Follow up on poetry: an exchange with fikshun
Mike e-mailed me after reading my rant yesterday on the infernal world of poetry. The exchange allowed me to elaborate on some of the reasons why we’re where we are, although I will tell you right up front, most postmodern scholars will read my take on the critical theories here and tell you I’m missing it completely.
Of course, when they do, I’m going to have some interesting questions for them about how they can reject any reading of those theories when they have as basic pretexts the infinite nature of possible readings…
_________________________
Mike: the thing i think is funny about your response though is that i find myself wanting to do the same thing with songs. i figured the next Fiction 8 disc should have liner notes where the premise of each song is described. it seems like if we need to branch out and do something different, a certain bit of explanation is necessary to give the reader/listener some context … or frame of mind.
Sam: That would be an interesting angle – I’ve seen things sort of like that done in the past, although I can’t recall exactly where. It’s very out at the moment, though. In fact, anything that tells you what you’re listening to seems to be unhip at the moment. But you could do some smart stuff that way.
Mike: speaking of cliché, am i being cliché if i suggest that requiring context for any artform is a failure on the artist’s part? i don’t say that to suggest you’ve failed … just asking hypothetically.
Sam: Actually, you’d be very much in the mainstream by asking that. Once upon a time – and I’m talking before mid-century, maybe – it was assumed that there were contexts and that educated audiences would familiarize themselves with referents. I mean, Yeats’ “Leda and the Swan” is going to be a bit baffling if you don’t know the myth at all, and the gods help you if you accidentally stumble upon “The Waste Land.” But along come the New Critics and structuralism and post-structuralism and the assault against the artist is fully joined. The text was all that mattered, and the artist/author/auteur was irrelevant, to the extent he/she even existed (heavy structuralist bullshit here). In this world, a writer like me, who taps references all over the place and who writes out of contexts that are more complex than just about anybody else alive these days, really suffers.
My explanation for why this happens is less kind that these scholars would probably hope for. First, the people getting rid of the artist are the critics. And let’s see, if the artist doesn’t matter anymore, who does? Oh, that’s right – the critics! Second, the rage to “reader-centric” reading empowers laziness. If you as a reader don’t get something, it’s because the writer failed, not because you haven’t read widely enough or were too damned lazy to get off your ass and go look something up. I was taught by Jim Booth (sirpaulsbuddy), a real old schooler, and my assumption was that if I didn’t get something, it was my fault and I needed to try again. I might have to read the notes or go look up the history and background. But I also had a teacher who would explain some of these things, too – that’s what teachers do in that model.
I’m not suggesting that self-contained art is bad or that artists shouldn’t make an attempt to speak to their audiences. But I am saying that the intricacies of the human experience are complex, at times to the point of being impenetrable, and if we’re to really plumb the depths it’s incumbent on all of us to work as hard as we can. My ability to enrich the cultural experience will fail if I, as poet, don’t try as hard as I can. It will also fail if the reader skims the surface, doesn’t get it on first pass, and quits because I’m too “obscure.”
I wonder how far Eliot would get in 2006. If you think I’m obscure, have at “The Waste Land” and see how far you get with one quick read and no footnotes.
Mike: i’ve been doing a lot of programming lately. it’s become my frame of mind. everything is reduced to boolean values. having rigid rules is very comforting right now, given all the uncertainty that lies outside.
there’s a technique in C++ called ‘casting’. it basically acts as a funnel to keep the receiving variable from choking on its input if the input form is something that it doesn’t recognize. it simply absorbs the input and doesn’t give a rat’s ass if it understands it. it’s helpful if you intend to give the input meaning later, and don’t want a variable (or compiler) to lose it’s shit before you’ve gotten your point across. it’s dangerous though, because the onus is put on the programmer. you have to be particularly sharp when playing with such volatile stuff.
the closed human mind would be better if it would at least ‘cast’ what it didn’t understand. maybe later we could go back and absorb some of what we missed previously. now i’m straying into the cliché.
Sam: The educated and critically engaged human mind does do this. There’s a “to-do” list that gets populated with all those little things we don’t grok at first. But our education system doesn’t insist on that kinds of depth anymore. We’re becoming more and more slothful by the day, and it’s not a good sign.
Worship the Surface.
lullaby pit 
As the parent of two surly youth, 21 and 15, I understand what you’re saying about the common acceptance of skimming the surface in school. When an English teacher assigns an essay and says “make it 300 words” my boys get so focused on the word count, that content becomes secondary. I’d read it and think, this is repetitive blather, and the answer would unfailingly be, “But I got 100% on the last one, and it was just like this.” And it’s true. I don’t know how to combat that. I take the time to explain things that happen in life outside of school, such as references in movies or music that they might be unfamiliar with, the history behind sayings and phrases… I don’t trust their natural curiosity enough at this point, so I do what I can to pique it.
On the other hand, I don’t know how much my perspective is age-related. For example, I have no samples of my own writing from 35 years ago, so I don’t fully trust the vantage point of, “back in MY day, we spent HOURS in the library researching a project…no easy internet research for us! And we WALKED there, too!”
Now, on to art. The first thing that crossed my mind when I read Archipelago and your post was, maybe you should be the guy who creates a publication for the type of work that isn’t getting published anywhere else. Easy for me to say, I know.
The concept of “casting” is really interesting. In a recent book discussion group, I was defending the process of book “rereads” not only for the immense pleasure of re-enjoying a loved one, but to re-ingest something at another point in your life. The difference has never failed to amaze me.
Finally, I love when there are liner notes in cds that tell a bit about the story of the song….not so much to explain the intricacies, but for me, a little background enhances the pleasure. If I’m looking at an abstract painting, I’m happy enough to decide for myself what I think about it, how it makes me feel, if I like it. But I’m always curious to learn about the artist’s vision, as well. During a recent conversation with a songwriter, I asked him how he felt about listeners interpreting songs in their own way, often times far from the original intent. He said at first, it really bothered him; he felt like he’d failed, that people weren’t “getting it.” But over time, he developed the ability to create it, then let it go, and was content with the multileveled interpretations that came back. Hmmm….so maybe the liner notes would keep some people from using their own minds to think about what they think the song means. Did I just paint myself into a corner here?
As the parent of two surly youth, 21 and 15, I understand what you’re saying about the common acceptance of skimming the surface in school. When an English teacher assigns an essay and says “make it 300 words” my boys get so focused on the word count, that content becomes secondary. I’d read it and think, this is repetitive blather, and the answer would unfailingly be, “But I got 100% on the last one, and it was just like this.” And it’s true. I don’t know how to combat that. I take the time to explain things that happen in life outside of school, such as references in movies or music that they might be unfamiliar with, the history behind sayings and phrases… I don’t trust their natural curiosity enough at this point, so I do what I can to pique it.
On the other hand, I don’t know how much my perspective is age-related. For example, I have no samples of my own writing from 35 years ago, so I don’t fully trust the vantage point of, “back in MY day, we spent HOURS in the library researching a project…no easy internet research for us! And we WALKED there, too!”
Now, on to art. The first thing that crossed my mind when I read Archipelago and your post was, maybe you should be the guy who creates a publication for the type of work that isn’t getting published anywhere else. Easy for me to say, I know.
The concept of “casting” is really interesting. In a recent book discussion group, I was defending the process of book “rereads” not only for the immense pleasure of re-enjoying a loved one, but to re-ingest something at another point in your life. The difference has never failed to amaze me.
Finally, I love when there are liner notes in cds that tell a bit about the story of the song….not so much to explain the intricacies, but for me, a little background enhances the pleasure. If I’m looking at an abstract painting, I’m happy enough to decide for myself what I think about it, how it makes me feel, if I like it. But I’m always curious to learn about the artist’s vision, as well. During a recent conversation with a songwriter, I asked him how he felt about listeners interpreting songs in their own way, often times far from the original intent. He said at first, it really bothered him; he felt like he’d failed, that people weren’t “getting it.” But over time, he developed the ability to create it, then let it go, and was content with the multileveled interpretations that came back. Hmmm….so maybe the liner notes would keep some people from using their own minds to think about what they think the song means. Did I just paint myself into a corner here?
>>On the other hand, I don’t know how much my perspective is age-related. For example, I have no samples of my own writing from 35 years ago, so I don’t fully trust the vantage point of, “back in MY day, we spent HOURS in the library researching a project…no easy internet research for us! And we WALKED there, too!”<<
I actually DO have a sample somewhere of a paper I wrote in HS, so I can prove my claim that I was a better writer then than most graduating college seniors are today. Also, was my HS English teacher, so I have a witness. I don’t make so many claims about my work ethic, though. Yeah, research was a lot tougher to do, but I was also pretty lazy.
>>Now, on to art. The first thing that crossed my mind when I read Archipelago and your post was, maybe you should be the guy who creates a publication for the type of work that isn’t getting published anywhere else. Easy for me to say, I know.<<
Two answers. One, that is one of my goals. I want to start a major journal that promotes innovation in literature. Need some cash and time to do it, but it’s on the list. Two, that said, I’d rather be the writer than the editor/publisher. That’s just me.
>>Finally, I love when there are liner notes in cds that tell a bit about the story of the song….not so much to explain the intricacies, but for me, a little background enhances the pleasure. If I’m looking at an abstract painting, I’m happy enough to decide for myself what I think about it, how it makes me feel, if I like it. But I’m always curious to learn about the artist’s vision, as well.<<
Me, too. But I also wonder if a lot of people these days haven’t gotten to the point where they resent any kind of assertion of artistic intent at all.
>>During a recent conversation with a songwriter, I asked him how he felt about listeners interpreting songs in their own way, often times far from the original intent. He said at first, it really bothered him; he felt like he’d failed, that people weren’t “getting it.” But over time, he developed the ability to create it, then let it go, and was content with the multileveled interpretations that came back. Hmmm….so maybe the liner notes would keep some people from using their own minds to think about what they think the song means. Did I just paint myself into a corner here?<<
I feel like it doesn’t have to be an either/or, but should be a both/and. As a writer, I insist on the primacy of intent. By god, I know what I’m doing and if it weren’t for my desire to SAY SOMETHING there would be any poem for you to “interpret.” Period.
However, I also believe that lit is a conversation, and I know from experience that I sometimes do things I’m not even aware of. I’ve had people “interpret” into my work things that simply aren’t there, and as a reader I imagine I’ve had my way with other writers’ work, as well. But there have also been times when good faith readings have dramatically expanded the scope of my work in ways that were very positive.
So the trick is that both writer and reader have to come at the process in good faith and with a certain respect for each other. If that happens, we can get rid of the critics.
Which is precisely why we see such strident critical effort to keep the artist and reader away from each other….
>>On the other hand, I don’t know how much my perspective is age-related. For example, I have no samples of my own writing from 35 years ago, so I don’t fully trust the vantage point of, “back in MY day, we spent HOURS in the library researching a project…no easy internet research for us! And we WALKED there, too!”<<
I actually DO have a sample somewhere of a paper I wrote in HS, so I can prove my claim that I was a better writer then than most graduating college seniors are today. Also, was my HS English teacher, so I have a witness. I don’t make so many claims about my work ethic, though. Yeah, research was a lot tougher to do, but I was also pretty lazy.
>>Now, on to art. The first thing that crossed my mind when I read Archipelago and your post was, maybe you should be the guy who creates a publication for the type of work that isn’t getting published anywhere else. Easy for me to say, I know.<<
Two answers. One, that is one of my goals. I want to start a major journal that promotes innovation in literature. Need some cash and time to do it, but it’s on the list. Two, that said, I’d rather be the writer than the editor/publisher. That’s just me.
>>Finally, I love when there are liner notes in cds that tell a bit about the story of the song….not so much to explain the intricacies, but for me, a little background enhances the pleasure. If I’m looking at an abstract painting, I’m happy enough to decide for myself what I think about it, how it makes me feel, if I like it. But I’m always curious to learn about the artist’s vision, as well.<<
Me, too. But I also wonder if a lot of people these days haven’t gotten to the point where they resent any kind of assertion of artistic intent at all.
>>During a recent conversation with a songwriter, I asked him how he felt about listeners interpreting songs in their own way, often times far from the original intent. He said at first, it really bothered him; he felt like he’d failed, that people weren’t “getting it.” But over time, he developed the ability to create it, then let it go, and was content with the multileveled interpretations that came back. Hmmm….so maybe the liner notes would keep some people from using their own minds to think about what they think the song means. Did I just paint myself into a corner here?<<
I feel like it doesn’t have to be an either/or, but should be a both/and. As a writer, I insist on the primacy of intent. By god, I know what I’m doing and if it weren’t for my desire to SAY SOMETHING there would be any poem for you to “interpret.” Period.
However, I also believe that lit is a conversation, and I know from experience that I sometimes do things I’m not even aware of. I’ve had people “interpret” into my work things that simply aren’t there, and as a reader I imagine I’ve had my way with other writers’ work, as well. But there have also been times when good faith readings have dramatically expanded the scope of my work in ways that were very positive.
So the trick is that both writer and reader have to come at the process in good faith and with a certain respect for each other. If that happens, we can get rid of the critics.
Which is precisely why we see such strident critical effort to keep the artist and reader away from each other….