through a language or through understanding, translating it before anyone else translates our words or meaning.


(Quote actually from Blythe, I think)

The argument could be made that music, painting, sculpting, etc. are also filtrations and translations of the world. In fact, in my experience, many musicians (especially, but certainly not limited to, jazz musicians) have argued that very thing.


------------------
Heidi
music.jd.2b@justice.com
www.geocities.com/music_jd_2b/index.html (http://www.geocities.com/music_jd_2b/index.html)

[This message has been edited by Neophyte (edited 12-19-2000).]

[Poetic Fanatic]

Hi folks, http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/poetry_forums/smile.gif
For me, it must get my attention in the intro, otherwise I'll scan and skim. If something grabs me in the body, then I'll say ok and start over. I read a lot and I type, a lot.

I just got to this board. I hope to fit in somewhere. Tommy

I have removed the URL posted in this message. Please refrain from advertising other poetry sites on these forums. It is considered bad form to promote other poetry websites when you yourself are seeking feedback from others here.

Rachel
forum moderator

[This message has been edited by TheBroad (edited 01-29-2001).]