SoulSearcher
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2005
- Messages
- 6,757
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
Oh dear God no ...
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Poetry is stupid (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter live.fast
- Start date
A.I ...M8 I GOT SUMFINK 2 SAY 2 YA, ALRITE? - "It seems more apparent that you do not understand the whole point of analysing the poem. The context you have been brought up in, seems to be about modern values and prosaic understandings. Writing something straightforward and explicitly conveying meaning in a text makes the text too simple and too boring for readers of your age. That is why there is something called "higher order thinking".....
Sonny jim, i dunno bout you, but i read a friggin lot, alrite? n i've read tonnes of books, many not so straightfoward - but there are implied MEANINGS that can't be turned by subjective meaning, because the meanings that make up the novel, that help create and in turn resolve plots, can't be subjective - you can't pull things outta ya arse n say, hey u got sumfink here about so and so, when it's got nothing to do with it! But with Eliot - heck, you can go on about allusion references, influences, links, connontations on everything about a word liek 'whimper', and what, it passes and you're gonna accept it, because someone can back it up with links the author didn't think or maybe didn't know existed there? SUBJECTIVE means drawing the links, intepreting, but if it's not the author's intention, or you're drawing links that FIT but aren't what the AUTHOR WANTED - remember, you can still back up these links, these ideas of what you interpret the poetry to mean - but if it isn't the same as the author's own implications, then it's like using hay to build a house - sure you could do it, but it's not what it was MEANT for, and i doubt it'd stand against really strong winds - ya get me?
If you read good novels (especially mystery novels), you'll realise that you have to do some thinking to work out what the story is about and what it is implying otherwise you'll be totally lost. The story and its message isn't going to be in your face, so you have to work it out yourself. In effect, you experience the imagery and action in the novel rather than some mundane story saying this person did this and then walked to this place before doing this etc.........
The message the story is trying to send is not something wholly subjective - the world created within the novel, the plots, the characters, will implicate something in a way, will create a situation in a way where you can't be as subjective as say with something like Eliot's work - its just like i was saying before, although im not sure whether you understood it. Sure, the message isn't going to be in my face, and yea i do have to work it out, but you see, even you yourself were referring to 'the message' - not saying that there's only ONE message, but that whatever messages there are, at least you can't work yourself to an interpretation unlike that of the author's because it in all likelihood wouldn't fit in with the 'reality' created within the novel - such things like that 'reality- and 'world' within the novel makes the messages less open to majorly WIDE interpretation!
"The whole point of analysing the poetry (regardless of whether you like it or not) and exploring levels of meaning is to understand how people interpret texts in various ways according to their context. You have your own interpretation, while other people may respond differently. This is understanding how meaning is shaped by context. It does not necessarily have to be the composer's intention. That's not the point of analysing it. For example if you were living in a similar context as T.S Elliot then perhaps you would think differently about the poem. "
My interpretation should not be different to that interpretation of the author's. That's my point. The author's trying to put across a message - say that he thinks Bolivians are cool people. Someone else interprets the text differently, and thinks he's talking about how Bolivians are good natured people - different meaning, different point - because of a different interpretation - English is different to maths, yes, but some level of objectivity still needs to occur here - objectivity because if you ignore or change what you believe the poem's saying, intepret it differenlty, you're gonna get a different message sure - I betcha them terrorists who interpret islamic scriptures differently will agree wif ya wholeheartedly on this one tho.
Oh and, last, but most importantly..
Eliot is a gay man.
Sonny jim, i dunno bout you, but i read a friggin lot, alrite? n i've read tonnes of books, many not so straightfoward - but there are implied MEANINGS that can't be turned by subjective meaning, because the meanings that make up the novel, that help create and in turn resolve plots, can't be subjective - you can't pull things outta ya arse n say, hey u got sumfink here about so and so, when it's got nothing to do with it! But with Eliot - heck, you can go on about allusion references, influences, links, connontations on everything about a word liek 'whimper', and what, it passes and you're gonna accept it, because someone can back it up with links the author didn't think or maybe didn't know existed there? SUBJECTIVE means drawing the links, intepreting, but if it's not the author's intention, or you're drawing links that FIT but aren't what the AUTHOR WANTED - remember, you can still back up these links, these ideas of what you interpret the poetry to mean - but if it isn't the same as the author's own implications, then it's like using hay to build a house - sure you could do it, but it's not what it was MEANT for, and i doubt it'd stand against really strong winds - ya get me?
If you read good novels (especially mystery novels), you'll realise that you have to do some thinking to work out what the story is about and what it is implying otherwise you'll be totally lost. The story and its message isn't going to be in your face, so you have to work it out yourself. In effect, you experience the imagery and action in the novel rather than some mundane story saying this person did this and then walked to this place before doing this etc.........
The message the story is trying to send is not something wholly subjective - the world created within the novel, the plots, the characters, will implicate something in a way, will create a situation in a way where you can't be as subjective as say with something like Eliot's work - its just like i was saying before, although im not sure whether you understood it. Sure, the message isn't going to be in my face, and yea i do have to work it out, but you see, even you yourself were referring to 'the message' - not saying that there's only ONE message, but that whatever messages there are, at least you can't work yourself to an interpretation unlike that of the author's because it in all likelihood wouldn't fit in with the 'reality' created within the novel - such things like that 'reality- and 'world' within the novel makes the messages less open to majorly WIDE interpretation!
"The whole point of analysing the poetry (regardless of whether you like it or not) and exploring levels of meaning is to understand how people interpret texts in various ways according to their context. You have your own interpretation, while other people may respond differently. This is understanding how meaning is shaped by context. It does not necessarily have to be the composer's intention. That's not the point of analysing it. For example if you were living in a similar context as T.S Elliot then perhaps you would think differently about the poem. "
My interpretation should not be different to that interpretation of the author's. That's my point. The author's trying to put across a message - say that he thinks Bolivians are cool people. Someone else interprets the text differently, and thinks he's talking about how Bolivians are good natured people - different meaning, different point - because of a different interpretation - English is different to maths, yes, but some level of objectivity still needs to occur here - objectivity because if you ignore or change what you believe the poem's saying, intepret it differenlty, you're gonna get a different message sure - I betcha them terrorists who interpret islamic scriptures differently will agree wif ya wholeheartedly on this one tho.
Oh and, last, but most importantly..
Eliot is a gay man.
The message shouldnt change - contextual intepretation is different, its bout applying the SAME message elsewhere, but the message is intrinsically the same - jihadis change the message, as well as contextually interpret it - but contextual interpretation does not mean changing the message, or misintrepreting that, rather, understanding THE message, and applying it to other 'worlds'. AND yep..
Eliot is a gay man =)
Eliot is a gay man =)
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You say we need to know the authors' intentions to understand their meaning in writing the poem, but they exactly are the same thing, just rephrased. Furthermore, the authors' intentions does not depend on their context, as they could compose a text for a completely unrelated context. For example, i highly doubt George Lucas' intentions of composing the star wars series relied on what was happening during his time, although i am open to any dispute. And finally, yes your example does suck.2syllables said:
I think Eliot exhibits a bit of hypocricy in his poem, critising the hollow men for being apathetic and 'sitting on the fence' (well thats only what i can guess) but his poem itself is ambigious and not straight to the point. Instead of giving a definite response to the issues which he himself raises, he just tiptoes around them by alluding to other texts and forcing the reader to attempt to derrive (and in some cases concoct) their own meaning.
Another aspect which annoys me about his poem is that (i think) he refers to the decline of genuine faith (in particular of Christians) and the undermining of Christian rituals and values in general. However, i believe that he himself is undermining Chritian values by, in a way, endorsing and glorifying the actions of Guy Fawkes and Kurtz, and implying that it is better to do all those horrible things than to do nothing at all. Unless the bible has changed since the last time i read it, i don't think that guy named Jesus was telling people to do that they did. I would think that he would much rather have people sitting on the fence than trying to blow up parliament and enslaving natives and forcing them to work to their deaths... Eliot probably should've used much better examples to support his ideas.
In conclusion, due to these statements and those of the pospinator and live.fast, we can adequately say that this poem is NOT beautiful and many improvements could be made upon it.... its just too bad Eliot is dead, but I'll dance on his grave.
Another aspect which annoys me about his poem is that (i think) he refers to the decline of genuine faith (in particular of Christians) and the undermining of Christian rituals and values in general. However, i believe that he himself is undermining Chritian values by, in a way, endorsing and glorifying the actions of Guy Fawkes and Kurtz, and implying that it is better to do all those horrible things than to do nothing at all. Unless the bible has changed since the last time i read it, i don't think that guy named Jesus was telling people to do that they did. I would think that he would much rather have people sitting on the fence than trying to blow up parliament and enslaving natives and forcing them to work to their deaths... Eliot probably should've used much better examples to support his ideas.
In conclusion, due to these statements and those of the pospinator and live.fast, we can adequately say that this poem is NOT beautiful and many improvements could be made upon it.... its just too bad Eliot is dead, but I'll dance on his grave.
the pospinator
Member
that's it ignor4mus, and fanx for agreein wif me and live.fast, u twoguys r champions, Eliot is emo, and he should wirte better poetry
But why shouldn't it? Everyone's different, they see things in different ways, Eliot lived like, how long ago? Surely you can't expect everyone to see things in the exact same way seeing as we're not robots or whatever.live.fast said:
sleepplease
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 328
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
live.fast i'm wondering if you have heard of the theory "death of the author" - it comes from Roland Barthes (read any of his stuff - it's awesome) and pretty much says that what the author INTENDS us to get from the text is irrelivant, because a text exists alone, as a sole creation and it is up to us to "read" it in our own context, and interpret it ourselves. This makes more sense to me because i don't really care what Elliot felt, i care how it makes me feel.
so that he could make someone like you feel good about YOUR point, just because you can find some way of justifying your POINT from his work? It's about HIS point - that's why texts are written, author's trying to send messages of THEIR OWN.
sleepplease
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 328
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
it doesnt matter WHY he wrote it!! what matters is how YOU read it! read some of barthes stuff, seriously if you feel this passoinately about your hatred for poetry it should interest you, .. a text is separate from teh author as soon as it is created. Any message the author MAY or MAY NOT have been trying to get across is irrelevant. what is importnat is how you read it.live.fast said:
have you studied different readings (i'm not sure if you do at school..) but pretty much the point is that your reading of a text is the important thing.
thankyou m0ofin -- yay for you too
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!live.fast said:
Okay. Enoguh of this garbage of how the poem makes YOU feel. When Eliot was alive and writing the "Hollow Men", u actually think he was caring about how it's gonna make US feel. Of course NOT!!!!
He was focusing on how he was going to present his point, and bring it across to an audience. Yeh, its good that we feel from his poetry, but we also have to consider the point that Eliot is trying to make, becasue this point whiuch he is attempting to present is the reason y the poem exists in the first place!!!!!
sleepplease
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 328
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
... you quoted yourself as evidence how strange.
of course you can concider why elliot may have written what he did, but you can only make speculations, and hwilst this is interesting.. poetry's purpose is to make you feel something Elliot cannot determine how you feel.
you clearly cannot be bothered reading up on other theories, thus cannot undertand the concept of the death of the author, so if you are not prepared to do any research into the issue - and base your passionate refusal to apprecaite poetry on ignorance.. then i can't really argue with you!
shall agree to disagree.. but you're missing out on some beautiful stuff
how strange.of course you can concider why elliot may have written what he did, but you can only make speculations, and hwilst this is interesting.. poetry's purpose is to make you feel something Elliot cannot determine how you feel.
you clearly cannot be bothered reading up on other theories, thus cannot undertand the concept of the death of the author, so if you are not prepared to do any research into the issue - and base your passionate refusal to apprecaite poetry on ignorance.. then i can't really argue with you!
shall agree to disagree.. but you're missing out on some beautiful stuff
the pospinator
Member
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!live.fast said:
Okay. Enoguh of this garbage of how the poem makes YOU feel. When Eliot was alive and writing the "Hollow Men", u actually think he was caring about how it's gonna make US feel. Of course NOT!!!!
He was focusing on how he was going to present his point, and bring it across to an audience. Yeh, its good that we feel from his poetry, but we also have to consider the point that Eliot is trying to make, becasue this point whiuch he is attempting to present is the reason y the poem exists in the first place!!!!!
sorry, live.fast, this was my quote, just accidently got the wrong username,
so he didn't quote himself
the pospinator
Member
Eliot is NOT beautiful stuff, the Hollow Men is full of negative connotations, and is very depressing:mad1:sleepplease said:shall agree to disagree.. but you're missing out on some beautiful stuff
sleepplease
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 328
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
talking about poetry in general (as the topic is "poetry is stupid") and being sad does not mean it cannot be ebautiful - beauty is subjective remember.the pospinator said:
... you quoted yourself as evidence how strange.
of course you can concider why elliot may have written what he did, but you can only make speculations, and hwilst this is interesting.. poetry's purpose is to make you feel something Elliot cannot determine how you feel.
you clearly cannot be bothered reading up on other theories, thus cannot undertand the concept of the death of the author, so if you are not prepared to do any research into the issue - and base your passionate refusal to apprecaite poetry on ignorance.. then i can't really argue with you!
shall agree to disagree.. but you're missing out on some beautiful stuff
what do you mean consider what he did? You take into regards one thing, but not another...how it makes us feel, but not why he's trying to make us feel what we feel - > did you think about that? the concept of 'death of the author' does not take into account the purpose, rather it does away with it - Elliot CAN determine how you feel, or at least he tries to make you feel a certain way, because he's trying to persuade you to a certain point of VIEW! did you feel HAPPY reading the Hollow men? Or sad? Because if it made you feel happy, then obviously Elliot failed to do what he wanted - it's purpose, and effect for purpose, and death of the author is a concept that deals improperly with both, so I think it's YOU who's got to do a bit more research
of course you can concider why elliot may have written what he did, but you can only make speculations, and hwilst this is interesting.. poetry's purpose is to make you feel something Elliot cannot determine how you feel.
you clearly cannot be bothered reading up on other theories, thus cannot undertand the concept of the death of the author, so if you are not prepared to do any research into the issue - and base your passionate refusal to apprecaite poetry on ignorance.. then i can't really argue with you!
shall agree to disagree.. but you're missing out on some beautiful stuff
what do you mean consider what he did? You take into regards one thing, but not another...how it makes us feel, but not why he's trying to make us feel what we feel - > did you think about that? the concept of 'death of the author' does not take into account the purpose, rather it does away with it - Elliot CAN determine how you feel, or at least he tries to make you feel a certain way, because he's trying to persuade you to a certain point of VIEW! did you feel HAPPY reading the Hollow men? Or sad? Because if it made you feel happy, then obviously Elliot failed to do what he wanted - it's purpose, and effect for purpose, and death of the author is a concept that deals improperly with both, so I think it's YOU who's got to do a bit more research