I detest symbolism. Without a key to understand it, it just comes across as cryptic and confusing. When i read poems like that, my brain just switches off, I lose interest because I have no idea what's going on. I think one of the biggest insights I've had since finding your channel and watching your videos is the power of specificity. I used to make things as vague as possible to try and appeal to as many people as possible. Thanks to you, I now realize this is absolutely the wrong way to go. I look back at my old work now, and it's awful! Vague, cryptic, and without any emotional impact. My old work seems feeble; soggy lettuce word salads. I owe you a lot since I can see the improvement in my writing since I subscribed to your channel. I'm slowly getting there, millimeter by millimeter. Thanks, Prof!
I love your poetry videos. Like most art, poetry has been hindered by modernism and the idea that everything is beautiful. It is nice to see videos that break down what makes good poetry beautiful.
Oh wow! I was just now watching your other poetry videos and thinking "I wish he had a new video about writing poetry" and suddenly here you are. Your golden bookshelf skull must be reading your viewers minds! Thank ya, Teach!
Nice! I appreciated the sample poem for your ability to manipulate it, but I would've also enjoyed spending a few minutes with one of those classic examples, exploring their specificity. There's just something about juxtaposing the lesson with a masterwork that really concretizes it for me.
Great vid! Something that drew my atention was the act of naming the poem! I generally use one word, in a vague sense, but looking into how the title can enhance a poem would be very interesting!
@WritingwithAndrew I've been thinking about this and realized that most of my titles are pretty bad. I've been trying to improve them. Could you do a video on how to title poems?
About 1/3 of a tulip poplar tree broke and fell on top of my little camper and sauna. It looked like the bottom of a mangrove the way it landed, and caused no damage, miraculous and foreboding. It was the healthiest looking tree in my part of the woods.
I just wanted to say I'm incredibly happy I stumbled on such a fantastic channel. To me, a bad piece of writing advice is one that makes me want to put down the pen and do anything else. This obviously depends on the creator's dislikes (for me, it was "Save The Cat"), but any advice that does such for me can be safely discarded in my eyes. With that preamble out of the way, I feel the complete opposite after watching your videos. I want to pick up the pen and get to work immediately. Wheras so many seem dedicated to narrowing ideas and closing doors, each new topic you discuss opens something new in my eyes.
Multi-valent meaning is not what we're talking about here, though. This is about a common pattern for new poets to chase complexity through empty abstractions that are not meaningful symbols
This is a request. I don't know if it sounds usual, but I watched your videos on poetry for my songwriting. As much as they are generally perceived to have same qualities, they are different in some interesting ways. For example, I can apply all the characters of good poetry to the verse, as it's just storytelling with rhyming in every other line, I struggle quite much with writing choruses. As I often have the story & emotions ready, and the chorus is meant for something memorable, to have a vibe and repeatable after more verses, I'm struggle with writing them. So, would you ever make a video on songwriting? Your poetry videos have helped me much in that field, it's just me requesting you for more. How to find something in the story that is repeatable that stays relevant even after progressing in the story? What makes a chorus memorable lyrically? In general, how to improve songwriting? This would be the questions I would request.
Thanks for the suggestion-I'll put it on the list! I don't have a lot of direct experience with songwriting, but you raise questions that come up in writing poetry all the time. I'll see what I can do
Great video! I think you laid out the pitfalls really nicely. One of the first lessons I learned about writing was about this. I thought I was writing something fun and light, but I was meant with confusion and frustration from the people workshopping it, the complete opposite of what I had intended. Poems are not riddles.
I've just found your channel and it's fantastic. I'm using it to enrich my understanding and inspire my teaching of my kids. I've just watched your video "how to read (and even enjoy) poems". I love the metaphor of poetry as being like a photograph, specific but unexplained. In that video you talk about "the red wheelbarrow", a poem that could be described as the poem you discussed here as only giving half of the metaphor. It's not that I don't see any difference but I'd struggle to articulate it and I'd love to see you delve even further into this by directly comparing these two poems, why you feel that one success and the other does not.
Thanks--I'll put it on the list. The short version is that the poem in this video seems to be pretty overt in letting us know that it is a metaphor (without telling us what, exactly it is a metaphor for) while the Williams poem doesn't strike me as trying to develop a metaphor: I tend to read it as a meditation on a literal wheelbarrow rather than as trying to use the wheelbarrow as a stand-in for some other concept
I feel woefully out of my depth among all these thoughtful and insightful comments, but I'm compelled to say the following: I really like the skull. What an excellent character he is! An indispensable part of your videos, I think.
Your point affirms what I saw on poetry nights I've been attending -- complex stuff just doesn't fly as well. But I gotta say -- as someone who is not from the US, any poem with its full meaning laid bare feels unmistakably anglo-saxon. On the poetry nights you can easily tell who reads French & Russian and who reads English poetry. Imagine Baudelaire's Albatross being named something like "On the Pain of Being a Genius" -- hey we got ourselves a star-spangled symbolist! 😂
That is interesting! I'd imagine , too, if it's a live reading of poetry, simpler stuff probably does better since the audience only has the one chance to grasp it. More complex poems probably work better for reading than listening
What excellent insight into intent! I particularly liked the idea about how the title directs the reader. When I found out what The Love Song of Alfred J. Prufrock was about, I hated it. I had my own interpretation & visuals when I first read it. But I knew it wasn't vague, so I had the freedom enter into it. I also hated listening to Eliot read the poem, because it wasn't the way I read the poem & it really changed the personality of it. I know it's HIS work, but it became my story and it felt like Eliot was invading MY space. I think this is the sign of a great poet and a great poem. Love this channel, thanks! PS: hate is a strong word, I didn't hate, but sort of a precise dislike.
Hello, I really appreciate your videos, they made me reflect on poetry in so many ways and they are always very clear and pleasant to watch. What I do particularly appreciate is how you are giving advice not being preachy or arrogant, I really feel it comes from a real desire to help. Sometimes I stumbled upon videos made by some writers in an arrogant way and I find them discouraging and I can't see their point. I agree with the idea that the poems need a clear message and I've personally never written a poem in order to make it open to interpretations, I write when there is something precise I want to say, however some of them might be more obscure or difficult to understand. I love some of these poems and I feel I had a reason to write poems like that, but I'm afraid they might not be clear for everyone. What would be the difference between that and being purposefully obscure in your opinion?
I think there's a big difference between the kind of obscurity that comes from trying to figure out something difficult and the kind of obscurity that comes trying to sound smart or mysterious: readers tend to have more patience for the first
@@WritingwithAndrew I think you are right, I believe the difference is in the genuine desire to communicate or, as you said, to just sound smart or pretentious. Thank you very much for your response, I appreciate.
Thanks for this advice. I agree a poem is not a cryptic message. I have the impression that titles must be short. Can titles be rather long as your examples?
Complex poems can have multiple layers of meaning, and critics can use different frameworks to produce different commentaries. But that's different from a poem that leaves things so wide open that it doesn't really say anything at all, which is what sometimes happens when writers think they're leaving a poem open to interpretation
Nothing, of course they can. But it's a very different thing to write a poem with multiple levels of meaning and a poem that doesn't say anything at all
I would say that, in large part, the meaningfulness arises from the experience. Create a straightforward, engaging experience, and readers will have an easier time finding it meaningful
Would you mind if I partake in this discussion as well? My poetry literacy is rather scant, but I think conceptually the discourse surrounding work being “open to interpretation” is applicable to other forms of descriptive and emotional media as well. Specifically, in my case as a reviewer, video games. Though the vernacular of video games is visual in nature, there still exists the conversation pertaining to this spectrum of accessibility, and whether the symbolism and storytelling are simply inscrutable abstractions, obvious and repetitious to the point of annoyance, or somewhere in between. I used to debate the merits of surrealism, and the use of seemingly random, bizarre, perverse, or beautiful imagery throughout each piece. Is there value to work that doesn’t have a clear message or intended emotional overtones, and instead takes you on a desultory, visual journey where the oddity of the experience itself makes it evocative? As in many forms of interpretive art, if it can elicit any form of response or reaction in the audience, has the experience been worthwhile? I understand from the instructive perspective that perhaps beginning writers or artists shouldn’t attempt abstraction to avoid hollowness, contrivance, or presumed pretention in their work. However, while it might not be my personal preference, I still think there’s a place for such explorative, vague pieces to exist and be encouraged. I just can’t say at what point in the artist’s journey should they be ready to tackle such a difficult, open form of expression. Conversely, I do believe messages and imagery can be wielded with too heavy a hand to the point of fustigating the audience with metaphors and symbolism. There are only so many times my character can wade, bleary-eyed, through scores of smashed, spilled wine bottles before I’m like, “I get it, he’s an alcoholic”. While, to my meager knowledge, repetition is a poetic devise, I personally feel that the inculcation and over-explanation of a specific idea ironically dilutes its meaning and power in the piece. I suppose aiming for clarity and simplicity are effective first steps when dabbling in artistic expression, but there’s definitely nuance to the approach of how apparent the artist’s intent should be. If the piece is clearly about one thing alone, is that limiting, or alienating to people who haven’t or can’t find applicability to their own lives or situation? Can depth be lost to specificity? I know you can’t relate to everyone, and in trying to you’ll only end up relating to no one. Still, can a metaphor ever be “good” or strong enough to mean different things to different people, independent of the original intent, as it filters through the lens of their personal perception? Is aiming for that density too intrinsically hard for beginners? I guess I personally feel most compelled by works that are comprehensible and emotionally resonant while balancing complexity and multitudes of interpretive layers. I just prefer to be left satisfied by the conclusion of the piece, not confused, nor bogged down by boring sentiments constantly bored into my brain. Like the top spinning at the end of Inception, you can accept the simple, surface-level ending presented as is, or you can watch hours-long RUclips videos discussing how Cobb was still dreaming, the top wasn’t even his real totem, and so on. Either way, the experience can be enjoyable to a myriad of unique viewers and audiences. Unless you just hated the film, which is totally possible too lol. I suppose the same goes for poetry as well. You’re amazing if you actually read all this nonsense! Thank you for your time and work, I really do appreciate the effort put into these videos. I’m always happy to watch, and I’ll do my best to contribute when I can to discussions here in order to help feed the voracious monster that is the RUclips algorithm haha
Thanks for feeding the monster! I'll share some thoughts: There is, of course, room for ambiguity and indeterminacy in poetry or any art. I once heard a poet say that metaphors are like equations (one thing is equal to another thing) while symbols radiate meaning in all directions (a symbol doesn't stand for a particular thing but can resonate meaningfully with many things). Probably not how everyone thinks of them, but I do like the distinction. In that ambiguity, there's a difference between a writer taking us to confront the complex and unresolved aspects of experience and a writer who seems to say "I know something you don't know" and, to add another, the writer who doesn't really know what they're trying to say yet and hides behind the artistic-sounding motive of "leaving it open to interpretation." The first writer is, right along with us, trying to make sense of something that resists interpretation. The second is probably relying on a gimmick for some underwhelming reveal later. The third is still trying to figure out what they have to say. I think, because we're usually less experienced with reading poetry, we mistakenly attribute our difficulties understanding to deliberate obscurity on the part of the poet. When we gain more experience, though, we'll find that poets aren't really trying to keep secrets but that they're just doing something a little different from what we initially expected. Greeting cards are usually written to be applied to as many people as possible, and they move very few. Poems written about very specific individual experiences move readers because of they way they resonate with our own specific individual experiences. It's a counterintuitive reality of most writing that a former teacher instilled in me with his frequent paraphrase of James Joyce: "the way to the universal is through the particular."
@@WritingwithAndrew Thanks so much for your response and insight! I do appreciate the example using mathematical language to describe metaphors and symbolism, it’s rather clarifying to me, especially as someone with a degree in civil engineering haha. As a somewhat tangential aside, I was a member of a science community for many years post-grad, and attended lectures and conventions aimed at increasing general science literacy and exploring means of effective, accessible science communication. It’s a subject that’s rather significant and personal to me, growing up as a child of an incredible man with a PhD in neuroscience. He was admitted to the hospital today, and while he’s okay, I’m a little too frazzled and intellectually stifled to properly reply back to your wonderful comment with the dedication and quality that I typically require of myself. I would love to be able to continue discussing this with you, as well as matters of science communication; perhaps some other time? Thank you, Andrew, truly.
Goodness, here's to wishing your father well! I'm sure there will be opportunities to talk more about science communication again (soon), but taking care of family is the priority
@@WritingwithAndrew Thank you so much for your kind words and understanding, Andrew, it means a lot! He’s home now, we’re extremely fortunate, it just gave us all quite the scare. I definitely agree, family is of the upmost importance and my first priority, always. I’m truly looking forward to talking more with you soon!
I think the premise here is fundamentally flawed - what if the aim of the prose is to simply stimulate the mind? Why should an artist have desires to be understood? And why should people want to understand? What's wrong with being unsatisfied? Some don't enjoy being full. Can a reader not just enjoy the process in their mind that the imagery of the prose stimulated? And find that experience meaningful? "Know your audience" might be a message I could better digest here.
You can't stimulate the mind if you haven't said anything at all. What is art if not an attempt at understanding? There's a difference between a confrontation with dissatisfaction and a poem that offers a reader nothing meaningful. It's always about audience, and new writers often have mistaken assumptions about what readers of poetry are looking for.
You know, I don't actually agree with this video. There is a place for art used as a prompt. Something that is guides the reader to have their own experience. I love reading those. They're a different type of art and fulfill a different role, have different goals, but they are good. You do raise a good point that if the reader is trying to figure out what you meant, they will miss the entire experience, thought. That means to me that a good poem that is meant to guide you through an experience rather than one that has something to say needs to make it clean *somehow* that you are meant to fill in the blanks with your own thoughts. It reminds me of a short horror story I heard a few years ago. I think it was called ''bored'', but I could be confusing it with a different title. It talks directly to the reader (narration in second person) and guides you through the steps of the story, but describes next to nothing. Instead, there's ''blanks'' in the information where you naturally think and imagine your own scary sounds and sights. These stories are my favorite. But, as you can see, it's not keeping a secret if it's well done. It's a frame for the reader to complete with a part of themselves.
Yeah, I don't think we disagree. It's the difference between a satisfying mystery and a frustrating one, and newer writers tend to produce the latter in pursuit of the former. Trying to figure something out alongside the writer is fun; feeling like the writer hasn't said anything substantive isn't
Unfortunately with this you throw in the trash all Zen poetry, koans and even Haiku by some extent... Some poets don't do things to be merely open to interpretation, but they are actually capturing a feeling or an experience which by itself it's impossible to be spoken directly, or in the case of Zen it is exactly what it's being said as direct experience, no metaphors. I do value direct communication in art like this, but each subject has it's way to be dealt, a mystic poem loses all its appeal once we take off this uneasiness or this highly subliminar communication, and for me eliminating all of that (symbolism) its just levelling us down. Also there is SO much more than grasping the meaning, there is the whole experience of the meter, the flow of the poem and its musical aspect, which needless to say is or as important as the meaning or even more. If you ask a poem what is it about then you are already missing a whole deal of things that you could be looking at.
What a godawful video. 1. Though I don't think any creative choice should be viewed as a default, there are many advantages to leaving a poem open to interpretation, for example: a. The process of interpretation can be a preplanned path you lead the reader down, allowing you to guide their actual thoughts towards whatever destination that path manifests towards in their mind b. The effort required from the reader can make them more deeply consider ideas they would've otherwise glossed over c. The reader can fill in the blanks with personal details, allowing them to more fully immerse themselves emotionally d. Crypticness and ambiguity are required to create certain tones e. It can be a way of drawing imagery and meaning from the reader's unconscious mind, instead of their worldly knowledge f. Many, many, many other things 2. The poem about the train isn't open to interpretation. Every line has an immediately obvious meaning. It's very specifically about one thing, even if the one thing it's specifically about isn't very specific. It's flat out ridiculous to suggest that poems should have some arbitrary minimum specificity, and conflating interpretability with lack of specificity is essentially just conflating ambiguity with vagueness. I personally thought the poem was pretty bad, but that's neither here nor there. 3. The idea that there are rules for poetry is prescriptivist nonsense. There's great value in discussing how different artistic choices may affect the poem, and some choices often affect poems in ways the poet didn't intend, but to proscribe any choice is to put a barrier around art. You are not the grand decider of poetic merit, nor is any other barrier builder that may agree with your choice of cage.
I don't need you to agree, but I'm not saying anything new or controversial. I've been around long enough to have heard multiple teachers and poets say the same thing--and there's a vast body of published poetry out there that confirms the principle. I'm responding to a trap that I've seen countless new poets fall into over the years, and it's a problem that is easily and quickly fixed with a little dose of specificity. It's always possible to find exceptions, but writing education has always been about general best practices. Nobody is putting art in a box, just pointing out what many successful artists do. New writers have to start somewhere--you have to let them start somewhere--and the practical reality is that many new poets mistake the undefined for the deep. Poetry is art, but it's also communication--and nothing is being communicated if the message never makes it onto the page.
Though addressed to you, the intended audience was more so random people scrolling through the comments. If I knew you would actually come across my comment I wouldn't have phrased it so aggressively, so my bad on that. I personally believe that the craft of poetry should be guided instead of taught, with artists discovering a working set of rules instead of being prescribed them, but I understand that that mainly works in one-on-one settings. Still, even in one-on-many settings, I think the common effects of creative choices should be taught instead of some psuedo objective merit of said choices. For example, I would take no issue with someone saying that openly interpretable poems can annoy readers. The problem with teaching people that some choices are good or bad is that it's very hard for them to unlearn it, and following too many rules tends to result in creatively bankrupt poems that would get an A+ in a highschool creative writing class. Most creative works try to be two things: original and good. If guided, you start original and (probably) bad. If taught, you start trite and (probably) mediocre. I think it's easier to move from bad to good than it is to move from trite to original. I think it's easier to learn the skill than it is to develop the talent.
I appreciate that. For better or worse, I read 'em all 🙂 There's also the difference between a genuinely complex "interpretable" poem and an inexperienced writer's misunderstanding of what it means to be "interpretable" (and not having the complexity or technique to back it up just yet) to grapple with. I sense we're approaching the term in different ways. At any rate, for as long as creative writing has been a thing, the field of creative writing studies is still just an emerging one. There's some interesting scholarship out there, but there's a lot of work to do as we approach teaching more systematically: there's a lot of received wisdom about teaching creative writing (and skill vs. talent and other things) that could stand some real scrutiny
@@AZWADER " I think it's easier to learn the skill than it is to develop the talent." Agreed. I'd rather start with developing my own idea, then develop technique around it through constant back-and-forth of trying to find what works for my creative goals and what does not. The central problem with a lot of formally taught "creative writing" is that it puts the cart before the horse, expressive techniques before ideas.
Applying prose rules to poetry doesn't seem like a good idea. Part of the point to poetry is the fact that it can be interpreted different ways. If you spell everything out, it's not really poetry anymore; it's just prettily arranged prose.
Specificity isn't a prose rule. It's a guideline for any good writing. The point of poetry is to get as close to meaning, emotions, experiences as possible in such a way that would be otherwise impossible or near impossible through other forms of creative writing. For instance, metaphors are tools to communicate an idea or connection to something else in the most precise, effective way possible, transcending prosaic, intellectual description. Poems are surgical knives, not broad hammers.
This isn't about prose (in fact, I mention in the video that poetry shouldn't be doing what prose does); it's a pattern observable in the work of established poets, one that newer writers tend to miss
I detest symbolism. Without a key to understand it, it just comes across as cryptic and confusing. When i read poems like that, my brain just switches off, I lose interest because I have no idea what's going on.
I think one of the biggest insights I've had since finding your channel and watching your videos is the power of specificity. I used to make things as vague as possible to try and appeal to as many people as possible. Thanks to you, I now realize this is absolutely the wrong way to go. I look back at my old work now, and it's awful! Vague, cryptic, and without any emotional impact. My old work seems feeble; soggy lettuce word salads.
I owe you a lot since I can see the improvement in my writing since I subscribed to your channel. I'm slowly getting there, millimeter by millimeter. Thanks, Prof!
So delighted to hear it--thanks a bunch! Word salad is a problem--word salad with soggy lettuce is even worse! 😆
I love your poetry videos. Like most art, poetry has been hindered by modernism and the idea that everything is beautiful. It is nice to see videos that break down what makes good poetry beautiful.
Thanks a lot--I really appreciate that
Could you say more on modernism saturating the concept of “beauty”? I haven’t heard that hefore
Oh wow! I was just now watching your other poetry videos and thinking "I wish he had a new video about writing poetry" and suddenly here you are. Your golden bookshelf skull must be reading your viewers minds! Thank ya, Teach!
Anytime!
I will neither confirm nor deny...
One must include just enough lucidity so as to not evoke the wrong emotion :)
Thanks , Andrew.
Nice, that's it!
Nice! I appreciated the sample poem for your ability to manipulate it, but I would've also enjoyed spending a few minutes with one of those classic examples, exploring their specificity. There's just something about juxtaposing the lesson with a masterwork that really concretizes it for me.
Thanks, that's why I linked a few in the description. A little less convenient, but when you don't have copyright... 😅
You are a great teacher. Thank you for completely changing my understanding of poetry.
You're very welcome--thanks for the kind words
Great vid! Something that drew my atention was the act of naming the poem! I generally use one word, in a vague sense, but looking into how the title can enhance a poem would be very interesting!
Awesome--yeah, a title can make all the difference!
@WritingwithAndrew
I've been thinking about this and realized that most of my titles are pretty bad. I've been trying to improve them. Could you do a video on how to title poems?
Fantastic! I’ve struggled with this idea for a long time. Your explanation makes it much clearer. Thanks!
Thanks! Glad to hear it!
About 1/3 of a tulip poplar tree broke and fell on top of my little camper and sauna. It looked like the bottom of a mangrove the way it landed, and caused no damage, miraculous and foreboding. It was the healthiest looking tree in my part of the woods.
I just wanted to say I'm incredibly happy I stumbled on such a fantastic channel. To me, a bad piece of writing advice is one that makes me want to put down the pen and do anything else. This obviously depends on the creator's dislikes (for me, it was "Save The Cat"), but any advice that does such for me can be safely discarded in my eyes. With that preamble out of the way, I feel the complete opposite after watching your videos. I want to pick up the pen and get to work immediately. Wheras so many seem dedicated to narrowing ideas and closing doors, each new topic you discuss opens something new in my eyes.
That really makes my day. I'm pleased to hear it's encouraging you to write, and I appreciate you taking the time to say so. Go get 'em!
a double interpretation is a sign of a good poem also ; symbolism ; the reader can resonate wit their own experience indeed
Multi-valent meaning is not what we're talking about here, though. This is about a common pattern for new poets to chase complexity through empty abstractions that are not meaningful symbols
This is a request. I don't know if it sounds usual, but I watched your videos on poetry for my songwriting. As much as they are generally perceived to have same qualities, they are different in some interesting ways. For example, I can apply all the characters of good poetry to the verse, as it's just storytelling with rhyming in every other line, I struggle quite much with writing choruses. As I often have the story & emotions ready, and the chorus is meant for something memorable, to have a vibe and repeatable after more verses, I'm struggle with writing them. So, would you ever make a video on songwriting? Your poetry videos have helped me much in that field, it's just me requesting you for more. How to find something in the story that is repeatable that stays relevant even after progressing in the story? What makes a chorus memorable lyrically? In general, how to improve songwriting? This would be the questions I would request.
Thanks for the suggestion-I'll put it on the list! I don't have a lot of direct experience with songwriting, but you raise questions that come up in writing poetry all the time. I'll see what I can do
Great video! I think you laid out the pitfalls really nicely.
One of the first lessons I learned about writing was about this. I thought I was writing something fun and light, but I was meant with confusion and frustration from the people workshopping it, the complete opposite of what I had intended. Poems are not riddles.
Thanks! Readers are good for pointing out stuff like that 😅
I've just found your channel and it's fantastic. I'm using it to enrich my understanding and inspire my teaching of my kids.
I've just watched your video "how to read (and even enjoy) poems". I love the metaphor of poetry as being like a photograph, specific but unexplained. In that video you talk about "the red wheelbarrow", a poem that could be described as the poem you discussed here as only giving half of the metaphor. It's not that I don't see any difference but I'd struggle to articulate it and I'd love to see you delve even further into this by directly comparing these two poems, why you feel that one success and the other does not.
Thanks--I'll put it on the list. The short version is that the poem in this video seems to be pretty overt in letting us know that it is a metaphor (without telling us what, exactly it is a metaphor for) while the Williams poem doesn't strike me as trying to develop a metaphor: I tend to read it as a meditation on a literal wheelbarrow rather than as trying to use the wheelbarrow as a stand-in for some other concept
I feel woefully out of my depth among all these thoughtful and insightful comments, but I'm compelled to say the following: I really like the skull. What an excellent character he is! An indispensable part of your videos, I think.
A more correct person there never was. Yours is the true insight 💀✨
Excellent video. The mistaken idea of open to interpretation can a also be applied to literary short fiction, or any fiction considered literary.
Thanks--and I think you're right!
Your point affirms what I saw on poetry nights I've been attending -- complex stuff just doesn't fly as well. But I gotta say -- as someone who is not from the US, any poem with its full meaning laid bare feels unmistakably anglo-saxon. On the poetry nights you can easily tell who reads French & Russian and who reads English poetry. Imagine Baudelaire's Albatross being named something like "On the Pain of Being a Genius" -- hey we got ourselves a star-spangled symbolist! 😂
not that I don't prefer English poetry (wouldn't be here if I didn't). Just thought it a fun thing to point out!
That is interesting! I'd imagine , too, if it's a live reading of poetry, simpler stuff probably does better since the audience only has the one chance to grasp it. More complex poems probably work better for reading than listening
Thank you for helping me become a better writer. I really value your videos on poetry.
You're welcome--I'm glad to hear it!
What excellent insight into intent! I particularly liked the idea about how the title directs the reader.
When I found out what The Love Song of Alfred J. Prufrock was about, I hated it. I had my own interpretation & visuals when I first read it. But I knew it wasn't vague, so I had the freedom enter into it.
I also hated listening to Eliot read the poem, because it wasn't the way I read the poem & it really changed the personality of it. I know it's HIS work, but it became my story and it felt like Eliot was invading MY space.
I think this is the sign of a great poet and a great poem.
Love this channel, thanks!
PS: hate is a strong word, I didn't hate, but sort of a precise dislike.
Thanks! Also, I think I'll be using "precise dislike" from now on 😆
Great video Andrew. Thank you!!
You bet!
But what if I want to sound intelligent and other worldly.
You may! But readers may not be as interested in sticking around if the poem is just trying to sound smart (every choice has costs and benefits)
Hello,
I really appreciate your videos, they made me reflect on poetry in so many ways and they are always very clear and pleasant to watch. What I do particularly appreciate is how you are giving advice not being preachy or arrogant, I really feel it comes from a real desire to help. Sometimes I stumbled upon videos made by some writers in an arrogant way and I find them discouraging and I can't see their point.
I agree with the idea that the poems need a clear message and I've personally never written a poem in order to make it open to interpretations, I write when there is something precise I want to say, however some of them might be more obscure or difficult to understand. I love some of these poems and I feel I had a reason to write poems like that, but I'm afraid they might not be clear for everyone. What would be the difference between that and being purposefully obscure in your opinion?
I think there's a big difference between the kind of obscurity that comes from trying to figure out something difficult and the kind of obscurity that comes trying to sound smart or mysterious: readers tend to have more patience for the first
@@WritingwithAndrew I think you are right, I believe the difference is in the genuine desire to communicate or, as you said, to just sound smart or pretentious. Thank you very much for your response, I appreciate.
Thanks for this advice. I agree a poem is not a cryptic message.
I have the impression that titles must be short. Can titles be rather long as your examples?
You bet--and, yeah, why not? Not every poem needs a long title, but long titles can be just the right thing sometimes
@@WritingwithAndrew thank you so much.
Helpful!!
Amazing video, it really gave me a lot to think about
Thanks--I'm glad to hear it!
Another great video!
Thanks!
But in spite of all this different critics are said to have different interpretations. What's the reason for this?
Complex poems can have multiple layers of meaning, and critics can use different frameworks to produce different commentaries. But that's different from a poem that leaves things so wide open that it doesn't really say anything at all, which is what sometimes happens when writers think they're leaving a poem open to interpretation
But what’s wrong with symbolism i didnt get it. People will interpret poem in their own ways even if the poet intended smth else
Nothing, of course they can. But it's a very different thing to write a poem with multiple levels of meaning and a poem that doesn't say anything at all
@@WritingwithAndrew I see. Thank you for the video❣️
What if the experience matters more than the meaning? Or are they really the same thing? Thanks for your insight!
I would say that, in large part, the meaningfulness arises from the experience. Create a straightforward, engaging experience, and readers will have an easier time finding it meaningful
Would you mind if I partake in this discussion as well? My poetry literacy is rather scant, but I think conceptually the discourse surrounding work being “open to interpretation” is applicable to other forms of descriptive and emotional media as well. Specifically, in my case as a reviewer, video games. Though the vernacular of video games is visual in nature, there still exists the conversation pertaining to this spectrum of accessibility, and whether the symbolism and storytelling are simply inscrutable abstractions, obvious and repetitious to the point of annoyance, or somewhere in between. I used to debate the merits of surrealism, and the use of seemingly random, bizarre, perverse, or beautiful imagery throughout each piece. Is there value to work that doesn’t have a clear message or intended emotional overtones, and instead takes you on a desultory, visual journey where the oddity of the experience itself makes it evocative? As in many forms of interpretive art, if it can elicit any form of response or reaction in the audience, has the experience been worthwhile? I understand from the instructive perspective that perhaps beginning writers or artists shouldn’t attempt abstraction to avoid hollowness, contrivance, or presumed pretention in their work. However, while it might not be my personal preference, I still think there’s a place for such explorative, vague pieces to exist and be encouraged. I just can’t say at what point in the artist’s journey should they be ready to tackle such a difficult, open form of expression.
Conversely, I do believe messages and imagery can be wielded with too heavy a hand to the point of fustigating the audience with metaphors and symbolism. There are only so many times my character can wade, bleary-eyed, through scores of smashed, spilled wine bottles before I’m like, “I get it, he’s an alcoholic”. While, to my meager knowledge, repetition is a poetic devise, I personally feel that the inculcation and over-explanation of a specific idea ironically dilutes its meaning and power in the piece. I suppose aiming for clarity and simplicity are effective first steps when dabbling in artistic expression, but there’s definitely nuance to the approach of how apparent the artist’s intent should be. If the piece is clearly about one thing alone, is that limiting, or alienating to people who haven’t or can’t find applicability to their own lives or situation? Can depth be lost to specificity? I know you can’t relate to everyone, and in trying to you’ll only end up relating to no one. Still, can a metaphor ever be “good” or strong enough to mean different things to different people, independent of the original intent, as it filters through the lens of their personal perception? Is aiming for that density too intrinsically hard for beginners?
I guess I personally feel most compelled by works that are comprehensible and emotionally resonant while balancing complexity and multitudes of interpretive layers. I just prefer to be left satisfied by the conclusion of the piece, not confused, nor bogged down by boring sentiments constantly bored into my brain. Like the top spinning at the end of Inception, you can accept the simple, surface-level ending presented as is, or you can watch hours-long RUclips videos discussing how Cobb was still dreaming, the top wasn’t even his real totem, and so on. Either way, the experience can be enjoyable to a myriad of unique viewers and audiences. Unless you just hated the film, which is totally possible too lol. I suppose the same goes for poetry as well.
You’re amazing if you actually read all this nonsense! Thank you for your time and work, I really do appreciate the effort put into these videos. I’m always happy to watch, and I’ll do my best to contribute when I can to discussions here in order to help feed the voracious monster that is the RUclips algorithm haha
Thanks for feeding the monster! I'll share some thoughts:
There is, of course, room for ambiguity and indeterminacy in poetry or any art. I once heard a poet say that metaphors are like equations (one thing is equal to another thing) while symbols radiate meaning in all directions (a symbol doesn't stand for a particular thing but can resonate meaningfully with many things). Probably not how everyone thinks of them, but I do like the distinction.
In that ambiguity, there's a difference between a writer taking us to confront the complex and unresolved aspects of experience and a writer who seems to say "I know something you don't know" and, to add another, the writer who doesn't really know what they're trying to say yet and hides behind the artistic-sounding motive of "leaving it open to interpretation."
The first writer is, right along with us, trying to make sense of something that resists interpretation. The second is probably relying on a gimmick for some underwhelming reveal later. The third is still trying to figure out what they have to say. I think, because we're usually less experienced with reading poetry, we mistakenly attribute our difficulties understanding to deliberate obscurity on the part of the poet. When we gain more experience, though, we'll find that poets aren't really trying to keep secrets but that they're just doing something a little different from what we initially expected.
Greeting cards are usually written to be applied to as many people as possible, and they move very few. Poems written about very specific individual experiences move readers because of they way they resonate with our own specific individual experiences. It's a counterintuitive reality of most writing that a former teacher instilled in me with his frequent paraphrase of James Joyce: "the way to the universal is through the particular."
@@WritingwithAndrew Thanks so much for your response and insight! I do appreciate the example using mathematical language to describe metaphors and symbolism, it’s rather clarifying to me, especially as someone with a degree in civil engineering haha. As a somewhat tangential aside, I was a member of a science community for many years post-grad, and attended lectures and conventions aimed at increasing general science literacy and exploring means of effective, accessible science communication. It’s a subject that’s rather significant and personal to me, growing up as a child of an incredible man with a PhD in neuroscience. He was admitted to the hospital today, and while he’s okay, I’m a little too frazzled and intellectually stifled to properly reply back to your wonderful comment with the dedication and quality that I typically require of myself. I would love to be able to continue discussing this with you, as well as matters of science communication; perhaps some other time? Thank you, Andrew, truly.
Goodness, here's to wishing your father well! I'm sure there will be opportunities to talk more about science communication again (soon), but taking care of family is the priority
@@WritingwithAndrew Thank you so much for your kind words and understanding, Andrew, it means a lot! He’s home now, we’re extremely fortunate, it just gave us all quite the scare. I definitely agree, family is of the upmost importance and my first priority, always. I’m truly looking forward to talking more with you soon!
I think the premise here is fundamentally flawed - what if the aim of the prose is to simply stimulate the mind? Why should an artist have desires to be understood? And why should people want to understand?
What's wrong with being unsatisfied?
Some don't enjoy being full.
Can a reader not just enjoy the process in their mind that the imagery of the prose stimulated? And find that experience meaningful?
"Know your audience" might be a message I could better digest here.
You can't stimulate the mind if you haven't said anything at all. What is art if not an attempt at understanding? There's a difference between a confrontation with dissatisfaction and a poem that offers a reader nothing meaningful. It's always about audience, and new writers often have mistaken assumptions about what readers of poetry are looking for.
You know, I don't actually agree with this video. There is a place for art used as a prompt. Something that is guides the reader to have their own experience. I love reading those. They're a different type of art and fulfill a different role, have different goals, but they are good. You do raise a good point that if the reader is trying to figure out what you meant, they will miss the entire experience, thought. That means to me that a good poem that is meant to guide you through an experience rather than one that has something to say needs to make it clean *somehow* that you are meant to fill in the blanks with your own thoughts.
It reminds me of a short horror story I heard a few years ago. I think it was called ''bored'', but I could be confusing it with a different title. It talks directly to the reader (narration in second person) and guides you through the steps of the story, but describes next to nothing. Instead, there's ''blanks'' in the information where you naturally think and imagine your own scary sounds and sights. These stories are my favorite.
But, as you can see, it's not keeping a secret if it's well done. It's a frame for the reader to complete with a part of themselves.
Yeah, I don't think we disagree. It's the difference between a satisfying mystery and a frustrating one, and newer writers tend to produce the latter in pursuit of the former. Trying to figure something out alongside the writer is fun; feeling like the writer hasn't said anything substantive isn't
Unfortunately with this you throw in the trash all Zen poetry, koans and even Haiku by some extent...
Some poets don't do things to be merely open to interpretation, but they are actually capturing a feeling or an experience which by itself it's impossible to be spoken directly, or in the case of Zen it is exactly what it's being said as direct experience, no metaphors.
I do value direct communication in art like this, but each subject has it's way to be dealt, a mystic poem loses all its appeal once we take off this uneasiness or this highly subliminar communication, and for me eliminating all of that (symbolism) its just levelling us down.
Also there is SO much more than grasping the meaning, there is the whole experience of the meter, the flow of the poem and its musical aspect, which needless to say is or as important as the meaning or even more. If you ask a poem what is it about then you are already missing a whole deal of things that you could be looking at.
Well his students are writing a different kind of poem. I agree though
For sure, but I wouldn't see this as excluding haiku, for example: those tend to be pretty precise in their imagery and sense of place
What a godawful video.
1. Though I don't think any creative choice should be viewed as a default, there are many advantages to leaving a poem open to interpretation, for example:
a. The process of interpretation can be a preplanned path you lead the reader down, allowing you to guide their actual thoughts towards whatever destination that path manifests towards in their mind
b. The effort required from the reader can make them more deeply consider ideas they would've otherwise glossed over
c. The reader can fill in the blanks with personal details, allowing them to more fully immerse themselves emotionally
d. Crypticness and ambiguity are required to create certain tones
e. It can be a way of drawing imagery and meaning from the reader's unconscious mind, instead of their worldly knowledge
f. Many, many, many other things
2. The poem about the train isn't open to interpretation. Every line has an immediately obvious meaning. It's very specifically about one thing, even if the one thing it's specifically about isn't very specific. It's flat out ridiculous to suggest that poems should have some arbitrary minimum specificity, and conflating interpretability with lack of specificity is essentially just conflating ambiguity with vagueness. I personally thought the poem was pretty bad, but that's neither here nor there.
3. The idea that there are rules for poetry is prescriptivist nonsense. There's great value in discussing how different artistic choices may affect the poem, and some choices often affect poems in ways the poet didn't intend, but to proscribe any choice is to put a barrier around art. You are not the grand decider of poetic merit, nor is any other barrier builder that may agree with your choice of cage.
I don't need you to agree, but I'm not saying anything new or controversial. I've been around long enough to have heard multiple teachers and poets say the same thing--and there's a vast body of published poetry out there that confirms the principle. I'm responding to a trap that I've seen countless new poets fall into over the years, and it's a problem that is easily and quickly fixed with a little dose of specificity. It's always possible to find exceptions, but writing education has always been about general best practices. Nobody is putting art in a box, just pointing out what many successful artists do. New writers have to start somewhere--you have to let them start somewhere--and the practical reality is that many new poets mistake the undefined for the deep. Poetry is art, but it's also communication--and nothing is being communicated if the message never makes it onto the page.
Though addressed to you, the intended audience was more so random people scrolling through the comments. If I knew you would actually come across my comment I wouldn't have phrased it so aggressively, so my bad on that.
I personally believe that the craft of poetry should be guided instead of taught, with artists discovering a working set of rules instead of being prescribed them, but I understand that that mainly works in one-on-one settings. Still, even in one-on-many settings, I think the common effects of creative choices should be taught instead of some psuedo objective merit of said choices. For example, I would take no issue with someone saying that openly interpretable poems can annoy readers.
The problem with teaching people that some choices are good or bad is that it's very hard for them to unlearn it, and following too many rules tends to result in creatively bankrupt poems that would get an A+ in a highschool creative writing class. Most creative works try to be two things: original and good. If guided, you start original and (probably) bad. If taught, you start trite and (probably) mediocre. I think it's easier to move from bad to good than it is to move from trite to original. I think it's easier to learn the skill than it is to develop the talent.
I appreciate that. For better or worse, I read 'em all 🙂
There's also the difference between a genuinely complex "interpretable" poem and an inexperienced writer's misunderstanding of what it means to be "interpretable" (and not having the complexity or technique to back it up just yet) to grapple with. I sense we're approaching the term in different ways.
At any rate, for as long as creative writing has been a thing, the field of creative writing studies is still just an emerging one. There's some interesting scholarship out there, but there's a lot of work to do as we approach teaching more systematically: there's a lot of received wisdom about teaching creative writing (and skill vs. talent and other things) that could stand some real scrutiny
@@AZWADER " I think it's easier to learn the skill than it is to develop the talent."
Agreed. I'd rather start with developing my own idea, then develop technique around it through constant back-and-forth of trying to find what works for my creative goals and what does not. The central problem with a lot of formally taught "creative writing" is that it puts the cart before the horse, expressive techniques before ideas.
Applying prose rules to poetry doesn't seem like a good idea. Part of the point to poetry is the fact that it can be interpreted different ways. If you spell everything out, it's not really poetry anymore; it's just prettily arranged prose.
звенящая пошлость
Specificity isn't a prose rule. It's a guideline for any good writing. The point of poetry is to get as close to meaning, emotions, experiences as possible in such a way that would be otherwise impossible or near impossible through other forms of creative writing. For instance, metaphors are tools to communicate an idea or connection to something else in the most precise, effective way possible, transcending prosaic, intellectual description. Poems are surgical knives, not broad hammers.
This isn't about prose (in fact, I mention in the video that poetry shouldn't be doing what prose does); it's a pattern observable in the work of established poets, one that newer writers tend to miss