[Milton-L] interpreting poems variously [was Satan etc.]

[Sara van den Berg]

The idea that controlled ambiguity of meaning is a constitutive
characteristic of poetry was developed by the New Critics, and is
exemplified in Understanding Poetry, an influential textbook published by
Robert Penn Warren and Cleanth Brooks.



Sara van den Berg

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Carl Bellinger <bcarlb at comcast.net> wrote:

>  How widespread is the notion that poetry is a splendid thing (in some
> part or in large part) because one can interpret it however one likes?
>
> When in English Lit. history does the notion that ambiguity of meaning is a
> constituative characteristic of poetry first appear?
>
> -Carl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Carol Barton <cbartonphd1 at verizon.net>
> *To:* milton-l at lists.richmond.edu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 19, 2008 7:46 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Re: [Milton-L] Satan in Paradise Regained
>
>
> Salwa wrote:
>
> I was trying to catch up on my email when Jonathan's sentence caught my
> attention.  This struck a nerve, because
> students are always saying this and get upset when I try to gingerly point
> out that their interpretation of a certain poem or poetic passage is just
> not appropriate.   Just because some works are written in poetic form does
> not mean that they can be *completely* open to various interpretations, to
>  some, but not in any way that the reader thinks.  There is something called
> "misreading," and I teach my students to consider the poem in its
> historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts before they can begin to
> attempt an interpretation, specially if it is a work of early modern
> literature.  To illlustrate this point (which my students still have a hard
> time understanding..how could I be limiting their creative interpretations
> ?!), I use the ripple effect.  I forgot which modern critic came up with
> this.  When a stone is thrown into a lake, it creates many ripples starting
> from the center and spreading farther.  The most relevant interpretations of
> a poem are analogous to the ripples close to the center, and the most
> irrlevant (i.e. misreadings) are the ones that analogous to the ripples
> farther from the center.  I have yet to convince my students of this,
> without being accused of close-mindedness and not accepting opinions that
> differ from me.
> By the way, I write poetry too.
> Best,
> Salwa Khoddam
>
> Salwa, perhaps the thing to stress here is that poems are a form of speech,
> and that speech belongs ultimately and uniquely to the speaker: only he or
> she can know for certain what the intent of the communication was, no matter
> how many others try to interpret it. Perhaps the best example of valid (but
> actual) "misreading" is the very different interpretations students have of
> Theodore Roethke's "My Papa's Waltz." Males tend to see it as a young boy's
> delighted account of a giddy romp with his father; females tend to see it as
> a frightening view through innocent eyes of what may be unintentional but is
> nonetheless defacto child-abuse on the part of the drunken father. Both
> interpretations are equally warranted by the poem itself, and good arguments
> can be made for either case. Listening to Roethke read "My Papa's Waltz"
> himself, the "correct" interpretation (from the poet's perspective) is
> unmistakable. I will let you decide for yourself what that means:
> http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/18045. But my point is this: no
> matter what we may think Roethke meant, and no matter how well we can
> justify that opinion, ultimately and uniquely, Roethke "owns" the poem, and
> his interpretation trumps any alternative.
>
> All we can do when the poet is not here to tell us what the
> "correct" reading is, is marshal the evidence that supports why we believe
> it means this or that. An interpretation of Roethke's poem that made the
> speaker a young woman, or the action paternal incest, would be unwarranted
> by the evidence. Any reader is entitled to say, "To me, it means . . ." and
> to make of it anything he or she wishes--but without the subjective
> qualification, a declarative statement that "the poem means" when made by
> one scholar to another must be supported by evidence. A poem is a finite,
> concrete thing, in that it is comprised--as you well know--of very carefully
> chosen words arranged in a certain sequence of intelligible speech units on
> a page. It is *not *open to any number of interpretations. Satan in
> _Paradise Lost_ is not and never could be an allegory of Adolph Hitler.
>
> Best to all,
>
> Carol Barton
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Milton-L mailing list
> Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
> Manage your list membership and access list archives at
> http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
>
> Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20081119/48a8babb/attachment-0001.html