Thread: Responsibility and Ambiguity

1. Never really thought spelling was a huge deal. Of course it stinks as a reader/critic to have to read a poem with loads of spelling mistakes in it, but it's not really a primary concern since it's easy fixed.

2. This one really depends on the individual poem and how accessible the writer wants the poem to be, what kind of audience is the writer targeting,
... also depends on how well the words are used. In some cases, it may be obvious that the diction is unnatural and pretentious, and takes away from the flow of the poem, but in other cases it may be that the reader does need to do work and look up what some things mean.

2. They shouldn't have to do research to understand the poem, both on historical facts and word meanings. Definitions/meanings should be in the poem, etc.

I totally disagree with the reviewer who,s lack of insight and knowledge is taken out on the poet.I feel his ego must have been bigger than his literary understanding.Some might feel it harsh, but a poetry critic with a limited understanding of language should not be a critic at all !

Originally Posted by square root

During my daily hour of lurking, I ran across a slightly-heated argument between two individuals concerning the poem and the critique of that poem. To avoid too much talking, the critic's main points were:

1. They shouldn't have to spell check the poem for the poet.

2. They shouldn't have to do research to understand the poem, both on historical facts and word meanings. Definitions/meanings should be in the poem, etc.

This made me wonder where the the responsibility of a writer's content is overshadowed by a reader's ignorance. There is a battle of perspective. Where do you draw the line?
Where is the line?

I don't think there is a line. The first point is absolutely true. Each letter on the page (especially for something as typically short and dense as poetry) should be placed exactly there by the poet, or the poet is neglecting the work, and a critique should assume that if a word is spelled unconventionally it was intentional. But, the line. At the darkest end, if you recite a poem to me in Japanese I'll have nothing to go on but rhythm and random sounds. We need to share a language in order for one to enjoy the thoughts of the other. So, even when we're both speaking English, we might not both be speaking the same language. Any area of interest carries with it its own lexicon, sometimes filled with pretty bizarre terms and expressions. Take this dramatic monologue of mine for example:

Yet, it moves.
So it may, so why not you?
When you first came to sit at my table,
to welcome me and put our spheres in harmony,
we ate, joked, then dropped our lines deep.
We found accord.

You see things I cannot.
Knowing vision is my business,
so I supported you and spoke well of you.
I had faith, you see, in your passion for finding the truth,
also my business.

Were new daggers sharpened
when I kept the Inquisitors hungry?
I kept them in the dark, and I told you
exactly what they wanted to see; you needed only
to not give it to them!

And still! You persist!
Daggers in every shadow, thirsting for my blood,
and you incite! You turn on me, cast me as the Simpleton,
as though I have not incurred enough hatred already
to honour you!

You force my hand.
Your body shall be burned,
and from creation you are banned.
Look if you must but forever from your home.
I'm sorry my friend.
***

I don't put this up for critique (wrong forum, not my thread) but rather to ask the question: could you enjoy this not knowing who the speaker or listener are, or the event surrounding the speech? This isn't a question of whether you can figure out who the speaker, listener and event are, but whether the poem even says anything if you don't know.

Granted (x-ref Keat's Ode on a Grecian Urn) one can mention all sorts of things that remain unknown to the reader, but if the point and meaning is lost because of abstract terms, jargon or niche-historical references, then what's the point of reading it?

Seriously? First of all, yeah people make mistakes. If you are submitting to a lit mag or a publishing company you should definitely check and re check and RE RE check you spelling and grammar lol, but I find that hilarious that a 'reader' or even a 'critic' is blaming the poet for the readers inability to comprehend their work. That is just astounding to me. It would be one thing if the poem was written in a way that was incoherent, but if it contains references that the reader cannot understand than too bad! Either look it up or move on! You don't have to write a review. I mean, Look at how many references are in classic literature. Most people can't understand a lot of them without foot notes or spark notes or the occasional google. I think it's great that the poet it branching out and including intellectual material in their work, and I would consider myself graced by the opportunity to learn more! It's just fuel for the fellow writer in the future.