Sunday, April 1, 2012


Ok, Day 1 of blogging, hope this works.

Except for the easily edited versions “poems” that we heard when we were in grade school… my participation with poetry has pretty much been limited to what’s been required for my classes, and I’m sure that's taken some of the fun out of it.  So my definition of poetry may not be the best, but here goes:

A poem is a tool that allows an author to represent his/her thoughts using a writing style where the ordinary meanings of words and their relationship to each other can convey a deeper message than what is literally presented. It is a technique that usually can be recognized as having some regularity (for example structure, stanzas, meter, rhyme scheme).  More importantly, though, a good poem forces the reader probe the thoughts of the author: Why was this written? What is the author feeling, and why is the topic is important to them? Is this is a time of celebration? Or sorrow? Or anger? Is there a lesson embedded like a code in puzzle?  Is the message supposed to be the same for everyone?  This last point is the one that probably frustrates me the most in a formal setting, because it seems to me like this is really subjective and that within reason, one person’s interpretation is just as valid as another’s. In fact, the only person who knows the intent with confidence is the author, and even then multiple interpretations are still appropriate.

 So maybe a poem is better defined by what it “does” rather than what it “is”… the best definition I have come across is “you know it when you see it”.

1 comment:

  1. Hey, JJ! I like your definition of poetry: in comparison to other methods of self-expression (read--prose), poetry traditionally does focus on "transcending" the literal meaning of individual words. Poems sort of play with words in unique ways to encourage new ways of thinking about previously thought about ideas. And yeah, the multiple interpretation thing can be frustrating...but at least it gives you a lower probability of ever being completely off the ball-park with your analysis!

    ReplyDelete