When I write poetry, I don't think much about things like "does this line maintain proper iambic pentameter" or "perhaps I should insert a bit of alliteration at this point to focus attention on the metaphor I'm trying to establish in this stanza." I just write, one line at a time. If it sounds good (and yeah, I do say stuff out loud while I'm writing, if I'm somewhere where I can do that without looking like a loon), If it works on its own and in relation to the previous line, I'll move on. After I've reached a point that feels like the end, I might go over the poem and shift a word or phrase or line, but I don't usually do any sort of radical revision. If it worked when I wrote it, it doesn't need changing, and if it didn't work, I would usually rather start over - maybe saving a section from the original poem that I thought was all right - than try and fix it. I don't feel the need to force meaning into my poems, and I'm not afraid to throw away something I've written that sucks.
I feel more pressure when analyzing someone else's work. Somebody else has created a poem that they feel expresses a mood, or defines a place, or presents an idea worth considering. What if I miss their point? What if I completely misinterpret the symbols they have used, the mythology they have created? Is that a symptom of the author's inability to to say what they want to say, or my inability to hear what they say? I worry that my analysis of other's work will either miss the point of the work or find meaning where none is to be found. And yes, I know that theory says "if you can find it, it's there," but that just increases the pressure to justify what I think a poem says. Sometimes I don't want to spend hours determining that "this poem is a variation of the classic Shakesperian sonnet, with a focus on the eternal power of true love as shown by blah blah blah blah..." Sometimes, I just want to say "I like this" and be donee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I am with you Luke, I write line by line and rarely rewrite (this actually sadly holds true to any other writing I do, much to the dismay of my professors). But I am a firm believer that if I wrote it then I did it because it had meaning to me. As for analyzing poetry, I feel much more comfortable doing it now because I had a professor tell me that my analysis is always valid if I have the fact from the poem to back it up- and that's how I teach poetry to my students as well (if they can find evidence in the lines to back up their explanation then I am all ears. I think that the only person who ever knew the true meaning of the work being read is the author him/herself. Take Shakespeare for example (Sonnet 18 "Shall I compare thee to a summers day")-- is he writing to a woman? or a man (because conspiracy theorists say that he was actually a she)? or is he writing to himself (because he was really just that egotistical)? It's hard to tell for sure, but I believe that there is evidence for any of those readings. Analyzing poetry doesn't have to be a scary thing, and that's what I hope to convey to my students.
If you were to read my awesome blog, you'd see that I feel the exact opposite. Of course, you know this as you sit right next to me and saw me stare at the blank page, type something, and backspace over and over again with my wrecking poem. This assignment actually made me think of the theater class, and our discussion of creativity. Maybe Dwyer is right. Maybe I am not at all creative! I prefer to examine other people's creativity than to put my own down on paper. That public realm thing just throws me off. You have no problem with that, though, and I have been nothing but impressed with your ideas. Maybe sitting next to you will allow me to absorb some of the creative powers. Or maybe I just need to become Rogue and gain your powers with a touch for a moment to come up with some amazing poetry!
I agree with you on the writing poetry part. Forcing meaning and ridiculous amounts of poetic layers is so 1890's. But I think that when you analyze a poem you dont need to worry about what the author intended. Most of those people are dead anyway. If it makes sense to you or if it means something to you than that is more than enough to qualify it as an acceptable analysis.
I like that thought on just write line by line and accept the results. I have been so trained to follow the rules that it is difficult with poetry to do just that when asked to compose. There is a big pressure and no enjoymnet in writing poetry. I think this experience has helped me be more relaxed with the poetry. I now will be able to teach it without expecting the students to follow the guidelines and instill in them that if they like it, then they should be done with it.
Also, in those English classes that we are asked to analyze our classmates work it is at times frustrating like you said. What if we are missing their point then we have not been of any service to them. This is also something we will deal with as teachers when we have to read our students work and come up with an opinion. I think after much repetition we will become experts at it.
OK. If you're going to be picky, pay attention. I said I didn't learn anything from the writing ABOUT poetry assignment. I then went on to describe what I learned from the writing poetry assignments. Writing poetry versus writing ABOUT poetry. Got it? :-)
I wasn't being picky - I'm just not very smart.
Post a Comment