10 hours ago
(Yesterday, 11:50 AM)dukealien Wrote: It seems to me that a reader's loss of interest (or boredom setting in, if you will) is an event rather than a characteristic of the poem (or other work).The assumption that “I am bored because I don’t like the author’s views” is baseless.
It is *not* the reader looking at the work as gray text and deciding it's too long, or looking at the title and deciding he won't like its philosophy. Or even just seeing the writer's name and deciding to go no further from past experience or what he's been told about that author (including his political alignment).
No, to *become* bored or disinterested, the reader has to *start* reading. What in the poem then triggers the event of his deciding to stop before he reaches the end? Obviously, it disappoints his expectations. He expected continued, or at least occasional novel wordplay, and he's not getting it. Or he expects a story, and it's either not there or not going anywhere. Or he expects to feel an emotion (particular or a generally heightened state) and the poem isn't triggering it.
After that initial realization (or labeling) of boredom, the reader may go a bit further - even to the end, if he's a bit of a masochist - and if he's honest, might find redeeming virtues. But the critical moment is that realization he's not enjoying himself as much as, or in the way, he expected.
So to prevent boredom, the author must continually - or periodically - stroke the reader's expectations. Not for nothing is "challenging" a kiss of death: he can't demand too much attention, and above all he can't expose purposes or beliefs that are contrary to the reader's. Boredom is discomfort seeking an excuse to stop, and it feels guilty to the extent it's dishonest.
The lesson is, know your audience (in particular, readers whose good opinion you value). Stroke them as they wish to be stroked and keep it short. This doesn't mean your poem has to be all sugar and flowers - some readers are worth plying with objectively good poetry. But the question was how to avoid boring readers, not how to write a good poem.
It is quite possible to find interesting Syed Qutb’s observations about the Americans or the political philosophy of Ted Kasczinski without agreeing with Salafism or the practice of sending letter bombs to distasteful individuals. Indeed, at the fringes are people that the reader might consider so outlandish that their views are like observing the behaviour of chimpanzees in the wild. If Trump ever publishes a Meditations that is not ghost written, it would be studied by animal behaviourists.
The problem is with poems that say things that are merely stupid without being outlandish. These poems are often didactic, but the didacticism is that of the flat earth argument, climate change denial, anti vaxx hypothesis, intelligent design 101, or what passes for conservatism in the Anglosphere.
These discourses are severely uninformed and lacking in self reflection, making them boring rather than funny.
The clerk of Oxford has nothing to learn from the miller’s tale.