02-23-2012, 04:25 AM
Yes, it matters. When a reader and I come to an agreement on what the poem means, it is a happy dance moment -- however, as Todd said, as a writer I have no control over where the reader goes with a poem and therefore, if because of different experiences, understandings or even just mood the reader takes it to an entirely unexpected place then that's a good thing too (unless they get exactly the opposite of what I was trying to achieve, in which case I usually write them off as irony-impaired or thickos...)
The basic understanding of the poem should, if it's well written, be similar for both writer and reader. How precisely the understanding of each element of the poem matches up largely depends on "the writer's intent", but a different kind of intent. If a writer intends a poem to be a clear narrative, for example, and instead it becomes difficult to work out who said what to whom, where they were and why the donkey looked nervous, then it's probably in serious need of help and can be considered a (temporary at least, until it's workshopped) failure. If the writer intends to make the reader laugh and instead the poem induces vomiting and an uncomfortable loosening of the bowel, one can assume it's missed the mark. If, however, the writer intends to present a set of carefully chosen images and concepts to spark the reader's own thought processes and send him/her on a surrealist journey with flamingo sausages, then whatever meaning the reader takes away from the poem will be largely personal, with just a slight nudge in the same direction as the writer.
I agree with the both of you lads, though, that repeating something you've heard somewhere by someone who claimed to have some authority but you don't really know what, without finding out the original context, is entirely useless and sometimes very damaging.
The basic understanding of the poem should, if it's well written, be similar for both writer and reader. How precisely the understanding of each element of the poem matches up largely depends on "the writer's intent", but a different kind of intent. If a writer intends a poem to be a clear narrative, for example, and instead it becomes difficult to work out who said what to whom, where they were and why the donkey looked nervous, then it's probably in serious need of help and can be considered a (temporary at least, until it's workshopped) failure. If the writer intends to make the reader laugh and instead the poem induces vomiting and an uncomfortable loosening of the bowel, one can assume it's missed the mark. If, however, the writer intends to present a set of carefully chosen images and concepts to spark the reader's own thought processes and send him/her on a surrealist journey with flamingo sausages, then whatever meaning the reader takes away from the poem will be largely personal, with just a slight nudge in the same direction as the writer.
I agree with the both of you lads, though, that repeating something you've heard somewhere by someone who claimed to have some authority but you don't really know what, without finding out the original context, is entirely useless and sometimes very damaging.
It could be worse