To analyse or not to analyse

Over the years, many sensitive literary types have reacted in horror at the thought of (gasp) analyzing a poem.

You see, they profess to love poetry so much that understanding poetry is both crude and blasphemous.

I'm made of coarser clay. A poem worth reading should be worth close reading--and should stand up to close reading.

A poem that doesn't hold up under analysis isn't much of a poem.

Well put. But I have wondered if that is what the poet intended for his readers. What if a meaning that wasn't intended was somehow derived over the years from intense scrutiny? How do we know when a poem is over-analysed?

A poem's meaning can also be interpreted differently by various individuals. I think when someone insists that his own interpretation is the right one, that the beauty of the poem starts to die. But it is possible for a poem to be misread, say, when it inspires a craving for steak and potatoes. I'm rambling now.

I remember a book that I once read that analyzed Poe's work in terms of his life. It was absolutely fascinating, and gave me a much greater insight into the man's work.

Sarius--

For Poetic Analysis--as in the rest of life--there is no need to forbid any theory or to embrace every theory.

Phoenix, that's wonderful. I was under the impression that I should separate a man's personal life from his work as it may form some kind of bias. For example if the man was abusive towards his family. That's stretching it abit, but you get my point. But maybe Jimi Hendrix wouldn't have been such a wizard if he hadn't puffed the magic dragon.

Noddy, loved that line.

Btw, just out of curiosity. Is it ok for a poem to not rhyme? How important is it? And what about rhythm? Will it make a poem 'better' if it has both?

Fashions come and go in poetry as in the mundane world. Rhyme is not necessary in blank verse or free verse.

Rhythm? Perhaps rhythm can be dispensed with, but the words of a poem should feel natural in the mouth--all poetry should be capable of being read aloud.

all words contained in a poem have been chosen because no other words, and no more nor less than the ones included, will do the job of conveying the poet's intent.

Briefly - on Rhythm - Pinsky has always maintained (correctly I believe) that poetry is first and foremost a kind of music composed for the breath of a reader. It must ebb and flow, or at least not jerk arbitrarily hither and thither. There is a reason that the rhthym of most successful poems conform to the, perhaps subconscious, expectations of the reader, and that the iamb (heartbeat) and the ten syllables of the pentameter are such successful forms... Always, always, read a poem aloud. The rhythm of good work will reveal itself. You will find that even narrative blank verse (read Robinson Jeffers, Apology for Bad Dreams) or supposedly impenetrable modernist works are full of music - Eliot's masterful Waste-Land, when read aloud, becomes a symphony of sound (one quickly perceives why Dylan Thomas revered the man).

Frost is an interesting example, given your initial question. Americans have always celebrated his apparent simplicity; on the other hand, Europeans seemed to immediately grasp that he was a poet of immense complexity who's work would always stand up to the rigors of analysis... When speaking on word choice and rhythm, Frost said that the successful poem appears to be inevitable, that there could be no other way for it to unfold.

- bezoris

ps. Not sure where you picked up the idea that too much infomation on an author is a bad thing. A life is always reflected in the work to some degree; there is no such thing as too much information on a subject. A caveat: first read a poem 'blind' - live with it for a while, roll it around your tongue and enjoy the interplay between word and sound, rhythm and image. Then begin to analyse... Your enjoyment of the work will only be increased.

I think it would be terrible if someone's ANALYSIS replaced the poem itself..if people bypassed reading the poem and just depended on how some lesser mind interpreted it...

I think works of art...are alive...and infinitely fruitful, new "fruit" between each pair of minds that engage together...

BUT...I LOVE to read what other people think about poems or literature...or anything else...that I love...

I could not read a poem without trying to understand what was hidden in the metaphor....

A favorite Frost poem, I like it most because it's so short and I memorized it lickety split, lol:

LODGED

The Rain to the Wind said
You push and I'll pelt
They so smote the Garden Bed
That the Flowers actually KNELT
And lay Lodged, though not dead
I know how those flowers felt.

I can see why some would be squeamish about "explaining"...if a person doesn't see a meaning...then they STILL don't "see it" because someone else told them...and it's kind of like ruining a joke when you "explain" it...but I feel pretty certain that this one is extremely "biblical"...and I do not see Frost discussed in those terms very often...

The Rain is like the Word, the Wind is like the Spirit, and men are like the Flowers of the field...who take quite a beating, "sore travail" the scriptures call it...beginning in the Garden..the marriage bed also, quite the subsidiary battle ground...

Beaten nearly to death...but not quite...there is something in us that cannot die...

Edited to add that I think it is bad to let "information on the author" have too much influence on the meaning of the poem...a bit of ad hominem there....the message itself ought to be respected and comprehended first of all....and then maybe people might want to know how a person was able to write such a thing...

Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage, it was very much his autobiography and based on his stuttering handicap....but I don't think knowing that does a thing to enhance real appreciation of the book itself...but afterwards, if you love it...of course you want to know everything about the person who wrote it.