Inasmuch as I may have expressed strong views contra this poem, at least I showed restraint by not cheating (googling) and finding out who it was by first.
However, curiosity overcame me and I looked it up.
Seeing who wrote it, and reading some of the workshop discussion about it, I understand now why and how it ended up in its present form. Clearly a longer, more "telly", poem preceded this incarnation, and there was some process of paring down that went on.
I wonder how many commentators saw this about the homeless because they already knew that was what the author intended? and how many saw it as a "painting" of sorts because they knew who that author was?
Not an accusation of any kind - we all bring prior knowledge, conscious or unconscious, to any reading.
There is a whole interesting debate here, still, I think about whether a poem can paint a picture without the mediation of the meaning the words (phrases, sentences) have. I think not (leaving aside the crude example of shape poems, I suppose.) Conversely a poem can be utterly meaningless yet musical, simply because words have associated sounds which aren't linked inextricably to their literal meaning. OK - somebody is going to say onomatopoeia, to which I can only reply "Thump, slap, bang, crack, kapow!"
"Dud" was a bit strong, I suppose-a reaction to being lectured about how marvellous this poem is. But in a weak sense it's the right word: a firework that fails to go off.
I'm with Fr. Pecotte on this one...intellect and meaning have to come first.
Philip
|