Thread: Responsibility and Ambiguity

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?

I understand the idea of a spell check. Granted, things happen, but it is (I think; if not it should be) a rule of thumb to check your work before posting it for review. On the other hand, there's the possibility of relying too much on an Internet spell checker and immediately jumping down someone's throat about a word just because Firefox or IE or whatever says that it's wrong. I suppose that's a case-by-case basis, depending on the attitude of the person commenting on the mistake and the amount of mistakes in the work, and/or the words being mistaken, blah blah blah. This one seems a little straight forward.

Research took a little bit longer to think about. On one hand, I can see how having to look up every other word would be annoying. I cannot see how this is necessarily at the fault of the author, with the exception of something that is obviously the product of Thesaurus fishing (which would hopefully be noticed and commented on sooner rather than later). On the other hand, I don't think that it is necessarily the author's responsibility to "dumb themselves down" to make sure that everyone understands. If any writer spent their time writing to cater to the needs of every youngster that runs across their path, levels of creativity would have limits. Which seems to defeat the purpose of having creativity.

My biggest problem, I think, was how the critic was referring to themselves as the reader. As a reader, I could see how all of her points could have been justified to some extent. However, I don't think that this was an appropriate perspective for a critic to take. If you're going to be a critic, you need to be a critic. Part of that is going those extra few steps and investigating words you don't know and researching aspects you don't know in order to present the author with genuine insight into the "meat" of their work. The surface stuff is important, but it's easy, and even an author would be able to catch the majority of it given the opportunity. Getting to the heart of things is more difficult during a self-critique, in my opinion. There seems to be a better track record if there's someone else shining a light on it. People who want to cop out and say, "Oh, well I shouldn't have to," seem really half-asked. If you're going to take a poem on line by line, actually commit.

And now, even after thinking and ranting and trying to grill the brains of everyone I've been able to get my hands on, I still don't know. Where is the line?

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.

1. Absolutely ... but be aware that, especially in poetry,
there are occasions when words are deliberately mis-spelled for effect.

2. Rubbish.

I don't think anyone should complain about "having" to do anything when it comes to critiques. If someone does not want to spell check or research words, they certainly don't have to. I think each person should give as much as they can/want during each critique. That only goes on this site though. If you are committing to a friend, family member, or fellow student then I think you need to do everything you can.

Originally Posted by Cran

1. Absolutely ... but be aware that, especially in poetry,
there are occasions when words are deliberately mis-spelled for effect.

2. Rubbish.

1. Of course. I figured someone would at the very least ask before they jumped on someone.

2. That's what I thought.

Originally Posted by SacredCircle

I don't think anyone should complain about "having" to do anything when it comes to critiques. If someone does not want to spell check or research words, they certainly don't have to. I think each person should give as much as they can/want during each critique. That only goes on this site though. If you are committing to a friend, family member, or fellow student then I think you need to do everything you can.

Right. I think what struck me was that it wasn't what I was used to seeing. Generally what I run across is the poet telling the critic what they "have" to do and not the other way around. What was interesting is that there wasn't any sort of instigation where a critic might defend themselves by stating those sorts of "critic's rights." Right off the bat it was all about how they shouldn't have to do those things, according to their rules. I suppose that if each critic gives what they want with each critique that it should be a given that if they don't want to then they a) don't and b) don't mention it, because why would it be important if it's not something they're interested in?

As for commitment, I came to find that the critique was a part of a contest. Each 'round' you submitted a poem for a prompt or something and then had to critique a peer's work. If you're being judged, and it is a "peer's work" (fellow student?) wouldn't it be to your benefit to dig deeper and show the judges that you can play both sides of the field? These kinds of details are pretty much moot at this point, I'm just puzzled by the process and when these things are legitimate.

No rubbish about it. Poetry is not didacticism.

Of course, much poetry is written for readership with special knowledge and vocabulary: students of classics or poetic dogma, for instance.
In which case, the readership wouldn't have to go study in order to receive the poem.

But the idea of writing a poem using obscurities that require boning up on to understand is pretty arrogant and show-offish.

It's a stage many go through, actually. Sitting there with a thesaurus. But like many such stages and poses, it fails the main test: providing reading pleasure.

^

What if ambiguity provides reading pleasure to some readers?

Originally Posted by lin

No rubbish about it. Poetry is not didacticism.

Of course, much poetry is written for readership with special knowledge and vocabulary: students of classics or poetic dogma, for instance.
In which case, the readership wouldn't have to go study in order to receive the poem.

But the idea of writing a poem using obscurities that require boning up on to understand is pretty arrogant and show-offish.

It's a stage many go through, actually. Sitting there with a thesaurus. But like many such stages and poses, it fails the main test: providing reading pleasure.

Of course.

Maybe I'm wording myself wrong. In a situation where extended education would be necessary, I could understand an issue. What about a reference to a common folk tale that a critic may have heard of but wasn't familiar with, or a body part's function? I do agree that there is an element of poetry that is about getting a "good read," but it is my opinion that if you're going to approach it as a critic during an in-depth review, take the extra steps or don't mention it.

Originally Posted by lin

No rubbish about it.

It's rubbish, pure and simple -
there's an Australian poem, famous around the world,
and it's full of stuff that many wouldn't know just by reading it -
in fact, there are still arguments going on about what some of it means ...

Once a jolly swagman camped by a billabong
under the shade of a coolibah tree
and he sang as he watched and waited while his billy boiled
"Who'll come a'waltzing Matilda with me?" ...

(AB "Banjo" Patterson)

that doesn't stop people from enjoying it enough to make it one of the best known poems around ...


then, of course, there's always Jabberwocky ...

lol

Originally Posted by Edgewise

^

What if ambiguity provides reading pleasure to some readers?

To readers it'd be a different story. Their issue would not be because they're bitching about "not having" to do something, but because they didn't enjoy it. In which case they could say something about making it less and why, or they could decide early on that they don't like it and find something they do. They could also be okay with not knowing and enjoy it that way...there's a lot of times when I wonder if a supposed ambiguous nature is actually ignorance, but having been on both sides of the fence I don't care. Sometimes it's more fun to not know, but either way I don't see many people bitching.

Actually the quote from "Waltzing Matilda" makes the opposite point the poster intended.

Do you have to go look those words up to understand it? No, you don't. It's obvious from context. It's clear that a coolibah is a tree. Who cares what it looks like?

It's obvious what he's boiling, what a "tucker bag" is (the important thing is, he can stick this animal in it)

It would be possible to have handled this in a way in which people wouldn't understand it. But then it would be worldwide popular, would it?

Think about it.

T.S.Eliot is usually reckoned to be a pretty good poet and The Wasteland is reckoned one of his better works. The section on it in the "Reader's guide" explaining the references is considerably longer than the poem.

Originally Posted by lin

Actually the quote from "Waltzing Matilda" makes the opposite point the poster intended.

Do you have to go look those words up to understand it? No, you don't. It's obvious from context. It's clear that a coolibah is a tree. Who cares what it looks like?

It's obvious what he's boiling, what a "tucker bag" is (the important thing is, he can stick this animal in it)

It would be possible to have handled this in a way in which people wouldn't understand it. But then it would be worldwide popular, would it?

Think about it.

LOL ... he's boiling a billy ... that's not an animal!

it's a tin bucket or pot of water for making bush tea ...
but, of course that's obvious from context ...

the animal he puts into his tucker bag is a jumbuck ...

but, most importantly, and as it's obvious from context,
perhaps lin can do what generations of experts have not -
and explain what is "waltzing matilda", and how one does it?



meanwhile, it might help to be clear about the distinctions between
ambiguity -
esoterica -
pretentious twaddle -

explain what is "waltzing matilda", and how one does it?

I dunno, I always thought waltzing matilda meant humping your bluey.

What's to understand?

Originally Posted by dannyboy

1: couldn't care less. if its poorly spelled and it ----- me then I stop reading, if not, i read on.

2: Firstly a poem needs to be good, that implies things like images, cadence, flow and form. These things should work without the needs for research.

And if they do work then the research will bring even further rewards.

case in point is a poem I just posted

A trip to Phillip Island

that references several other poems but first it must be a poem that reads on its own, then, maybe, some mad bugger might go looking for what the ---- I am on about....

Although why anyone would want to bother researching anything to do with Phillip Island is totally beyond me.