11-14-2017, 11:18 PM
“what do we think of the role of authorial intent for the meaning of poems?” is a slightly different question than “should authorial intent be accounted for when evaluating the success or failure of a poem?”
the role of authorial intent can be pivotal to our understanding of a poem. and as far as that is the case, i would consider the poem a sort of symbiotic failure (at least in terms of “sense”). this is why i can’t be doing with cryptic poems; they’re all author and no poetry.
ideally we should like to read a poem as if it’d just been puked out of a random poetry generator, and assume all “facts” or “events” of the poem are already intentional, including spelling errors, grammatical errors, and incomprehensibility.
there is a slight difference, as has been mentioned, between forum workshopping and literary criticism proper. because, workshopping critique really does share an actual (not abstract) symbiotic relationship with the poem, albeit a complex one. whereas a poem encased in a book with a barcode must be regarded by the critic as having reached the end of its gestation period and has become stratified across the plane of inconsistency, ready for a sort of phenomenological exploration of the material: a phenomenology of poetry.
this is, of course, an oversimplification, and raises more questions, such as: does a purely phenomenological approach tell us anything about the inter-subjective value, success, or failure of a poem? does a clarification change the experience to such a degree that, far from the prescription to ignore authorial intent, it should be regarded as (at the point of elucidation) an integral part of it? does it matter if our understanding comes from our own—and to use an archaic phrase—imagination after careful concideration; or an explanatory footnote?
in my own rather crude and trite opinion, it’s all a big lumbering living organism with a plexus of nerves and capillary veins clumsily arranged and plugged in to keep it going. sometimes the pendulum swing is towards territorialisation and stratification based on pre-formed structures; other times to destratification and nomadic wandering. the pendulum is rarely ever stopped in its tracks.
it should also be mentioned, as that Dukealien chap suggested, that motivations for advocating one or the other ways of dealing with criticism are sometimes to be taken into account. does the poet who says “well, it’s all interpretation, man” secretly know that he’s wearing no clothes? does the critic, likewise, not want to look like an idiot for not pointing out this “apparent” fact? to be sure, the critic has a more difficult time of it than the artist, in that respect.
ps. it just occurred to me, and at the risk of contradicting something i’ve previously said, in forum criticism understanding authorial intent is essential for the relationship to work. for the critic to “help” the poet, he must understand what the poet’s up to. etc. etc. the alternative is a kind of non-perfecting pedantry. and nobody wants that.
the role of authorial intent can be pivotal to our understanding of a poem. and as far as that is the case, i would consider the poem a sort of symbiotic failure (at least in terms of “sense”). this is why i can’t be doing with cryptic poems; they’re all author and no poetry.
ideally we should like to read a poem as if it’d just been puked out of a random poetry generator, and assume all “facts” or “events” of the poem are already intentional, including spelling errors, grammatical errors, and incomprehensibility.
there is a slight difference, as has been mentioned, between forum workshopping and literary criticism proper. because, workshopping critique really does share an actual (not abstract) symbiotic relationship with the poem, albeit a complex one. whereas a poem encased in a book with a barcode must be regarded by the critic as having reached the end of its gestation period and has become stratified across the plane of inconsistency, ready for a sort of phenomenological exploration of the material: a phenomenology of poetry.
this is, of course, an oversimplification, and raises more questions, such as: does a purely phenomenological approach tell us anything about the inter-subjective value, success, or failure of a poem? does a clarification change the experience to such a degree that, far from the prescription to ignore authorial intent, it should be regarded as (at the point of elucidation) an integral part of it? does it matter if our understanding comes from our own—and to use an archaic phrase—imagination after careful concideration; or an explanatory footnote?
in my own rather crude and trite opinion, it’s all a big lumbering living organism with a plexus of nerves and capillary veins clumsily arranged and plugged in to keep it going. sometimes the pendulum swing is towards territorialisation and stratification based on pre-formed structures; other times to destratification and nomadic wandering. the pendulum is rarely ever stopped in its tracks.
it should also be mentioned, as that Dukealien chap suggested, that motivations for advocating one or the other ways of dealing with criticism are sometimes to be taken into account. does the poet who says “well, it’s all interpretation, man” secretly know that he’s wearing no clothes? does the critic, likewise, not want to look like an idiot for not pointing out this “apparent” fact? to be sure, the critic has a more difficult time of it than the artist, in that respect.
ps. it just occurred to me, and at the risk of contradicting something i’ve previously said, in forum criticism understanding authorial intent is essential for the relationship to work. for the critic to “help” the poet, he must understand what the poet’s up to. etc. etc. the alternative is a kind of non-perfecting pedantry. and nobody wants that.