• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

Poetry is stupid (1 Viewer)

ign0r4mus

New Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
SoulSearcher said:
You can believe that your views are correct, but you cannot force your views upon anyone else. That is your problem.

Who said anything about forcing our views on anyone else. We are merely stating an opinion and arguing our case (yes i admit, a little fiercer than usual). Replies have been made to argue their case as well, if you have not noticed.

On a forum, that is what people can do. Someone states an opinion. Another states another. The first proceeds to state why they think the seconds' opinion is not properly justified. Same happens with the second. This continues to produce a long and interesting (depends) debate. And that is what has been happening. A debate.

At no point have we said (or implied) "No! Your view is completely stupid. Shutup and listen to me and what i have to say". We have justified ourselves and our views sufficiently and have allowed anyone else to debate us. Same goes for those whom we are arguing to. They have also used justifications to support themselves and their views, and they have also allowed for debate.

If you think there is a problem with debating, then you can go raise that in another thread.
 

ign0r4mus

New Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
SoulSearcher said:
On a forum, jokes that may seem obvious to you, may not be so obvious to someone else not in on the joke.
IMO, the use of smiley faces or the use of "...lol" clearly shows it was a joke. If you can pick up on Eliots' message (if any) through a multitude of allusions then im sure a bit of humour wouldnt be too hard, would it?

In on the joke? Its not a private joke or anything. How you see it is as it is. There are no allusions or anything. Its just a bit of juvenile humour to break the overserious tone of the thread. Lighten up.
 

SoulSearcher

Active Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
6,757
Location
Entangled in the fabric of space-time ...
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
ign0r4mus said:
Who said anything about forcing our views on anyone else. We are merely stating an opinion and arguing our case (yes i admit, a little fiercer than usual). Replies have been made to argue their case as well, if you have not noticed.

On a forum, that is what people can do. Someone states an opinion. Another states another. The first proceeds to state why they think the seconds' opinion is not properly justified. Same happens with the second. This continues to produce a long and interesting (depends) debate. And that is what has been happening. A debate.

At no point have we said (or implied) "No! Your view is completely stupid. Shutup and listen to me and what i have to say". We have justified ourselves and our views sufficiently and have allowed anyone else to debate us. Same goes for those whom we are arguing to. They have also used justifications to support themselves and their views, and they have also allowed for debate.

If you think there is a problem with debating, then you can go raise that in another thread.
I concede that, it would be stupid of me to deny it, it is just that you guys have been a bit overzealous in defending your point of view, as you yourself have pointed out. I have absolutely no problem with debating.
 

live.fast

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
501
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Gabriel. NO! Your view is completely stupid. Shutup and listen to me and what i have to say.

Eliot is a gay man =)
 

ign0r4mus

New Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
live.fast said:
Gabriel. NO! Your view is completely stupid. Shutup and listen to me and what i have to say.

Eliot is a gay man =)
Bloody Idiot :rolleyes:
 

seremify007

Junior Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
10,062
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Uni Grad
2009
IMO poetry isn't stupid... but rather, it's just another one of life's great things which HSC English has managed to ruin.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
249
Location
what is this, Big Brother?
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
this thread is not pointless!

its about TS Eliot and his ambiguous and at times, blatantly stupid nature of the poem hollow men, his overambitious use of allusions, and the fact that poetry these days is overanalysed, causing many meanings to be extracted from poems, some that the poet didn't even intend to point out in the first place

those who study english extension1 would know what i'm talking about
 

nwatts

Active Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
1,938
Location
Greater Bulli
Gender
Female
HSC
2013
Ah, you're being very closed-minded.

The study of poetry isn't specifically to render a poet's intentions. The interpretative process is bringing your background to often antiquated poetry and applying it to the context you live in. The greatest of poets imbue such a richness in their work so that it can be read in a variety of different ways, and so that it remains timeless. Essentially that's how the majority define "good" poetry. Eliot's work is full of pieces of imagery, intertextual links and (often very) extended metaphors that we all consider according to our own background to render a reading. Someone who isn't well read won't pick up on all the works he references (spec in Hollow Men) but will just read it as a crushing exploration into depression.

The prelim and hsc courses (in module B of advanced) teach you that the process of reading literature is subject to the individual, probably the best thing the entire course offers. You may not enjoy Eliot's poetry but you should respect his talents as a writer, if simply for writing works that can spawn such ambitious/extensive readings.

I also rate The Waste Land by Eliot as one of my favourite poems of all time.
 

live.fast

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
501
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I'll make this nice and simple:
You're referring I think to contextual interpretation, which is one thing - you interpret not Eliot's message but the context in which that message can be applied.
What I'm referring to is interpretation of the message itself. Eliot's writing is so ambiguous, with so many allusions, some of which we can only speculate as existing within the poem, that we begin to have trouble drawing Eliot's meaning behind the poem. Because where you have alot of ambiguity, you create alot of room for subjective interpretation of the message itself, subjective interpretation on the meaning of Eliot's poetry - and that's why I don't like Eliot. Because, whether intentionally or not, he's work makes it easy to draw reference to various other texts, where the referencing itself becomes interpretive and subjective, because we don't have all of Eliot's notes on exactly what he alluded to, and what that meant for the overall message of his poem.
 
Last edited:

live.fast

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
501
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
You're appreciation of Eliot's work becomes undermined by the very subjectiveness of his poetry - once the meaning itself is lent to subjectiveness on a level beyond that of other textual forms, you begin to form your own meanings of his work, so your appreciation becomes one of, not Eliot's message, but yours - Eliot's talents as a writer can be likened to the talents of John Edwards.
(That's not a compliment, in case you're still confused.)
 

ign0r4mus

New Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
nwatts said:
Ah, you're being very closed-minded.

The study of poetry isn't specifically to render a poet's intentions. The interpretative process is bringing your background to often antiquated poetry and applying it to the context you live in. The greatest of poets imbue such a richness in their work so that it can be read in a variety of different ways, and so that it remains timeless. Essentially that's how the majority define "good" poetry. Eliot's work is full of pieces of imagery, intertextual links and (often very) extended metaphors that we all consider according to our own background to render a reading. Someone who isn't well read won't pick up on all the works he references (spec in Hollow Men) but will just read it as a crushing exploration into depression.

The prelim and hsc courses (in module B of advanced) teach you that the process of reading literature is subject to the individual, probably the best thing the entire course offers. You may not enjoy Eliot's poetry but you should respect his talents as a writer, if simply for writing works that can spawn such ambitious/extensive readings.

I also rate The Waste Land by Eliot as one of my favourite poems of all time.

Where did we state that poetry was solely to render a poet's intentions? Of course there is more depth than that. We are just saying that his extremely extensive use and quite overambitious use of allusions, to the point that EVERY line has multiple allusions to different texts (most likely much of which he did not realise), has degraded the point in which the author was trying to bring across, we leads us only to guess what he was trying to say.

And what do you mean ' Someone who isn't well read won't pick up on all the works he references'? You can’t be bloody serious!! The whole point of this thread was to highlight his overambitious use of allusions. If we did not pick up on all the works he references, then how could we make arguments about his use of allusions which created the ambiguous nature of his poem? I would imply that YOU yourself are the one who isn't well read, as if you were, you would be able to pick up on all of OUR references to his allusions, hence meaning that we DID pick up on all the texts he references, otherwise there would argument and hence no thread.

And as for 'you should respect his talents as a writer, if simply for writing works that can spawn such ambitious/extensive readings', the talent in this case does not lie with the writer but with the reader, as they themselves spawned such an ambitious/extensive reading. You could give a group of greatly bored, over-analysts a children’s book and give them nearly a hundred years, and I am sure they would come up with very ambitious/extensive readings.
 

nwatts

Active Member
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
1,938
Location
Greater Bulli
Gender
Female
HSC
2013
I understand where you're coming from guys. But to put it really frankly, you just haven't read/studied enough poetry.

live.fast said:
Eliot's writing is so ambiguous, with so many allusions, some of which we can only speculate as existing within the poem, that we begin to have trouble drawing Eliot's meaning behind the poem. Because where you have alot of ambiguity, you create alot of room for subjective interpretation of the message itself, subjective interpretation on the meaning of Eliot's poetry - and that's why I don't like Eliot. Because, whether intentionally or not, he's work makes it easy to draw reference to various other texts, where the referencing itself becomes interpretive and subjective, because we don't have all of Eliot's notes on exactly what he alluded to, and what that meant for the overall message of his poem.
ign0r4mus said:
Where did we state that poetry was solely to render a poet's intentions? Of course there is more depth than that. We are just saying that his extremely extensive use and quite overambitious use of allusions, to the point that EVERY line has multiple allusions to different texts (most likely much of which he did not realise), has degraded the point in which the author was trying to bring across, we leads us only to guess what he was trying to say.
Live.fast's post tells us that we do not know the "point" of the poem. And, without having Eliot here for a panel discussion, we'll never know. To surmise that Eliot's intentions were undermined by his own devices is rather ridiculous considering you don't know his intention to begin with. Which was the point behind my initial post. We have no clue on Eliot's specific intent. Therefore the interpretative process becomes the key point of studying poetry.

Also I ask what is the point of trying to draw Eliot's intention? You seem very concerned with "what he really meant" or so to speak. That takes half the enjoyment out of studying the poetry. It's black-and-white, and something only available to those who research notes/transcripts of his on his work.

ign0r4mus said:
And what do you mean ' Someone who isn't well read won't pick up on all the works he references'? You can’t be bloody serious!! The whole point of this thread was to highlight his overambitious use of allusions. If we did not pick up on all the works he references, then how could we make arguments about his use of allusions which created the ambiguous nature of his poem? I would imply that YOU yourself are the one who isn't well read, as if you were, you would be able to pick up on all of OUR references to his allusions, hence meaning that we DID pick up on all the texts he references, otherwise there would argument and hence no thread.
Read the post properly. I used that as an example of how someone's different contextual background changes how they read poetry.

ign0r4mus said:
And as for 'you should respect his talents as a writer, if simply for writing works that can spawn such ambitious/extensive readings', the talent in this case does not lie with the writer but with the reader, as they themselves spawned such an ambitious/extensive reading. You could give a group of greatly bored, over-analysts a children’s book and give them nearly a hundred years, and I am sure they would come up with very ambitious/extensive readings.
No. You cannot string an extensive reading from a vapid work with any air of validity. The history of literature shows us that one of the most highly praised aspects of great writing is its depth in how the literary community has received it over time.
 

A l

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Messages
625
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Receptions and interpretations in different contexts is basically the whole point of the English course.....
 

live.fast

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
501
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
"Live.fast's post tells us that we do not know the "point" of the poem. And, without having Eliot here for a panel discussion, we'll never know. "
People speculate on the meaning of his poem, on it's message, based on what little notes we have from him on his own poetry. But make note, here, you haven't yet disagreed with me yet.

"To surmise that Eliot's intentions were undermined by his own devices is rather ridiculous considering you don't know his intention to begin with. Which was the point behind my initial post. We have no clue on Eliot's specific intent. Therefore the interpretative process becomes the key point of studying poetry. "

Do you know what his intentions were to begin with? No you don't. Eliot's intentions ARE undermined by his own devices, because no matter what his intentions were, that people can draw different meanings, different intentions from his work makes his work that much less admirable - that he was trying to put across A meaning is purely logical. How so? Consider the other end of the specturm - To make a textual work that endorses no point, no meaning, only open ended ambiguity to which extremely subjective and speculative interpretation can be made on a poetry's MESSAGE and MEANING is what I would consider deceptively fraudulent. In our society, we see through the tricks of psychics, and their 'work' is not considered in the same high esteem as Eliot's - but it is of the same nature - that the meaning itself becomes left to interpretation is not the work of a genius, but the work of a criminal! In this way, Eliot was a literary criminal, because he was able to create a work like The Hollow Men, in such a way that not only could the ORIGINAL meaning become applicable to different contextual background, but that the MEANING itself becomes subject to change - it is deceitful indeed. But to question that he did have a meaning in his poetry? THAT is ridiculous:
Consider hypothetically, that you were a poet - do you write poetry without meaning? No. Yet then, what is the good in having a poetry with meaning, if the meaning itself is to be subjected to interpretation?

“Therefore the interpretative process becomes the key point of studying poetry.

It is not the intention of most writers, of most creators of texts that the interpretation of their works also becomes an interpretation of the messages and meanings of those works as well. The interpretation in most cases was meant to be left to the context - that you live in your world, a different world that the writer lived in, means that whatever the setting of the writer's works, whatever HIS context, you could still re-interpret the work with regards to context - so that you could apply the writer's MEANING and MESSAGE to your world today. But Eliot's work does not put forward its meaning in such a way as to prevent interpretation of it from nobs like yourself. There are a million texts out there, movies, books, poems, all of which, without needing to explicitly state the meaning, put it across in a way that the meaning itself CANNOT be subject to interpretation - but Eliot's work, the way it is, allows for that same interpretation to occur. THAT is why Eliot is no genius. THAT is why his poetry should never have been rendered the same repute that other works beyond it have been rendered.

“Also I ask what is the point of trying to draw Eliot's intention? You seem very concerned with "what he really meant" or so to speak. That takes half the enjoyment out of studying the poetry. It's black-and-white, and something only available to those who research notes/transcripts of his on his work”

What is the point? I've put it across alot now in this post, but in case you still don't understand 'the point', here it is plain and simple:
If indeed Eliot wrote his work with a specific intention, with a specific meaning - then does it become your right to re-interpret that meaning to your liking? If so, then, what, I ask you, is the purpose in writing texts? So that people like you can say "I didn't know what you really meant in your book - so I'm going to re-interpret the meaning of it!" - That too, I label criminal! If someone writes a book about how men have faults, but you couldn't understand that THAT was the message, does it become YOUR right to re-interpret the message, to say, 'Women are superior?' Because no matter that the two seem simliar, they are not of equal meaning - and that same problem lies in re-interpreting the author's message, no matter if the meaning seems close to what you would believe the author's intention was. But the point is clear -
Poet's dont write their poems with the plan that no one will understand their intention - Where the skill of a poet lies is in HOW he gets the audience to understand the poet's meaning, the poet's message. And in this regard, Eliot is at fault, because his methodology is questionable - to the point where people like you question the meaning, and re-interpret it yourself.
Enjoyment of a poetry is one thing. But the enjoyment should come from understanding THE meaning of a poem, and not in re-creating another meaning yourself.
The interpretive process was never intended to be applicable to a poetry's meaning. Nor to a poet's intentions. Only to the APPLICATION of that poet's message - From a past world, to the world now - that's CONTEXT. But that the meaning should not change, lest the purpose of writing poetry should change too, is what supports this point.

“It's black-and-white, and something only available to those who research notes/transcripts of his on his work”

Finally, it comes down to this - the meaning itself, yes, should be clear - 'black and white' as you labelled it, although that does not in itself represent clarity (rather, you seem to be labelling it simple). That's what distinguishes proper, genuine poets who can weave intricate ideas, spin complex literary techniques to push forward a point, from those who also use complex literary techniques, but try for too much complexity, too much intricacy, to the point where the meaning itself is lost (and, according to people like you, HAS to be re-interpreted). Transcripts, notes of an author's work should never truly be neccesary if the text is sound, in order for us to understand a poet's work. But never mistake what I'm trying to say here, as meaning I want simple poems, simple works - I am myself a fan of those who use 'the big guns' of poetry, of literature - as long as the meaning can still be understood in the end - the meaning itself, the message itself, can be as complex and intricate as any writer deems fair - but it is also up to the writer to decide when too much is too much, and when it begins to take away from a poem, where it beings to lead a poem to become highly ambigious, subjective, and open-ended to the point where interpretation becomes a full neccesity, that's when it becomes a matter of simple judgement to see that the poet has erred, has over/under judged his audience, and compromised the ability of his own work to still be representative of it's original purpose, it's original message...of it's original meaning!
 

ign0r4mus

New Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
nwatts said:
To surmise that Eliot's intentions were undermined by his own devices is rather ridiculous considering you don't know his intention to begin with.
We don't know his intentions in the first place because they are clouded by his own devices, in particular that of allusion. IMO, an authors intentions does not have to be plain to see but must be able to be found. I believe that it is the authors duty, to express their intention in a way that it is able to be found. It is not the readers duty to try and guess the meaning. It'd be like me handing up an essay printed in white font (on the same colour paper) in response to a question and telling the marker, its your duty to figure out what the response is (if any exists), not mine to show you.

I belive that if they cannot do that simple task, then in my eyes they have failed as an author.


nwatts said:
We have no clue on Eliot's specific intent. Therefore the interpretative process becomes the key point of studying poetry.

Also I ask what is the point of trying to draw Eliot's intention? You seem very concerned with "what he really meant" or so to speak. That takes half the enjoyment out of studying the poetry. It's black-and-white, and something only available to those who research notes/transcripts of his on his work.
You say that we have no clue on Eliot's specific intent, yet you then continue on to state that its black-and-white and something only available to those who research notes/transcripts. Which one is it? Since it is available to those who research notes and transcripts, then those who have already done so must have been able to extract his intentions. Hence why did you say we have no clue??


And btw, i believe that yes a great poem (and hence a great poet) is one which does 'imbue such a richness in their work so that it can be read in a variety of different ways, and so that it remains timeless', but i dont believe it is a great poem if the interpretations we make are way off the point of the poet. Why should the poet get credit for the fact that we are interpreting a multitude of things, things which the poet had not intended us to think? I could give you a blank piece of paper and allow you to think of a hundred different interpretations. (E.g. lonliness, emptiness, confusion, holiness, laziness...) But does that make me great ... or even satisfactory?? And what if i put a black dot in the middle?? Another hundred different interpretations. (E.g. division, isolation, racism...)

And how do we know what the point of the poet was in this poem?? Well we dont, which results in us making inferences on what the point was and hence our own interpretations. Chances are, some and possibly most of these interpretations are wrong. So how can we label Eliot and his poem as great unless we truly know that that was his intention?? And also, much of his poem is allusion to other texts, so why are we crediting him? We should be crediting those texts to whom he is referencing. Do we begin to credit a maths textbook for including all those crazy formulas??
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top