Readers DO have some responsibilities

[Barbara Jean]

Readers DO have some responsibility

This is my opinion. I don't profess to be a perfect reader, but I do go through a conscious process.

What do you think are the basics of being a good reader?

While we all know that it is the writer's responsibility to make their meaning clear, it is also important, in my opinion, that readers do some fundamental things to be good readers. Being a good reader is the first step to making any intelligent comments about a poem.

Now this does not mean that a reader should feel obliged to comment on what is obviously abstract drivel. But certainly in the higher forums, readers should be engaging the content of works and stating something about how they understand a work's meaning. How else will a writer know if they have adequately conveyed their intent?

In order to that well, the bare minimum a reader should do:

1. If you come a across a word you don't know the meaning of, look it up in the dictionary. There are a zillion online dictionaries.

2. If you come across a reference to something you don't know anything about, look up the reference. If that reference is a newsworthy item, a search at www.google.com (http://www.google.com) will capture the reference and any current context. How can you comment on the poem's content, call it obscure etc., if you have not made some attempt to find out what a reference means? After you find out, you can comment on how well the writer handled their subject matter. As an example, look at James Flick's Rebuke in Merciless Forum. A search of Madonna della Strada makes clear all the references in Jame's poem. Now, how well he has dealt with the subject matter becomes the next topic for the reader to consider.


3. Read imagery as it is intended to be read. This is poetry. Imagery suggests and is not meant to be literal. Part of the reader's job is to take the leap from the literal to the figurative meaning. Look at the imagery and think about what its totality suggests to you.

Here are some simple examples of what I mean. The examples are of pathetic fallacy. Modern poetry does not necessarily use this older kind of poetic expression; however, the modern reader can learn a greater concept of reading by understanding what the non-literal reading of poetry entails.

Oliver Wendell Holmes's Astrea:
"The spendthrift crocus, bursting through the mould/Naked and shivering, with his cup of gold"
Ruskin (who, by the way, does not like the use of pathetic fallacy) discusses the falsity of these lines: "while very beautiful, these lines are nonetheless untrue, for the crocus is not spendthrift but hardy, not gold but saffron." What we can learn from the "lies" poetry tells is that there is a greater truth contained in the imagery. When reading poetry, we need to think about what that larger truth might be--and consider whether the writer has conveyed it adequately.

Kingsley's Alton Locke: They rowed her in across the rolling foam -- /The cruel, crawling foam." Foam can't be cruel. It is inanimate. But this slippage of language asks us to apply the image broadly to the sense of the poem.

4. Consider the relationship of sound to meaning. This one I am trying to learn more about. Blurbs has some excellent sources on considering sound in poetry.

[Clive2]

I agree with you, Toklas, on the whole. If I could take your points one by one: -

1) Absolutely. A friend of mine got called on using words from Islamic culture in a poem. The words - for example hajj- were not that obscure, at least not to me, and were entirely appropriate in the context of the poem. A simple search of Google or a glance in a dictionary would've informed those readers who were unfamiliar.

To this, I would add that readers should be aware of differences in usage. I, and other British contributors to this and other boards, have been variously told to correct our spelling of "colour", to write "gotten" instead of "got" and that "whilst" is an archaism (it's fairly commonly used in this country). I have also been corrected on stress when it's obvious the reader pronounces the word differently to myself. I always assume American pronunciation when I read a poem written by an American - for example, I can read "towards" as a single syllable in American poems. It's not that hard to do.

2) I go along with you on most of this, but find it tiresome when poets refer to things that require a little too much specialist knowledge. For instance, if I posted a poem about Zubin and Spring's stress-vulnerability model of schizophrenia, I couldn't really complain that not too many people got it.

I suppose this could be taken as a contradiction of my comments above, but Islamic culture is rather more widespread than - oh, I don't know - an interest in entomology.

3) I couldn't agree more. But images should have some sort of logic. I can't stand surrealism in poetry, unless it's Lewis Carroll - it's usually so self-conscious and wince-inducing. And it's always so obvious when people are straining for originality in their images.

4) Ah, one of my favourite topics. Particularly with metrical poetry. I think the reader has an obligation to consider why the writer has chosen a particular form (and I include free verse in that) and whether that form or metre is appropriate to the subject matter. I have seen formalists criticised for rhyming, which is a bit like criticising a cricket for chirruping, with no consideration of whether the rhymes enhance the poem or not. I was trying to be fair all round but I haven't seen a free verser being criticised for NOT rhyming or casting the poem in metre - unless they've said what they've written is a sonnet.

So - that's rather a long-winded way of saying yes, Toklas, I think you're right.

Clive

[Dunc]

2. I remember Barbara Tuchman saying that when she was writing (history) she kept in mind a line that a friend of hers pinned above the writing desk - Will the reader turn the page? It's a reminder that if your audience doesn't follow where you go, it's your problem, not your audience's - whether of obscurity, dullness, insufficient coherence, whatever.

Obviously you choose your audience - in-jokes that are fine when writing for the school magazine won't cut it in Merciless &c. But the bottom line is, The reader owes the writer nothing. The reader's free to leave at any time.

If your Point 2 means that if someone volunteers a crit, it would be nice if it were done with understanding and care, then I agree. I'm not sure the matter goes any deeper than that. Regards / Dunc

[Barbara Jean]

Thanks for responding Clive and Dunc.

Clive, that last point perhaps should include form. I am trying to think of an example of where form and content go hand in hand. Maybe someone else can think of some.


Dunc, I prefaced this by saying that if the poem has no merit that you can see in the first place, then this would not apply. No reader is compelled to read. But if we do, I think reading has a quality just like writing. If that were not true, then newer readers who dismiss great poets are all correct in their assessment.

[Clive2]

Originally posted by Toklas:
Thanks for responding Clive and Dunc.

Clive, that last point perhaps should include form. I am trying to think of an example of where form and content go hand in hand. Maybe someone else can think of some.


Well, Shakespeare's sonnets come to mind where his meditations on various aspects of his love for the dark lady fit the movement of the sonnet extremely well.

I can think of examples where form wouldn't complement content - writers who try to stretch a triolet-sized thought over the six stanzas and envoi of a sestina and, conversely, those who try to fit a ballade royale into a limerick.

I've also seen poems written in free verse where blank verse would've served the purpose better by eliminating some of the prosiness of the FV version. Personally, I think long narratives are best cast with a governing pattern of stress, otherwise there's little to distinguish them from a chopped-up short story.

[rikroots]

I disagree.

A reader owes a poet nothing, except a desire to be entertained by the poetry put in front of them.

If a poet only wants to attract a section of readers who are willing to put some work into their interpretation of the poem, then by all means include obscure references and cryptic images. But that poet should not complain when people outside the target audience react negatively to the work.

For me, the best work will often act on several levels, and satisfy several audiences - for instance including a good narrative with a nice twist for the casual page turner, but whose images and context can help build a more textured, less clear-cut story for a reader that spends time working with a poem. Part of the magic of such poetry is the way initial impressions alter for the reader on subsequent, closer examination of the piece.

Rik

[Dunc]

Newer readers who don't like Tennyson, can't get past the first line of Donne, and think the words of All along the Watchtower are the best in all of bardic art, are right - that's what they think. I like Tennyson and Donne and think Watchtower's words are awkward melodrama. I'm right - that's what I think. There's a very large group of people out there who are neither fools, nor insensitive, nor perverted, who couldn't give a tuppenny for poetry. They're right - that's what they think.

Proselytizers like me hope the rest is dialectic - that by argument and persuasion others will come to agree with us. But the universe doesn't decree that poetry must win - not poetry as pffa likes to see it anyway. To illustrate with a reverse example, even if I write a Ph.D. thesis on the relative skills, the intricate rhythms, the subtle variations, the sheer energy, invention and craft of rap artists, I'll die knowing rap is clever and thinking it's crap anyway. Regards / Dunc

[Barbara Jean]

Clive, thanks for the example.

Rik & Dunc: thanks for the input.

I am just trying to identify where there are differences in readers skills. Would you grant that readers do have different skills? Since this is a workshop, would it not be useful for those who know more about reading poetry to say how they read? I am not suggesting that we remove the writer's responsibility to entertain/make meaning clear to readers, but only that in a workshop, reading well is the first step to doing a crit.

[Urizen]

Personally, Toklas, I appreciate your thread here. I'll say, point blank, that I am a shallow reader most of the time. That isn't to say I'm a lazy reader. It's just that I find that a lot of the time I am simply not seeing what it is the poet wants me to see, and not reading in a way the poet intended for me to read. This has been a frustrating thing for me since I started here. Subsequently, since the raising of the bar in the higher forums, my input there has gone to next to nothing, since I don't think I have anything worthwhile to say about most of the poems currently being posted there. Your idea about searching the Net for obscure or difficult references is a good one. I'll be doing that. Thanks for the suggestion.

Bill

[Barbara Jean]

Bill,

Thanks for dropping by. As you can see by responses, people have a variety of views. Some people do think that a poem is a completely enclosed bubble and that only what can be read and understood without going outside of the poem, has value. Fair enough.

I happen to also like ekphrasis poems. Now good ones give you a sense of what is going on and you could probably enjoy the poem without ever having a look at the art/object the poem refers to. However, the poem could have nuances that would be missed if you did not look at the object. One good example is Shelley's "On the Medusa Of Leonardo Da Vinci." When you look at the painting, you really get an additional feel for what is going on in the poem. Shelley reconstructs Medusa into a figure of beauty worthy of our compassion. We can say that the poem could be read without ever seeing the painting. It is aided already by our knowledge that Medusa is an ominous figure. But if we want to deepen our understanding of poems, then I think going that extra step is a valuable experience in reading.

It would also be fair to say that a poem that is all reference-- a list to impress-- would not impress anyone and no reader would bother to look them all up. But, if after reading a work that seems interesting-- we really want to read it well and it made references to something we did not know, then why not look it up.

But this is only one point. There must be other readers out there who have some close reading skills that cover many other things.

[James Flick]

Hi Toklas,

I (of course) agree and disagree.

As a reader I’ve always been attracted to poems that take me some place unexpected or unknown, pieces that take me outside of myself or challenge me. The chase, the mystery, the discovery-- are what makes me read on. Of course the trick is-- I have to be pulled in first.

As a (wannabe) writer I’m always trying to create such a beast (usually unsuccessfully). I don’t think the reader has any real responsibility, though some readers are better prepared. I don’t agree that readers should be talked down to, or that an ideal poem should play to the masses. It’s a battle deciding what to say and what not to say. I don’t necessarily want to be a schoolmaster, a politician, or a pop star-- but I do want to have an audience. And yes, I want that audience to work for it a bit-- I want them to want to.

I expect no special knowledge from a critic, though the best are knowledgeable. I value J.B.’s viewpoint more than say my Mother’s (who knows nothing of writing). All opinions are valuable in their own way, consider the source. And I appreciate those who comment on form as well as content, as long as they’re discussing the effectiveness and not whether formal is better than free verse, or if some subject is inappropriate because it infringes on their world view.

I feel inadequate in all of these roles, though I’m trying to improve. That’s all I expect from others.
Nice thread, thanks.

James

[gecian]

I can't disagree with 1, though I believe that the more unusual a word is, the stronger the justification it needs for being there.

2: I think it depends on two things: the extent of obscurity and the quality of the writing. The obscurity of references is entirely subjective, of course. I'm generally willing to do a Google search and read any article/look at any picture that seems interesting. But this is for my edification, and I do not think I owe it to the writer. The better the poem, the keener I'd be about tracing its references. Here, again, I am merely trying to give myself pleasure; NOT to provide the writer with critique. If the poem sounds dull without the references, I shall not look them up. If it is about something I am not interested in, I will not bother to look it up or comment on the poem.

3: I read imagery as I see it. I don't know how it was/is intended to be read (if anyone agrees on that). Metaphors are pleasant when handled well, and ugly when mixed. Again, the extent to which I follow them depends on the superficial beauty of the poem.

4: Yes. However, I will not re-read a poem with intentionally dull or choppy sonics carefully enough to find out whether the author's theme of brokenness or ennui justifies the effects.