I have never truly enjoyed poems I've had to dissect word by word.Of course, I've done it, and appreciated many. I have been called obtuse for not getting abstruse. I quite disagree. Writing for 'the CLUB' is very short-sighted.

I totally agree with you Cynthia. I hate poetry that I can't understand. Listened to some recently where the words sounded lovely but they meant nothing to me and I just switched off. I do like a poem that makes me think, doesn't always give it to me on a plate and sometimes makes me work - but there has to be a light at the end of the tunnel. If it is just a jumble of someone else's surreal thoughts - count me out.
I guess levels of intellect do vary though - so what may be incomprehensible to me might mean something to someone else. I am sometimes clueless about some certain poems on WOL - but others seem to get them... Whether something is profound or nonsense is therefore a grey area, depending upon the grey matter.

A poem provides an interface between thoughts, feelings and the beautiful or resonant use of words. A poem may not work if received as an attempt to provide thoughts in a coherent way. But it may still work as a vehicle for feelings. This can also apply to a small part of a poem, and the intermixing of the coherent and incoherent can be very powerful. The words may conjure up a response in the reader, through the power of assocation, through memory, for all sorts of non-rational reasons.

Using words effectively in a 'non-coherent' way to serve a purpose in a poem is a high skill. I wish I had it. The trouble with the non-coherent bits, though, is that people will never agree on their merit. However, a consensus can emerge that someone is a genius even if people don't understand everything they write, with Dylan being a leading example.

'Few understand the words of Cummings,
And few James Joyce's mental slummings,
And few young Auden's coded chatter;
But then it is the few that matter.'

Dylan Thomas - from 'A Letter to My Aunt Discussing the Correct Approach to Modern Poetry'

So, last night, I'm reading more Dylan Thomas again, and then had a hard time relaxing for sleep. For me, he is definitely not a nightcap poet. Also enjoyed again the tutoring-type analyses accompanying his book of poems. Not all in one gulp, of course. It is good to refresh periodically the methods of the masters - just to keep a finger in the soup.

Thanks A.E. , for the reminder of the villanelle (?); I recognized the form but had misplaced the term in my mind.

Dave B., very measured post. Thanks.

It does help if you know what the poem/t is expecting from you. For instance, if Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky was supposed to have some deep intellectual message and you were not getting it, it might be annoying that you couldn't get it. But it doesn't, so you enjoy it as nonsense poetry.

Whereas, a poet like Geoffery Hill is expecting you to think, and think hard. So if you're not prepared to do that, don't bother reading him. But if you want poetry to be something more than the literary equivalent of macrame or basket-weaving...

I agree.

Personally, I enjoy any type of poetry if it's tied in linguistic knots or that uses imagery that's NOT been kicked to a stew by every would-be poet who writes.

Jabber-Wotsit is a fine example of manipulating language structure and its morphology and apparently, it makes sense when read under water.

Hi all, Interesting debate and one on my mind today.
Which category does my most recent posting 'Owl feathers' come under? No one seems to understand it (except me) although at least I knew that this would probably be the case and so am not concerned. This has not always been the case - some of my older meanderings were truly unfatholmable and I couldn't understand why (so easy when you have the whole story already in your head) more recently I have tried to 'tell a story' more. What do you think? Win

If it's too difficult for you, don't read it. Stick with the Janet & John books.

You're hard, Mr Waling. People could take offence at your tone. I don't. I'd like to hear your opinion on exactly the original question asked.

I too find Steven's comment interesting - and also very provocative. For me there is little difference between what might be termed abstruse poetry and cryptic crossword puzzles. If a poet writes something that is obscure or difficult to grasp, then I always ask myself what the motivation was and who is the target audience. The question also arises as to interpretation, i.e. how does the reader ever know if his/her interpretation of the work is the one the poet intended - without discussion with or explanation from the poet? And, if that question is of no matter, then any of us could write whatver comes into our heads, and claim the work had hidden depths and deep meaning.
Call me an egotist if you will, but I write in order to communicate with potential readers. With this in mind, what would be the point in writing something that was predictably unintelligible to most of them? For me a poem loses a lot if it has to be either pored over or explained. I concede that there may be instances of the abstract, just as there are in visual art, which are pleasing; that there maybe interesting uses of sounds and language or certain arrangements of words and ideas which fascinate. However, if the sole intention of the poet is to prove to the reader just how much smarter he/she is than them, then this is a rather shallow (and probably a one-off) objective - those readers are, as Steven says, likely to stick with what he terms "Janet and John."
To return to an earlier point, it might be interesting as an exercise (and I won't be volunteering for it) for those far more learned than myself to do a blind interpretation of an abstruse work, to be compared with the author's intention. Anyone up for it? If the result produces (as suspect it might) wide anomalies in the interpretations, what would that tell us about the value and integrity of the poem?
There are also those (and I'm not including Steven in this - I don't know him well enough) who clearly derive great pleasure from the feelings of intellectual superiority engendered by their self-proclaimed insights into the obscure - a fairly recent POTM springs to mind here.
As someone who doesn't claim to understand every nuance of every poem he reads, but who enjoys most of them (probably the poetry Steven dislikes) for diverse reasons, would I be justified in saying, If it's too bland for you, then don't read it. Stick to text books on sub-atomic particle physics?

Regards,
A.E.

This discussion is very interesting...I agree that understanding the poem and the intended meaning is very important. I think poetry is the use of as few a words as possible to evoke the authors intended content, if you see what I mean. Sometimes though the writer might not be the intellectual snob I suppose him/her to be, the fault has been with my own understanding/knowledge.

I pretty much agree with Jane Wilcock's comment.
I don't pretend to have any great intellectual quality, so I wouldn't go too deep, but the way that Mr Waling has phrased his comment, makes me think back to my schooldays, and the way that similar attitudes turned me totally away from poetry (specifically) and reading (in general).
Poetry surely is there to enthuse participants in the ways of describing feelings/events etc. If the poetry is so intellectual as to be available only to the literati, then surely it's failed.
Doesn't a poem have to be more than a collection of phrases that sound 'nice'?

Steve M.

There is a fascinating piece 'Ambiguity and Abstraction in Bob Dylan’s Lyrics' by Jeffrey Side at http://www.argotistonline.co.uk/Side%20essay%202.htm

He draws attention to the 'myriad of interpretive possibilities' in Dylan's lyrics and sees this as a strength, because it enables the listener / reader to connect. This ambiguity is linked to the free use of abstract terms in a way apparently often discouraged in poetry workshops.

Much contemporary poetry (according to Side) is too concrete and unambiguous to enable the reader to make a connnection unless they are gripped by the very specific picture being painted.
Side seems to be saying that questions and mysteries and imprecise allusions are just fine - they add to the richness

He thinks a poem shouldn't tell you what to feel - the poet's job is to give you a key to your own imagination and feelings

It's worth a read.

Horses for courses. I've said this before and I'm likely to say it again till I'm blue in the face or stop bothering.

I'm a lifelong lover of Dylan, and agree that there is much interpretation left to the listener. I don't have any problem with that, and even enjoy being able to listen again and again, and pick up on something that I hadn't heard before. But I do believe that you have at least been given a free 'starter for 10' , which allows you in to the game of understanding/interpreting.
There is much that appears in poetry print that goes uncommented on, because of the fear of being labelled 'obtuse'. "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool ....".
Perhaps it's time for those more able than I, to tell the Emperor that his new clothes aren't all that he believes them to be.

Mr Bradley, I KNEW you had been 'boning up'. Good contributions as always. Are Side's views your views as well? You seemed a bit hesitant to commit. Not that I'm pushing ...I'm very centre-line myself.

"If a poet writes something that is obscure or difficult to grasp, then I always ask myself what the motivation was and who is the target audience."

Allen Ginsberg was once asked who he wrote his poems for. He said "The people who dig it."

"The question also arises as to interpretation, i.e. how does the reader ever know if his/her interpretation of the work is the one the poet intended - without discussion with or explanation from the poet?"

You don't ever know the motivations or intentions of the writer - heck, they don't always know them very well themselves, most writers just write out of some inner compulsion. You can't ask Shakespeare what he meant with the ghost in Hamlet. What you have is the text - the words - and you (mis)interpret them according to your own understanding of the world.

PS: there's nothing like making a controversial statement for getting the juices of a discussion going is there?

I've been following this thread with much interest and this time last year ( or thereabouts) i would have fled rather than join in a discussion such as this one.
Also around the same time, i wouldn't have understood a single word Mr. Waling said but his recent contributions have made a lot more sense to me, which makes me wonder.
Have i grown and learned more without realizing it until now or has Mr. Waling mellowed. hm!

Does it matter what the authors intentions were at the time of writing?
I suppose with the benefit of the author still being alive, we have the opportunity to ask his/her interpretation but it is still possible that a reader will be able to ''see'' or ''take away'' something else of value to them personally within the piece. That's what profound means for me.
Any author should (in my opinion) be pleasantly surprised and extremely pleased their work has touched another soul in some way, whether profound or not.
Abstruse and profound have the same translation in my Websters dictionary so can they be separated at all?

Hello all

Bit of good knockabout here.

Cynthia - my views are somewhere in between Steven's and Steve's and Side's. Um...I think. Anyway, let's take a concrete example from Subterranean Homesick Blues

"Don't follow leaders
Watch the parkin' meters"

This follows Steven's rule of being given a 'starter for ten' because we all know what each line means. But what on earth has watching parking meters got to do with not following leaders?

Does it mean
"Don't follow anyone - pay attention to the things in your own life, which need attention"

or "Don't follow politicians, look how they screw you - even for a parking charge"

or "Time is too precious to waste following anyone - look how it's ticking away on that meter"

or what? It's very provocative and you can fill in the blanks yourself.

My last contribution on this one probably. We're being re-wired and power's going off now for a while anyway

Great one, Janet. Once upon a time you were shy! Yes, they were defined as 'synonyms' in my dictionary also. But I felt that was very unfair to 'profound'.
There are few true synonyms as English plucks words directly or indirectly out of other languages to augment itself. Connotation gets involved.
Abstruseness tends, I think, to be deliberately difficult, while profundity can sneak off the end of your pen without your being entirely aware of it.

Yes, Steven, a good interchange for sure.

So Ginsberg (who was probably off his face at the time) comes back with probably the least profound comment imaginable! Nnniiiiice! Maybe there's some value in the refusal to elaborate on your work, in that it can never be held up for scrutiny or debated with any authority. It then retains that air of mystery which gives it a cachet of intelligent inscrutability - and the usual cult status.. Isn't there though the danger that with an infinity of meanings - directly proportional to the number of possible interpretations (readers), that the poems actually become meaning-less?

In the case of Dylan, I don't really think the lyrics are directly comparable. After all I wouldn't disagree that he wrote some fairly memorable tunes to set them to - and he's certainly not alone in writing lyrics that don't make a great deal of "conventional" sense.

I agree about the inner compulsion to write, but struggle with the concept of actively setting out to write something that is open to an infinite number of possible interpretations. Could I just tap on random keys and claim the end product as a great piece of free expression to be interpreted in any way the reader sought fit?

For the most part I would be happy to discuss the motivations/intentions behind anything I write - as far as I understand them myself - with anyone who was foolish enough to ask. Why not? I don't consider writing as some kind of game where readers who don't immediately "get it" are made to feel intellectually inferior.

I suspect there is a great satisfaction for readers of any kind of literature in the gradual connections with the writer's ideas, metaphors, allegories and puzzles. But when I don't, and have no likelihood of ever "getting it" (perhaps because the writer deliberately intended that I shouldn't - or never actually "got it" theirself) it leaves me feeling cheated, and with the feeling that I have wasted my time reading their work.

Language, its usage and constant evolution fascinates me. Without it we are no more than totally isolated pond-life. It has taken us as a species countless small steps in the journey to get to the richness we enjoy today. In terms of communication and the exchange of ideas it is the most versatile tool imaginable. Why then wilfully misuse it to confound and confuse in the name of art? I don't like to feel that somewhere there is someone sniggering childishly at me from behind their hands.

(Having said all this I will admit to getting a great and supercilious buzz from the schadenfreude of playing a game of "Mornington Crescent," at a very drunken New Year's Eve party at my place a few years ago. The total bewiderment in the expressions of the only two people who were completely uninitiated was unforgettable - and (sadistically) very funny!)

Cynthia, you started this. Get those well-worn boots off and walk barefoot on these smouldering coals you coward! If you sit on that fence much longer you'll get stripes on your . . . (_!_)
______...__. ____........ ___..__________ .._TITITITITITITI.__ .._

Regards,
A.E.

I suspect that Ginsberg was never as off his face as the press seemed to think he was, y'know. And he was only answering the question "who do you write for?", not the question, "what do your poems mean."

I don't think anyone writes anything that has "infinite interpretations" either. But there's two ways of reading poetry (at least...)

One is to "look for the meaning." Now, that works if the writer has something definite to say. A poem might be difficult because it's dealing with a difficult matter: like a poem about the history of Bohemia, for instance. This might require you to go and read up about the history of Bohemia. I recently wrote a poem about Robert the Bruce that might require a little encyclopedia search to find out about him; but hopefully, not too much.

You can call this "denotative reading", because you looking for what the poem denotes, what the poem describes or tells you about.

The other way of reading is much more associative. What does this image remind you of? What does this line make you think about? What does the sound of the words do to you? I remember how the first lines of The Love Song of Alfred J Prufrock made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, even before I knew what they meant. This is a "connotative reading", because it suggests, it teases, it connotes rather than comes right out and says it, and it allows the reader to bring his/her experience to the poem.

Some poetry contains more of this kind of experience than others, but all poetry does both these things. I personally prefer the more connatative writing. But others prefer the more descriptive way of writing.

I always find myself slightly reluctant to explain my poems because I want people to experience them for themselves. So I'll talk about how it came to be written more than what it's about. I'm not trying to confuse people, just to give them an interesting experience. I'm not writing puzzles.

Sorry, all that got a bit technical. You can skip it if you like. What I mean is, we all read and writer poetry both for "what it's about" and for the associations it has for us. Some poetry is mostly descriptive and some poetry is mostly associative, and most poetry is surfing somewhere between the two extremes. Some of us will prefer more descriptive poetry, some more associative.

If you over-analyse poetry, you destroy its mystery. That's what's occuring in this discussion strand.

And Is it just my perception, or has this once zealous, funny, frightening, ideologically unsound, occasionally insane discussion forum gone flatter than Mr Flat's Flattest Collection of Flatness?

C'mon! There must be SOMEBODY out there who can sex things up a bit?!

sex up,
cock up,
balls up,
in't poetry brilliant !

We have a habit of over analysying all stuff, not just poetry. I forget sometimes that ' what makes my boat float' doesn't necessarily make ' everyone elses' boat float".

At the end of the day poetry is read subjectively, well that's what I think. Some poetry though is written objectively (or so they say) and it's difficult, as people, who have thoughts, emotions and urges to read any poem or work objectively! Although, I may die trying!!

I love Kubla khan and think it's all about sex and death - say's a lot about me huh. Think it's both profound and abtruse and don't honestly think we can seperate the two.