Tim: I didn't follow the controversy over at Metrical Poetry, so in commenting here I may be provoking all kinds of unexpected antagonisms. So be it.
The whole issue of intentionality is vexed. Mostly, we have no way of knowing for sure what anyone means by anything. For that matter, we have no way of knowing whether other people even exist -- for sure. I also wonder why I should believe a writer's vaguely articulate claims about a poem rather than the poem itself. That is, if a writer claims that I misunderstood her poem, why should I assume she is any more able to articulate her meaning spontaneously than she was in verse? I often don't know why I do or say things, and I suspect other folks are pretty much the same way. Sometimes we're pretty good at inventing reasons post hoc, though.
But look, our purpose on these boards is to move one another forward. Talk back to a poem, and see what the writer says in response to what you said. People of good intentions will tend to converge, not necessarily in their tastes but in their understanding of one another. We can hope so, at least. If I "misread" a poem, you may well have "miswritten." Or you may have written differently, maybe better. Or maybe I just didn't explain my response very well.
It has to be a conversation. Even Criticsim, capital "C," has to be just one voice in a conversation of many voices. If we all agreed from the get-go, there'd be no "verse" in the conversation.
RPW
|