Reflect on the Introduction to Poetry in the Norton (810-825). What are your overall impressions of poetry analysis? How have you "tackled" poems in the past? Do you consider reading or writing poetry a strength/weakness? Do you have a favorite poem? Feel free to respond to all or part of this prompt. Also, respond to at least one of your classmate's posts before next class.
As noted below, you are to comment on the posting (throughout the first quarter) not create your own blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Hey everyone, I guess I'll start us off! I thought it was interesting when the book said that reading and analyzing poetry also helps us become better readers of prose. I had never really thought of it like that, but it makes sense. As the reading says, since poems are usually so short, there must be a lot of meaning within the lines. I now realize that to be able to discern that meaning and to do it correctly certainly carries over to prose analysis, where there is more leeway in a longer text. Also, I was struck by the idea that in a poem, every word counts and has a definitive purpose. For whatever reason, I never really thought of that and in the past have most likely disregarded parts of poems that either did not make sense to me. I hope this realization will help me to become a stronger reader of poetry in the future.
Oops, didn't realize you had commented...
Great start! You both have come to some important realizations about poetry through the Norton. That is an important step in looking at ourselves as critical responders to literature. I'm curious, Lauren, to know more about what it is that draws you to cummings and Plath.
Are we supposed to post our response to the prompt here or in posts on our own blogs?
I agree with Lauren. I found it quite interesting to discover that in order to analyze poetry and novels, you have to use the same tactics. In the past when I have analyzed poems, I haven't taken the same steps as I would a short story or a novel. However, when it boils down to it, all I really am doing is reading, responding, and writing. I think after studying the different ways to analyze poetry and different ways to look at it I will be come better at tackling poems. I have had trouble in the past with poetry and that trouble tends to drive me to dislike poetry. I hope that learning to break poems down more effectively will help me to enjoy them more.
Honestly, I don't think I've ever read a poem "for fun" ever in my life. In fact, like most people here, I dislike poetry because of its the ambiguous interpretations. When there's so little words used to express such intense feeling, I sometimes feel I'm not getting what the author truly intended. When you read a novel by Dickens, there's a plethora of passages and descriptions to fall back on in order to make your analysis. With poetry, only the essentials are there. The meaning is so precise that it becomes hard to arrive at.
However I would agree with everyone else that poetry is the most pure form of literature out there. In a poem, every word counts, no matter how odd of misplaced it seems. Every word has a meaning and every phrase is significant. Maybe with practice, I'll be able to enjoy myself when reading poetry and understand it's hidden beauty.
I would certainly consider poetry a weakness for me, in both terms of reading and writing although, from the limited list of poetry I've read, I have enjoyed Robert Frost (although some might consider this a generic choice). His way of using nature to explore deeper meanings has always been interesting to me. He is not just writing about nature, he uses it as a tool to express other feelings.
I thought it was interesting how the book described reading poetry as feeling it. I have always read it on a literal level, having difficulty understanding the true meanings of the poet. Like Charlie mentioned, poets compact so much depth into a few lines of words which makes it hard to understand. The book mentions that to understand this small but dense work, I have to relate. That is something I've never done before. I think that I will become a much stronger reader of poetry if I am able to relate with it. It helps to find the meaning.
I thought that an intersting point in the Norton was made in mentioning as one grows older, their understanding for poetry widens because of their life experiences, which makes sense.
My approach ot understanding petry is to look for a deeper meaning withint the text by trying to find symbolic ideas, items, or sentances. However I do not consider myself the strongest of poetry readers. My favorite poet would probably have to be Shakespeare, due to the fact that he wrote about love and tragedy in a comedic and advanced way for his time. I wish I were a better Shakespeare reader, and not have to resort to sparknotes to help my understanding.
I am not usually excited to use poetry because it is difficult for me to follow a jumbled plot line as well as understand extensive vocabulary. However, after reading the Poetry section in our "Literature Books" I feel that I am better able to tackle a poem and unserstand what it means. SPecifically, I found it interesting that the point of view in which the poem is told has a great effect on the reader. For instance, both love poems talked about the same emotion, but conveyed it in two different point of views to give the reader a better understanding. I also agree that poetry is a very pure form of literature. Every sentence holds its on meaning and words are chosen for a specific reason. Analyzing poems and breaking down their meanings has already helped me become a better reader.
It's often an amazing experience when we put down our immediate emotional reaction to a poem first and then go back through the poem to see how the poet caused us to react that way. It is not to say that we are always "correct" in our interpretation when we do this, but we are able to get into a poem more easily if this becomes our first response. Olympia raises a great point about life experience and poetry. I used to find Frost quite inspirational never realizing how dark much of his poetry is (as we will soon see!). Post on folks!
While I generally don't like poetry (I completely agree with Charlie), Norton did make me realize how skillful and different it is from my usual style of writing. I was particularly interested in the part that said every word is important because there are so few. One of my greatest weaknesses in writing is my constant repitition and inability to consistently make concise points. Who knows, maybe if I can better understand the inner workings of poetry, I can improve my writing skills.
Poetry isn't exactly a walk in the park for me but, I do appreciate reading Emily Dickinson and Robert Frost(Solid choice Jaxon). After reading Norton, I understand the different ways of approaching poetry. The analysis of a poem is (like kasey said) just as intricate as a short story or novel. Every word holds some kind of meaning or feeling that constructs the overall emotion of that poem. I hope to become a stronger analizer of poetry in the future.
The ambiguity of poetry has always bothered me. What I realize, what someone else realizes, what the author's message is truly intended to be is often times completely different. The text as a whole as well as specific words seem to be forever open to interpretation. However, I find the ending where the author explains how poetry should be a cumulative definition quite enlightening. Rather than hone in and desperately seek universal agreement, let ideas converge. Poetry is intended to be a collaborative effort. Rereading and studying 100 poems or so? I'm not too excited about that.
I have been reading poetry at an increasing level since maybe the third grade, and I have never liked it. I noticed recently that the more complex the poetry became, generally the less words were used. I find a poets ability to leave only the essentials of an idea astounding and I have a lot of respect for it. But, regardless of how pure poetry is as literature, I simply find that whenever I look at a poem and see an idea that seems to fit, there is always someone else with as good of an idea. Sometimes our ideas are completely conflicting but do to the lack of support in poetry there is simply no way to know. I find this lack of closure to be my least favorite part of poetry.
However, I absolutely believe that it is the most beautiful form of writing. It is just amazing in how every grammatical error and every word has it' s own specific meaning. An english teacher of mine once said "Writing in Iambic Pentameter isn't to intriguing, but when and why a poet breaks Iambic pentameter is intriguing". This is the facet of poetry that interests me the most and that I understand the least.
I agree with Jaxon in that I found the book's interpretation of poetry as "feeling it" something interesting. I usually look at poetry more from an analytical perspective as opposed to this more sensual view.
Hi everyone. I finally got this site to work! Everyone has said this already, but I didn't know that poetry involved reading, responding, and writing (analyzing). Now I know why I hated poetry. I used to always just read the poem, and assume the meaning of the poem was the literal aspect of the poem. After learning about reading, responding, and writing, I have relooked at some of the poems and they seem to have new meanings to me. I now analyze the poem and try to see if there is some hidden message within the poem the poet is trying to explain. Finding these new meanings has become a hobby for me.
At the moment, I am reading some poems and trying to analyze the text to see if there is a deeper meaning. :]
I forgot to mention that in analyzing the poem, I get a different perspective of the poem that I didn't see before. I can somehow relate to the poem, and feel what the poet is feeling. It makes a connection, and I think that it is amazing that poetry can do that.
well i feel terrible for not having figured this thing out earlier. sorry ms. giggie.
i think everyone covered a lot of what was said in the norton ( i know you don't really want to hear that as my comment)
i feel it's safe to say i understood what the norton was talking about as far as how loaded each bit of the poem is, not only as far as diction is concerned, but the title, grammar, "mistakes" in correct writing, and so on
personally, i've always liked poetry, and felt that it's a really good way to express the abstract essence of aspects of different things. often times, the point cannot be made through straightforward prose, and even a short story might be too structured.
it's another one of those things where "truth" is all in the eye of the beholder.
poetry can be powerful because either it can have a rigid structure (like a sonnet) and still the author can write about anything, and working within that frame is an art in itself. or it can have no specific form, and where the lines end in themselves changes the meaning than if it were written differently.
i hope this makes sense
christina
Post a Comment