[Kate Benedict]

In a fine poem, "meaning" is a nebulous thing. One could always take John Ciardi's tack and ask a more fruitful question: How does a poem mean? Then the emphasis becomes one of appreciation -- for the craft of the work, the form, imagery, the economy, the flow, the diction, the tone, the word choices, etc.

The fact that poems don't easily convey clear-cut meaning is the reason why newcomers to poetry often find it bewildering. "But what does it mean, what does it mean" the student begs to know. A nice way to get them thinking differently is to have them compare a poem such as "If" which states its meaning outright -- these are the things that make you a man, my son! -- and something more subtle like "The Road Less Travelled."

However, let me look at the opposing statements again.

A poem means whatever a reader perceives it to mean. All readers' interpetations are equally valid." Well, "interpretation" is a nice word and not necessarily hinged to clear-cut meaning. I daresay that The Road Less Travelled [Late edit: I meant Stopping by Woods, of course, as noted by Golias, below; brain death imminent!]invites different interpretations, some that would concentrate on the speaker's worldly obligations, others that would read more of a "world weariness" into the phrase "miles to go." The woods could be interpreted as a temptation to shun one set of responsibilites for another, or as the unconscious, or as death. Many interpretations are valid but not all. No doubt the teachers among us have listened to many a harebrained interpretation.

A poem means what its author intended it to mean. The best interpretations come closest to that. That's probably true, isn't it? A fine chef selects prime ingredients, prepares them artfully, blends flavors surprisingly and invents a savory new dish. If it's a complex cassoulet then it's not a cheesecake. We access the bubbling unconscious as we write but we also make choices as we write (and rewrite and rewrite). We know what we've wrought and if we've done our job well, careful readers will get the idea. Still, "meaning" in this context is still a nebulous thing! Or elastic, anyway.

[Duncan Gillies MacLaurin]

I'm a firm believer that subliminal messages are common in poetry. An example from my own experience is a study I did of Douglas Dunn's work, where I had the advantage of being able to contact the author himself. In reply to my observations about his work, Douglas Dunn replied:

'Perhaps I'll have to think it possible that as I wrote the poems I was programmed unconsciously to replicate the numerological patterns you've revealed. There are too many of them not to.'

And later:

'I find this whole business disturbingly eerie. It means that either I was 'inspired' in a way I find it hard to believe, or, even harder to believe accursed. By inspired I mean Valéry's definition: "There was and remains the mystery of inspiration, which is the name given to the spontaneous way speech or ideas are formed in a man and appear to him to be marvels that, of and by himself, he feels incapable of forming. He has, then, been aided." Paul Valéry: An Anthology, ed. J.R. Lawler (London, 1977), p. 166'

Thus my answer (in defiance of the strictures) is a combination of a.& b.:

A poem means whatever a reader perceives it to mean AS LONG AS its author can be persuaded to concur with this interpretation.

In the case of dead poets then of course the author will have to have a stand-in. Likewise with reticent/absent living authors. So a more practical defintion would be:

A poem means whatever a reader perceives it to mean AS LONG AS its author is likely to be persuaded to concur with this interpretation.

Duncan

[This message has been edited by Duncan Gillies MacLaurin (edited April 18, 2006).]

[Orwn Acra]

Okay, so I didn't read all of the replies, but I read enough to see that most people commented that they believed A was invalid to prevent students from just whatevering it. Whatever. I think that's wrong.

Last year, I had to interpret a poem without the use of resources (besides dictionary). It was a Billy Collins poem about clouds. I thought the moving clouds represented the passing of childhood. I spent a lot of time deciphering the poem to come to this conclusion. Anyway, I presented the poem - it making perfect sense to me - and my teacher said, "couldn't it be about reading? scanning the countryside/words, the clouds represent eyes." I thought he was wrong and I still think he is wrong. He might have just said that to test my confidence, but my question is, would it even matter what it represented? I liked the poem in the way that I interpretted it.

I understand why teachers don't want students to interpret a poem anywhichway, but at the same time, I feel like my childhood interpretation was just as valid as the reading one. If a reader really likes a certain interpretation, why diminish the enjoyment by changing the poem's meaning? I think I understood the poem more than my teacher, but regardless, A is perfectly acceptable.

Feel free to tell me how ignorant I am. My thinking could be just, you know, whatever.

[Maryann Corbett]

Those who speak up on this board are much more likely to be teachers (or former teachers, or teacher wannabes) than traditional students, so Orwn's perspective can be a useful kick in the pants.

In cases of teacher-student duels over interpretation, the student is always at a disadvantage, and that never feels good. The teacher has power, has more knowledge of the other literature that might be speaking to the poem at hand, and has more practice in talking and thinking about literature right off the top of the head. To get past that, and to come out even in a debate like this, the student *really* has to have all his ducks in a row.

Another thing about such a discussion is that it's the teacher's job to get the student to explore additional possibilities. Since it can be tough, and take time, to twist your head around to an alternate view of a poem, the student who has just had a new view dumped on him can feel very off balance.

Does this directly answer the question on this thread? Well, no. But since so many of us have refused to answer it exactly as asked, I think we're agreeing that the question is rigged.

An alternate question might be: Can an interpretation be absolutely wrong, indefensible? What makes it so?

[Marilyn Taylor]

Hello, everybody--

I find this discussion of my colleague's question absolutely fascinating, and very insightful. I'll just take the liberty of reminding you that its first manifestation was as a final exam question for his students (before I stole it from him for posting this forum)-- and I'm sure he was more concerned with eliciting a thoughtful response than a "right" answer.

Even so, I was ready to lean in the direction of "author intent"-- until I remembered that a published poem of mine once elicited a few responses having to do with its "military imagery"-- which I hadn't intended at all, and hadn't a clue was in there. But were these readers wrong? I guess not. And I also recall reading a Freudian interpretation of Kinnell's "First Song"-- a poem I'd always thought was about young farm boys playing cornstalk violins. Hah. According to that critic, I had missed the point by a country mile.

I guess all I can say is that I agree-- this seems to be one of those questions to which there is no right answer. Annoying, but unavoidable, I guess.

Marilyn

[epigone]

Orwn's case is an interesting one. If Orwn's understanding of Marilyn's "choice a" is "A poem means to a particular reader whatever that reader perceives it to mean," it is hard to disagree. Orwn came up with a reading that satisfied her (him -- sorry, I don't know which you are) and did not find the teacher's interpretation compelling. The poem does not mean for Orwn what it meant to the teacher -- and we can't know which meaning Billy Collins would prefer. We could ask him, but he is a puckish fellow. I would not expect him to give a straight answer, and the answer would also be subject to interpreation.

But notice that Orwn is not endorsing a general rule that we have to accept all interpretations as equally valid: of the teacher's interpretation, Orwn says,

I thought he was wrong and I still think he is wrong.

I would be intersted to hear what others in the class thought. In law, we have a rule that a document should be interpreted so as to give effect to each provision and so as to render no provision superfluous (or as lawyer's like to say -- and mispronounce -- "mere surplusage"). The same principle should apply to the intpretation of poetry. If the poet is skillful, there ought to be no words that are there without a purpose and no words that add nothing new to the poem. When faced with a competing interpretation, one is forced to push one's own. Does it really account for the entire poem, or only certain images?

A thematic interpretation ("it's about childhood," e.g.) need not account for the entire poem, of course, as poems are often (and should be) about more than one thing. But one should be able to relate that theme to the rest of the poem so as to at least have an account of how the poem is supposed to work as a whole.

epigone

[Orwn Acra]

To be honest, I'm not sure if Orwn is a boy or girl's name, but I am a boy and Orwn Acra is my real last name jumbled up.

Anyway, I am not one to usually disagree with my teachers, as most of them know more than me. Unfortunatly, not every teacher comes of as intelligent and this was the case.

Epigone, you asked what my classmates thought of the same poem. I don't know because each person was assigned a different poem. An interesting note: my teacher actually apologized to me after class for challenging my interpretation, which I thought was kind of odd. Maybe he brought up the whole other interpretation to test my confidence. I don't know.

[Robert Meyer]

Marilyn:
"Below are two opposing statements about poetry that reflect views commonly held by readers, critics and practicing poets. Where do you stand on this issue? Choose one statement (no compromising!) and write a few sentences defending it."

a. A poem means whatever a reader perceives it to mean. All readers' interpetations are equally valid.

b. A poem means what its author intended it to mean. The best interpretations come closest to that.

Any thoughts on how you might respond to this?

For me, poetry is more about the sound than the meaning.

Robert Meyer

[Carol Taylor]

Oh, B!

b. A poem means what its author intended it to mean. The best interpretations come closest to that.

That is a true statement, assuming a competent writer and a poem that says what the writer intended it to say. Whether the poem actually says what it attempts to say is another story. If a writer can't handle the language in which he's writing, his poem's literal meaning may be the very last thing he intended. But that doesn't make an incoherent poet a genius in disguise, or his poem a gift that came to him in unknown tongues.

Sure, a poet puts in all kinds of things he doesn't know he's putting in because he isn't aware of the personal associations his readers will bring to the table. And if he's not very introspective, his subconscious mind may be trying to trick him into revealing something he hasn't faced up to yet. Often we don't realize how a poem is going to end when we begin it. But we know when we get there, or we ought to, and if we keep it, then it's what we intend.

When people interpret a poem in a way that's independent of the intended meaning, assuming the writer is capable of putting his meaning across, they are rewriting the poem in their own heads. They should write their own.

Carol

[epigone]

Did Sophocles intend for his play, "Oedipus the King," to mean what we think it means? Did he intend to enact what Freud called the "Oedipal desire" to kill the father and sleep with the mother so that the audience could experience catharsis by witnessing the realization of an unconscious shared deisre and then work through the attendant feelings of guilt in a therapeutic way?

We cannot know and therefore probably should not care (about Sophocles' or any other author's intentions, I would argue). However, I suspect that, since the Greeks were not privy to Freud's theory of the unconscious, Sophocles did not intend for the play to have that meaning and would be outraged if he heard it espoused.

Does that mean that the Freudian reading of Oedipus is wrong?

epigone

[This message has been edited by epigone (edited April 22, 2006).]