Clarity—from the Proverbs of Tharmas Erthona

[ellajam]

Not so apropos analogies aside, there are two starting places:

1. If the poem is unclear it is the readers fault.
2. If the poem is unclear it is the writer's fault.

It is starting to read as if greater clarity = better writing.

I heartily disagree.  Too much clarity is mundane and boring.  Prosaic, if you will.  There should be some challenge associated with poetry.  The best poems reveal additional layers of meaning with successive readings, growing in ratio to the work a reader is willing to put into it.

A great poem is like a great girl - it doesn't give it up all at once but teases with potential, undressing slowly as you invest more attention.

That being said, a great poem like a great riddle should be able to be resolved to a solution with enough work.

(I just read upthread and realized ella said pretty much the same thing but I see no sense in deleting it now, let's just say i agree with ella.)

oops, just read your last line, no wonder the post made me smile.

[shemthepenman]

Not so apropos analogies aside, there are two starting places:

1. If the poem is unclear it is the readers fault.
2. If the poem is unclear it is the writer's fault.

It is starting to read as if greater clarity = better writing.

I heartily disagree.  Too much clarity is mundane and boring.  Prosaic, if you will.  There should be some challenge associated with poetry.  The best poems reveal additional layers of meaning with successive readings, growing in ratio to the work a reader is willing to put into it.

A great poem is like a great girl - it doesn't give it up all at once but teases with potential, undressing slowly as you invest more attention.

That being said, a great poem like a great riddle should be able to be resolved to a solution with enough work.

(I just read upthread and realized ella said pretty much the same thing but I see no sense in deleting it now, let's just say i agree with ella.)

yeah, and pretty much what I said first time around... a proverb itself is not saying something in the clearest way, it becomes clear. and by becoming clear is more enlightening. but that is all by the by, the fact is the proverb doesn't work. because the opposite could be equally true.

[Erthona]

milo said: "There should be some challenge associated with poetry."

Certainly, but not because the writer is incompetent, or that he is intentionally obfuscating. The purpose of all writing is to communicate. So what is the purpose of a poem if it communicates nothing, or communicates it inaccurately? There is all this bullshit today that it is about co-creation between the writer and the reader, even if true the writer cannot approach it from that perspective.
A poem may be "deep" or "rich" in meaning due to levels of awareness, but this has to do with what is not  immediately obvious and what is, this has nothing to do with clarity. There is nothing about clarity that takes away the depth of a poem. If the depth of the poem relies on being obscure, then such depth is a false and conjured; it is imitative of something the writer only understands superficially. If writing clearly takes away anything, then I would suggests that thing was not real to begin with, but merely a slight of hand: it only gave the appearance of something exotic, deep. or mysterious. Clarity does not make something mundane, it makes it intelligible.  

Shem wrote: "you should seriously be a politician, Dale. You say a lot, but never really answer the question. Hats off to that."

Well, as the reader that is obviously your problem for not being able to fathom the depths of what I say and interpreting it instead as meaningless. Obviously I cannot be held accountable for your shallowness and lack of necessary intellectual insight to understand what I am saying. I say many things, not the least of which is, is that I say many things. It is to bad my replies are so erudite that they simply fly above your head.

(This is called the unassailable position and is what happens once one allows the door open to blaming the reader for any failure in the writing. Sorry, it is either/or not both.)

Dale  
 

[ellajam]

milo said: "There should be some challenge associated with poetry."

Certainly, but not because the writer is incompetent, or that he is intentionally obfuscating. The purpose of all writing is to communicate. So what is the purpose of a poem if it communicates nothing, or communicates it inaccurately? There is all this bullshit today that it is about co-creation between the writer and the reader, even if true the writer cannot approach it from that perspective.
A poem may be "deep" or "rich" in meaning due to levels of awareness, but this has to do with what is not  immediately obvious and what is, this has nothing to do with clarity. There is nothing about clarity that takes away the depth of a poem. If the depth of the poem relies on being obscure, then such depth is a false and conjured; it is imitative of something the writer only understands superficially. If writing clearly takes away anything, then I would suggests that thing was not real to begin with, but merely a slight of hand: it only gave the appearance of something exotic, deep. or mysterious. Clarity does not make something mundane, it makes it intelligible.  

Shem wrote: "you should seriously be a politician, Dale. You say a lot, but never really answer the question. Hats off to that."

Well, as the reader that is obviously your problem for not being able to fathom the depths of what I say and interpreting it instead as meaningless. Obviously I cannot be held accountable for your shallowness and lack of necessary intellectual insight to understand what I am saying. I say many things, not the least of which is, is that I say many things. It is to bad my replies are so erudite that they simply fly above your head.

(This is called the unassailable position and is what happens once one allows the door open to blaming the reader for any failure in the writing. Sorry, it is either/or not both.)

Dale  
 

[shemthepenman]

Shem wrote: "you should seriously be a politician, Dale. You say a lot, but never really answer the question. Hats off to that."

Well, as the reader that is obviously your problem for not being able to fathom the depths of what I say and interpreting it instead as meaningless. Obviously I cannot be held accountable for your shallowness and lack of necessary intellectual insight to understand what I am saying. I say many things, not the least of which is, is that I say many things. It is to bad my replies are so erudite that they simply fly above your head.

(This is called the unassailable position and is what happens once one allows the door open to blaming the reader for any failure in the writing. Sorry, it is either/or not both.)

Dale  
 

Ah, irony (I quote "Ah but pretending to not understand when you do understand, in order to make your point is deceitful and what kind of a victory is it when you must demean yourself (whether you will admit it or not) in order to win? However, I suppose you win. I am a simple man and I cannot compete with the complexity of lies." - Dale).

Well, anyway, yeah, you are spot on, my lack of intelligence could be the reason that I am not finding an answer to the simple question "is it always the writers fault that meaning is not conveyed?" Seems like a simple yes/no type deal to me, but maybe not, maybe I haven't put the question clearly enough.

regardless, it is either/or not both. Good. We're all in agreement.

So, with regards to your proverb, and how it can be best applied: if you are a writer then you should assume the proverb is true (it will strengthen your inner critic - and also make you question what you really want to achieve); if you are the reader you should assume the opposite of the proverb is true (you might actually learn something - those that think they know everything are unteachable).

Or, if you want to be particularly Wilde about it, you could say that, the proverb is true when you are reading something you don't understand, and the oppsite is true when someone is reading something of yours that they don't understand.

case closed.

[milo]

milo said: "There should be some challenge associated with poetry."

Certainly, but not because the writer is incompetent, or that he is intentionally obfuscating. The purpose of all writing is to communicate. 

You have been treating this as axiomatic and we have let it slide but let's take a moment to test this axiom:

1.  When writing a poem, is your purpose to communicate?

For me, the answer is no.  When writing a poem my primary purpose is to create a poem.  There is no message I wish to communicate with a reader.  If I was seeking to communicate a message I would use simple prose as poetry is a terribly inefficient vehicle for communication. I focus on creating an enjoyable reading experience rather than clarity and often at the expense of clarity.

2.  When reading a poem is your purpose to receive communication?

For me, this is absolutely not the case.  i read a poem for the enjoyment of it.  Poems that overly focus on communication fail in that they do not encourage multiple readings. (Once you have received a communication it is done.)  I read poems for enjoyment.

So what is the purpose of a poem if it communicates nothing, or communicates it inaccurately? 
 

why, for enjoyment of course.

[rayheinrich]

                < Cars >

[Erthona]

Sorry milo, but you are very limited in your thinking if you think communication is limited to a verbal message. Pleasure is a form of communication. Any kind of emotional response engendered by the poem is a form of communication. However, my question is this. If you are not communicating anything and the reader does not receive any form of communication what is the point of what you are doing? what makes it different from what a chicken scratches in the dirt. The chicken is not trying to communicate anything, nor does he communicate anything, although I am sure he does derive some pleasure so pleasure from doing so. Unless you are a chicken, it is ridiculous to assert you are not trying to communicate something. If you say you only do it for pleasure, then why post it for others to read. What are they suppose to do with such a puddle of goo. Besides, your own writing condemns you, as they have always seemed very forthright in trying to communicate, or am I wrong and it was just really empty headed blather?
____________________________________________________________________________________

Shem, I think if you will revisit the proverb you will see it is focused on the writer and toward the writer and not the reader. If it were for the reader, it would say something like:

Do not give up when you have simply scratched the surface, to find gold one must dig deeper.

But yes, I agree with you on your current assessment.

Dale

[milo]

Sorry milo, but you are very limited in your thinking if you think communication is limited to a verbal message. 

I do not think communication is limited to a verbal message but I do think communication is limited to the transmission of /information/.  Dictionaries are in agreement with me on this.

Pleasure is a form of communication. Any kind of emotional response engendered by the poem is a form of communication.

This statement is not correct.  Emotional responses are /responses/, not communication.  You can have a response to a communication but taht is not the communication itself which is limited to the transmission of the information.  Any responses to the transmission lie outside the communication paradigm.  Part of the problem is because the response is never transmitted back to the the author.

 However, my question is this. If you are not communicating anything and the reader does not receive any form of communication what is the point of what you are doing? 

I thought I answered this clearly enough.  the point is for enjoyment - both as a reader and as a writer.

what makes it different from what a chicken scratches in the dirt. The chicken is not trying to communicate anything, nor does he communicate anything, although I am sure he does derive some pleasure so pleasure from doing so. Unless you are a chicken, it is ridiculous to assert you are not trying to communicate something. If you say you only do it for pleasure, then why post it for others to read. What are they suppose to do with such a puddle of goo.

hopefully, they are to enjoy it.  I think you are also leaving off the even more important role of myself as a reader.  As a reader of poetry, I am in no way interested in being communicated with.  If the purpose of writing was to communicate (send a message) than the purpose of reading must be to communicate (receive a message) but I daresay no one reads poetry to receive a message.

 Besides, your own writing condemns you, as they have always seemed very forthright in trying to communicate, or am I wrong and it was just really empty headed blather?

I have never written poetry as an attempt to communicate - it is far too clumsy a medium.


____________________________________________________________________________________

[shemthepenman]

Sorry milo, but you are very limited in your thinking if you think communication is limited to a verbal message. Pleasure is a form of communication. Any kind of emotional response engendered by the poem is a form of communication. However, my question is this. If you are not communicating anything and the reader does not receive any form of communication what is the point of what you are doing? what makes it different from what a chicken scratches in the dirt. The chicken is not trying to communicate anything, nor does he communicate anything, although I am sure he does derive some pleasure so pleasure from doing so. Unless you are a chicken, it is ridiculous to assert you are not trying to communicate something. If you say you only do it for pleasure, then why post it for others to read. What are they suppose to do with such a puddle of goo. Besides, your own writing condemns you, as they have always seemed very forthright in trying to communicate, or am I wrong and it was just really empty headed blather?
____________________________________________________________________________________

Shem, I think if you will revisit the proverb you will see it is focused on the writer and toward the writer and not the reader. If it were for the reader, it would say something like:

Do not give up when you have simply scratched the surface, to find gold one must dig deeper.

But yes, I agree with you on your current assessment.

Dale

My god, I bow to your acceptence of my current assessment. I am not worthy. Though, ya still had to alter it a bit, didn't ya, ya little scamp.

[ellajam]

I find the issue of whether or not poems are a means of communication fascinating.

As a reader I think about the one of a hundred or more that might catch my interest, make me want to return again and again to experience that kernal of something that hangs above the poem, something that the poem inspires in me, communicates to me in a way past the words on the page. I believe, although I don't know, that the poet's aim was to somehow have that poem land where it does, and was deliciously successful. It doesn't really matter to me if the poet even meant to send the message, I still know what I received.

As a writer, I have options. If I write books of poems, keep them to myself and destroy them before my death, as I am sure plenty of writers do, I have not communicated. I've amused myself, or processed my thoughts, or passed the time of day. Once I have chosen to share a poem either privately or by publishing or posting I have opened the door to communicate with the reader, to know whether or not my scribblings have any effect all, if they lie flat or inspire some intangible sense of what the world looks and feels like from my perspective. Even a nonsense poem communicates, often a sense of joy in words and sound.

Poetry may not be the easiest or most direct form of communication, but I personally am grinning or having my heart broken by what to me is a successful poem.

[milo]

I find the issue of whether or not poems are a means of communication fascinating.

As a reader I think about the one of a hundred or more that might catch my interest, make me want to return again and again to experience that kernal of something that hangs above the poem, something that the poem inspires in me, communicates to me in a way past the words on the page. I believe, although I don't know, that the poet's aim was to somehow have that poem land where it does, and was deliciously successful. It doesn't really matter to me if the poet even meant to send the message, I still know what I received.

As a writer, I have options. If I write books of poems, keep them to myself and destroy them before my death, as I am sure plenty of writers do, I have not communicated. I've amused myself, or processed my thoughts, or passed the time of day. Once I have chosen to share a poem either privately or by publishing or posting I have opened the door to communicate with the reader, to know whether or not my scribblings have any effect all, if they lie flat or inspire some intangible sense of what the world looks and feels like from my perspective. Even a nonsense poem communicates, often a sense of joy in words and sound.

Poetry may not be the easiest or most direct form of communication, but I personally am grinning or having my heart broken by what to me is a successful poem.

I don't think that it is a question of /whether/ poetry communicates as all writing does but whether the purpose of poetry is communication.

[ellajam]

I find the issue of whether or not poems are a means of communication fascinating.

As a reader I think about the one of a hundred or more that might catch my interest, make me want to return again and again to experience that kernal of something that hangs above the poem, something that the poem inspires in me, communicates to me in a way past the words on the page. I believe, although I don't know, that the poet's aim was to somehow have that poem land where it does, and was deliciously successful. It doesn't really matter to me if the poet even meant to send the message, I still know what I received.

As a writer, I have options. If I write books of poems, keep them to myself and destroy them before my death, as I am sure plenty of writers do, I have not communicated. I've amused myself, or processed my thoughts, or passed the time of day. Once I have chosen to share a poem either privately or by publishing or posting I have opened the door to communicate with the reader, to know whether or not my scribblings have any effect all, if they lie flat or inspire some intangible sense of what the world looks and feels like from my perspective. Even a nonsense poem communicates, often a sense of joy in words and sound.

Poetry may not be the easiest or most direct form of communication, but I personally am grinning or having my heart broken by what to me is a successful poem.

I don't think that it is a question of /whether/ poetry communicates as all writing does but whether the purpose of poetry is communication.

I know, I don't think the point of all poetry is communication, that depends on the poet. It just got me thinking about my own personal experience.  Feel free to ignore me and carry on the debate, I'm enjoying it.

[shemthepenman]

i would just like to say that nowhere in Dale's original post was the idea that ALL writing IS communication (he added that later). And once again, I am at pains to say that there is no one rule. There is no 'purpose' of the purpose of writing something, to cut off that live thing inside ourselves that will repeat until it is dead. But, if one wants to communicate a message, then that message better become clear at some point. If one wants to do something else, then so be it. I would prefer the message or meaning not be clear.

I would say that most poetry, most good poetry, is less concerned with meanings or messages, that is all about a system of signs (like this!). If your system of signs (a poem) can be equated to another system of signs (an exposition) then what good is it? Brevity? The fact is 'good' poetry has an incoherent quality, unclear, and uncommunicative. Thank fuck.

“We do not lack communication. On the contrary, we have too much of it.
We lack creation. We lack resistance to the present.” - Deleuze and/or Guattari

[Erthona]

"I would prefer the message or meaning not be clear."

If you are looking for writing that purposefully makes the message unclear, you should try riddles

Evidently you guys prefer poetry that is written unclearly so that you do not understand it. Well one thing is certain, you shall never run out of poetry to read.
________________________________________________________________
"I do not read poetry for the message or meaning, I only read it for enjoyment."

"And what makes one poem enjoyable over another poem?

"What I get out of it."

"And what do you get out of it?"

"Enjoyment!"
______________________________________

"But milo, how do you get enjoyment from a poem?"

"From the aether, or maybe god."

"But you don't believe in god."

"That doesn't change the fact I get enjoyment from the poem."
___________________________________________

I concede.

dale

[milo]

"I would prefer the message or meaning not be clear."

If you are looking for writing that purposefully makes the message unclear, you should try riddles

Evidently you guys prefer poetry that is written unclearly so that you do not understand it. Well one thing is certain, you shall never run out of poetry to read.
________________________________________________________________
"I do not read poetry for the message or meaning, I only read it for enjoyment."

"And what makes one poem enjoyable over another poem?

"What I get out of it."

"And what do you get out of it?"

"Enjoyment!"
______________________________________

"But milo, how do you get enjoyment from a poem?"

"From the aether, or maybe god."

"But you don't believe in god."

"That doesn't change the fact I get enjoyment from the poem."
___________________________________________

I concede.

dale

I don't think there are really any new meanings to discover in the world - after tens of thousands of years of writing.
I think, mostly, it is the same old meanings stated in new and interesting ways.
It is the new and interesting ways that I enjoy.

[Erthona]

I think there are always new and deeper meanings for the individual to discover, but then again I have yet to attain enlightenment.

dale

[milo]

I think there are always new and deeper meanings for the individual to discover, but then again I have yet to attain enlightenment.

dale

even if there are new meanings, prose is probably better equipped to handle them.
For me, poetry is all about the journey.

[Erthona]

"It's all about the journey," he said, that is to say a journey has no meaning. It is just sort of a meaningless duration of time while one travels from point A to point B, figuratively or literally. In a less honest person, one might question their true motive in making such a statement, but we are all honorable here, yes, we are all honorable men. And besides, we all know the reply, the journey is made for the enjoyment of it, despite the fact that there is no mechanism, besides meaning, that will translate the experience of the journey into enjoyment, unless one is simply referring to sensual pleasure. It is true that it has been said that there is enjoyment in such pleasure for a season and from such an authoritative source one must give it weight. So maybe that is what he is talking about, but then again it is sometimes difficult to understand the depths of such an intellectually cunning, but honorable mind, est-ce pas mon ami?

dal

[billy]

i am the journey you lot are the stops. apart from milo who's the ticket collector and leanne who drives the train and....