Poetic This!

[510bhan]

It would be like. . . prose

You utter, utter . . . expletive deleted.

[midnight candle]

what kind of knowledge base should the writer assume of his reader?

for me - anything goes. i've read poems on here that left me scratching my head, but at the same time the audible sound when i read it was just beautiful. so i'll do any amount of research if it opens it up a bit more. i'd rather do that for my own benefit than see a post clogged up with explanations that might kill it for me.

[cmb]

If we all got the same meaning from the same piece of writing, it would be quite boring, don't you think? Wouldn't be anything to discuss.........

It would be like. . . prose

What's wrong with prose now?  

[duck]

If somethings has to be binned because the readers don't understand it, then much of great literature would never have seen the light of day - Joyce for example, who I loath, yet many consider him great. TS Eliot another. In writing a poem as in any art you need to know the audience you are aiming for and assume they will gain sense of it. That the broad mass might not get it can easily be assumed. Other good poetry might be just the ticket for a mass audience.
Duck

[Vienna]

could be worse.could be verse.........although I am not averse to a bit of verse.or prose.I supprose...........

[Pale Writer]

For me poetry has more freedom of movement. It is not only the words and their meanings which hold me, but their flow, rhythm and play on words. So I learn to appreciate all that. Of course the writing is important, the expanse of emotions. I can't compare it to prose, nor would I ever want to. Poetry is something I've always wanted to write well but my mind does not work well that way. I choose prose, but admire poetry.

[Tom 10]

What's wrong with prose now?  

Absolutely nothing, except, you know. . . it has cooties

[cmb]

Cooties? 

[heidi52]

Cooties? 

It's an advanced poetic term.

[cmb]

It's an advanced poetic term.

Ah, thanks for enlightening me. 

[intercat]

I like explanations of poems (giving of my own or reading of others) after they've been initially posted and are in the editing stages, though sometimes it can be a fine line between explaining and defending.  I don't think it's necessary that either reader or writer is right or wrong, but say I read a poem and I just don't understand what the author is talking about, it can be hard to offer any actually constructive feedback, whereas with a bit of explanation it's easier for me to pinpoint what did or did not work for me personally and why.

Definitely agree that it should initially be presented alone -- giving preemptive explanations is a habit I broke myself of back in college classes, but it's been so many years since those classes, the insidious tendency to do so creeps back in.

[CorneliusPoe]

"Is it wrong to offer an explanation for our poems?"

 Wrong? No. But a poem should stand on is own, without gloss. As mentioned, I think we get a bit of wiggle room with the title. I've sometimes felt guilty for taking even that too far.

So, how important is it for you, as a poet, for people to understand your poem?

I want them to "get it". Understanding is a part. If a metaphor doesn't resound and an allusions is too arcane or specialized, then I failed. I already know what I'm going for. This is true for the structure, the sound, and the sense. It's not meaning alone that I'm trying to communicate, but I am certainly trying to communicate.

On the same token when you read poetry, how important is it for you to understand the poem?

Same boat here. I want to get what the poet was going for. that does not mean I can't appreciate elements in isolation, but I love it when a poem hits on all points and is musical, meaningful, and skillfully wrought.
 
And, if an explanation is either included originally or given later how do you feel about that?

I don't like it up front. It colors the initial read too much. I do enjoy it once I think I know the poem. But at that stage I would hope the conversation is akin to friends discussing an event they both experienced, or great movie they watched together. It shouldn't add to the poem itself. I just enjoy it.

Summing up, I don't think a poem should be accessible to everyone, but it should be accessible to someone. Otherwise, why bother.

[Mark T]

CP, that's well put and will surely resonate with many observers. Thanks for your contribution.

[leilani]

 I don't think preambles to poetry are useful, unless absolutely necessary to the understanding of a word or phrase used. However, just about every writer's conference I've been to has the readers introducing their poems or what they're about to read and where it came from. I've appreciated this at times just to get a sense of the poet themselves but it does interfere with my ability to take my own sense and feel of the piece alone. I personally want to feel some impact from the poem, something strikes emotion or thoughts in myself about it. For me it isn't necessary that poetry has to be understood to be heard.

[510bhan]

I don't think preambles to poetry are useful, unless absolutely necessary to the understanding of a word or phrase used. However, just about every writer's conference I've been to has the readers introducing their poems or what they're about to read and where it came from. I've appreciated this at times just to get a sense of the poet themselves but it does interfere with my ability to take my own sense and feel of the piece alone. I personally want to feel some impact from the poem, something strikes emotion or thoughts in myself about it. For me it isn't necessary that poetry has to be understood to be heard.

Yep . . . and often in the introduction to poetry collections you come across the same thing.