Difficulty+in+Poetry

Shepherd talks quite a bit about poetry being difficult. He says he dislikes "easy" poems because they assume that the reader in unintelligent. I was surprised when he said, "I don't "understand" some of my favorite poems." At first glance, I was confused. How can you like something if you don't understand it? But after thinking about it, I realized that I have to agree with him. Poems that are too simple do bore me. I feel like there is no challenge, no deeper meaning, and really no point in reading the poem. On the other hand, more difficult poems are mysterious and oftentimes, baffling. They are a challenge to the reader and I enjoy that challenge. After studying a poem for a while, it is quite rewarding to find some new hint or insight on what it could mean. That satisfaction is much better than the entertainment that comes from reading a simple poem. I really like Shepherd's theory of liking a poem before you understand it. There is a certain quality (maybe it is rhyme, meter, or rhythm) in a poem that attracts each of us before we even comprehend what the poet is trying to tell us. I know that I rarely understand a poem upon my first reading, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy it. There is a certain quality that must be there to persuade us as readers to read it again to find the meaning. Any other views? 1203635265

I think that Shepherd makes a very good point and I agree with him. I could never say that a poem was my favorite if I read it and understood it right away. Why would I want to read it again? It would just be boring from then on. I like reading poems that are difficult in the sense that everytime I read it I get something more out of it. I do not like poems that I cannot come close to getting any meaning out of even if I look at them for hours. I like a balance of difficulty: something that I get some meaning out of the first time but more meaning each time that I read it. There has to be something in the poem that catches my attention or interests me so that I want to read it again.1203642287

I definitely agreed with Shepherd's point. If you feel the need to change your art to make it less challenging, then it is not art at all. Art comes as a reflection of the individual creating it, not some modified version designed to appeal to a larger audience. On the topic of poetry, though, I especially agree. While I have not read many poems, mainly those in school, I can quite easily say that my favorites have been the ones that still leave you wondering afterwards. Even after I think I've divulged the main meaning or some idea of the poem, more lingers in my mind, asking me to reconsider my conceptions. The difficulty in poetry should be maintained not to create some superiority complex or to prove the writer's prowess, but to explain, as well as language can, the expression of the poet for that's what I think comes across through any poem's first reading -- the emotional response to it. Unfortunately, far to often we are immediately called to search for the meaning behind a poem. Apparently that is the poem's only intellectual purpose nowadays, a mystery for us to solve and be done with, nothing to linger over or wonder about. 1203653460

I believe I already said this elsewhere, but I also agree with Shepherd. Poetry needs to be challenging. It needs to make us think a lot about what the poet is trying to say and how he or she is trying to say it. Descartes once said "I think, therefore I am." Thus, poetry that makes us think helps us live up to our human potential and live as we were intended. Sorry to get all philosophical... The Aeneid of Vergil is one of the most difficult poems I've ever read--and translated. But through all the poetic devices and the complex structure I saw what Vergil was trying to say about life and the human condition: that we need to do what we were intended to do and not delay. If only poems were like that today.

But where is the line drawn? There is a line between difficulty and impractality. For example, a large portion of modern poetry is difficult, but that is because it is excessively abstract and random. Where is the line? Thoughts?1203653917

I think Shephard is right. Poems should be difficult. However, I can't say that I particularly enjoy being stumped by a poem. I don't like poems to be completely obvious, but if seems impossible for me to understand it, I become frustrated. It's probably immaturity on my part, but I agree with John that a line needs to be drawn. I admit that I'm a straightforward kind of person, so when I can't fully grasp something I can get impatient, but I do think there is such a thing as "excessively abstract and random poetry." But Shephard addresses your question, JHe: "All obscure poetry is difficult, but not all difficult poetry is obscure...Difficulty is not a virtue in and of itself, but obscurity is always a defect." Shephard says that although we may not //understand// the meaning of an experience in poetry, we still know what happened. "But if what happened isn't clear, then there's not possibility of making meaning out of it." Shephard says that the poet should give the reader "pieces of the mosaic." We need to get a peek at the big picture. It won't be clear, but the readers deserve some clues. If not, I think the poem is too abstract or random. 1203655988

I agree with everyone else: difficulty in poetry is a good thing. In my opinion, the difficulty is what truly makes it art. If poetry was all straightforward and obvious, then it would just be words. I think there is something to be said for the unusual structure that poetry involves. Since we are used to comprehending prose, the different ways of manipulating words in poetry makes us think along different lines (or perhaps not lines at all). Of course, this can be frusturating if we cannot follow the author at all, but the difficulty teaches us to think differently and abstactly, and different patterns of thinking can open our minds to new ideas and realizations. Therefore, when we are faced with difficult poetry, we can come to new and different understandings of the world than if we were thinking as we usually do, and I think that is the fulfilling part about poetry. 1203879049

Heck yes Shepherd is right on. I would have to agree, like everyone else, with Shepherd's stance. Poetry doesn't need to be dumbed down for a reader--if people can't understand it than they're being lazy and not trying to understand it. And like Shepherd said, understanding the poem isn't everything. The experience that the poem creates for the reader is much more than just an understanding of the meaning. There have been poems in the poetry book that we read that I couldn't understand for anything, but the form of it, and the rhythm of it, creates a different experience that makes it pleasureable for me as a reader. Although complete understanding of the poem may enhance the experience eventually, half the fun is being able to find your way through the poem and interpret it until you find the real meaning. I think some of the best poems are the obscure ones that are so difficult you really don't follow it at all; it's an experience just to see the way the poet laid the poem out and recognize the connections the poet made between things which seem absurd together. This difficulty keeps the reader interested and keeps them from walking away because of the mystery, as Shepherd says. If everything were laid out easily, readers wouldn't take interest. 1203980684

My favorite thing about poetry is the satisfaction that is felt after you work through a poem and decipher as many possible meanings as you can think of. It is also rewarding and so interesting to go over poems as a class and hear twice as many new suggestions or really obvious explanations that I didn't even pick up on while I was reading it on my own. I always liked playing around with language, and poetry is the perfect outlet for creativity involving words. I also agree with dru, poetry doesn't need to be dumbed down for a reader. The really difficult poetry is sometimes what can be appreciated most. Looking back on the poetry I read when I was younger, it's immediately satisfying, but after you read the cute rhymes once, there isn't much more to look at and uncover. In general, Shepherd is exactly right by talking about difficulty being essential to a successful poem. The interesting thing about poetry is the variety of ways it can be understood. Too much simplicity can cause boredom in readers. 1203992897

Ok, so I wouldn't want to read a boring poem, but why does it have to be difficult to be engaging? I brought up the example of Shell Silverstein (sp) in class, and Br. Tom actually said he liked his poetry. Does anyone else agree? And even though he does not write poems with complexity and many connotations to them, they nonetheless quite enjoyable to read. Do we always have to challenge our mind to be entertained? No, I don't think so. Maybe we should be challenged, but that is another story. That is what chick flicks are for. Yes, every once in a while they will have an unpredictable, puzzling plot to the romance, but for the most part, they are purely mushy gooshy cute entertainment. Also, I think that if I was entertained by a simply pretty poem I would read it again for enjoyment. I don't always want to be challenged by what I read and I definitely don't find it absolutely necessary. Poetry can be direct and simply--maybe that kind of poem provides the clarity that some people need in his or her life of insanity. user:cdu-c

While I agree that poetry is more worthwhile when it is difficult--for we feel a sense of accomplishment in struggling through the poem and trying to make sense out of it-- I cannot help but think about all those people who give up when given a difficult selection of poetry to read. It isn't exactly fun to read something that makes no sense, is it? Maybe to some. Some like a challenge; others prefer simple poetry.

"Some poems are easy because they have nothing to say." True, those poems are not very much fun to read, are they? You read it, think "That's nice," and move on. There's nothing exceptional or memorable about poems such as these. However, difficult poems offer readers something to do-- a challenge. Thus, the reader does not necessarily have to understand the poem completely to enjoy it.

Overall I believe with Shepherd when he writes: "I don't believe that the imaginary 'average person' doesn't want to be challenged and stimulated." After all, where is the triumph if not in conquering a tough passage or poem? Why is there such a cross-word puzzle and sudoku craze if people don't like challenges? The same goes with poetry. 1205448166

I agree with cdu because I am one of those people who doesn't have time to read for enjoyment, and when I do, I want something that will relax my brain and that will entertain me for the amount of time that I have in the day. If something gets too confusing or if I don't recognize any of the vocabulary, I will put it down and find something else that will not make me think anymore than I have to, especially after a long day of thinking at school. Which brings me to my point: Is it our stressed, time-consumed culture that makes us want easier poetry? Or is it just that people are getting lazy? Our culture doesn't really give us the time to be challenged, so is that why we don't like difficult poetry? 1205455541

Yes kkr, I think that our culture is why we want easier poetry. I don't think it's because we're lazy, but I think it's due to the fact that were not very patient. We live in a fast paced world. When things take a long time to get done we start to get ansy. Our culture really doesn't give us the time of day to be challenged. People always say how they would just want half an hour more in a day and they could get so much more done. As students, that half hour could be invested in studies, perhaps AP literature, perhaps poetry. But it all depends on the person and whether or not they want to set aside time in a fast paced world for studying. The world doesn't make it easy for us though.1205470194