The+First+Topic

How can this be? . . . I am writing the first topic. interesting, so much pressure. Well, I guess I cannot promise anything good, but I will start by asking people what their initial reaction to the essay was.

I ask this because in Period F today, at least, there seemed to be a general consensus that we appreciated what Shepherd had to say. Some said it was the manner in which he wrote, his "blogging" form, others that it was the ideas that he presented with which they agreed. What I personally enjoyed about this essay was its [what I call] 'refreshing' quality--how it clearly presented poetry as it is and always will be, breaking down into sections what makes sense and making sense of what doesn't. This brings me to the section on difficulty (3 - 4). Here, Shepherd defines the levels of difficulty, and I completely understood what he was saying. " . . . it's more useful to think of the poem as a field of meanings than as a thing that means something else, a container for or vehicle of meaning" (3): this particular quote shed light on a alternate perspective of poetry than the standard //What exactly does tHiS mean, and why can't I understand it? Of what is it symbolic??// In his essay Shepherd talks about how poetry is the experience, filled with countless ideas and senses, and it is the poem itself that we, as readers, should appreciate (even if we do not understand it entirely), as opposed to if the same idea were written in normal prose or common talk.

"All readers, no matter how catholic in their tastes and in their knowledge, come to poems with some or another set of expectations . . . . but it's impossible to approach a poem as if one were a blank slate" (4). We should take from the poem what we can, based upon what we already know. Nevertheless, It is also important to remember that good poetry is a unique experience. Shepherd's writing makes these ideas clear, understandable, and obviously correct.1203556107

I found myself often agreeing with this essay. I especially liked how Shepherd said that poems are not interesting enough in the sense that they are "not interesting or engaging enough." That is something that applies particularly to me, because I do not find contemporary poems in abstract structures interesting at all. But it is not difficulty that causes me to have this view, as Shepherd implies. It is that I have a very strict view of what poetry is and is not (and I acknowledge that there are differing opinions on the definition of poetry). I do not care how difficult a poem is. I like a challenge. But in order for a poem to be difficult, it has to be a poem first. Otherwise, I agree with Shepherd.1203564320

I really enjoyed the essay because for once it actually made sense. It wasn't just some scholar trying to apply his obscure and arguably useless knowledge on literature. It was a well-constructed argument that actually appeals to people's sensibility, stating that people enjoy poems that actually provide an intellectual challenge. I've already said this in class, but I really liked that he made the distinction between complexity and difficulty because not all poems are complex some are just tough to interpret, while others may appear to be easy at first they can have many layers of meaning with key words having multiple meanings. I also think why I liked the essay so much more than the other essays was because of the format in which it was written. Generally the essays are written in a dry, austere, and pompous manner, but this was written as a casual blog style, a format that all of us are used to; therefore, it was easier for us to read and relate to without going "what?!?"user:MSu-c

I think that this was a great essay to read because it was written recently whereas we are used to reading something from long ago. I like the way Shepherd wrote about poetry, something we often associate with being from long ago, and related it to something like American Idol. I also like the fact that he wrote very clearly; I did not have to decode what he was writing in order to understand it. He also made some very good points.

I like the idea that a poem must be somewhat difficult for it to be interesting. At first, I thought I could easily interest myself in easy poems, but then I realized there is really no point. Why should I read a poem if I understand everything right away, part of reading a poem is the challenge of discovering a meaning or a second, more hidden meaning. I think that for a poem to be interesing it must be somewhat difficult but not so difficult that I want to give up.1203641033

I enjoyed this essay because I didn't feel that Shepherd was forcing his theory or ideas about poetry down the readers’ throat. I particularly liked the part on page 2 when he talked about the fact that when an author writes a poem they assume that the readers are "intelligent and interested." Sometimes, when I read poetry, I fee like the author is just poking fun at the readers because they are so far beyond their readers. I feel like I am being belittled by the author because I don't know what they are trying to say at first glance. Shepherd gives the idea that authors don't want to make their readers feel foolish, but instead want to compliment them on their interests and intelligence. Shepherd was also complementing us, his readers, in saying this. This made the essay stick out to me because many of the other essays seem to criticize the readers for not seeing things the same way that the author does before reading the essay.1203950922

Much like everyone else, I enjoyed reading this essay, not only because it made a lot of sense, it brought up good points and poked holes in the lazy excuses made by people today who are unwilling to read poetry. Shepherd makes the point that people say contemporary poetry is too difficult to read--how is it possible that the poetry today is more incomprehensible than the poetry of writers like Shakespeare? I think this was a very good point; it seems that the only reason we think it is too difficult is because we are too lazy to follow the allusions and other difficulties presented to us in the writing. People try to say that the won't read poetry because it's too difficult, but isn't it just because they are unwilling to take the time to really appreciate what it's saying? Also, he brings up the point that when Shakespeare was being performed, the audiences were rarely literate and probably didn't understand what was going on; something about the poetry itself attracted the audience. Although the poetry itself was difficult, it still attracted an audience.

I also like that it was refreshing to hear Shepherd admit that he didn't understand all the poems he has read. So many times, we read an essay like this and the writer makes it seem like his/her opinion is the end all be all, and his opinion is the only right one. Shepherd really doesn't take this condescending stance--he admits that he doesn't know everything and that strengthens his argument that part of reading poetry is the sensual experience of it. It's not all about understanding meaning; it's a piece of art and art is supposed to make you feel something deeper. As long as poetry can do that, it's good. I like that point a lot. 1203982023

I liked this essay as well. First, for the obvious reason that it was written in a simple style, but still presented sophisticated and intellectual ideas regarding poetry. Another thing I liked about his essay and style were the many short statements that formed his main points. On page 5, one of the clear cut and interesting statements was, "There is a difference between difficulty and obscurity. All obscure poetry is difficult, but not all difficult poetry is obscure." It went on to say how obscurity is a flaw, while difficulty is pretty much necessary in poetry. I liked how you can take many of Shepherd's statements and think about how they apply in different poetry we have read. Did anyone else find specific sentences that could be chosen as a theme or focal point of his essay?

Sfa brought up the quote, "All readers, no matter how catholic in their tastes and in their knowledge, come to poems with some or another set of expectations." I wasn't clear what "catholic" was meant to describe in this context. Is it that they were strict with their personal tastes or beliefs in poetry?

I am pretty sure he meant "catholic" in the previous quote above to mean universal. Catholic, by defintion, does measn universal and all encompassing (which I love!). So by that I think he means that no matter how broad and open readers are in their, "tastes and knowledge," that they do already have expectations for the poems they read. That as a reader, it is hard to resist forming your expectations before reading a poem. Does anyone else have another idea, or is that what Reginald Shepard meant? 1204083637

This essay was a joy to read because it was both intellectual and conversational. Shepherd described modern-day people's frustrations with poetry in a real, relatable manner. Like MHa stated, I like that he made present-day references such as //American Idol// or even crossword puzzles to get his point across.

Shepherd was blunt and straightforward: he presented every imaginable excuse a person could come up with for not liking poetry, and he challenged it. People may complain about challenging poetry, when the fact is, people today like a challenge whether they like to admit it or not! Shepherd even made me laugh at moments, like on page 2 when he writes about poems that are so wearying that it makes him "want to watch music videos instead, where at least one sometimes gets some glimpses of shirtless guys with six-pack abs." Well, that was enexpected and lightened up the tone!

One of my favorite statements Shepherd brought up was how he may not know what poems mean, __but I know what happens to me when I read them.__ (2). I could not agree more! I have a couple poetry books in my room that I sometimes flip through while I am relaxing. Reading thoroughly through some while skimming others, I know how I feel after I have read a poem. I love how there are so many ways I can react--so many emotions to feel after reading a new poem. To me, it is exciting! I like this point that Shepherd made. Overall, I find Shepherd's writing to be engaging and worthwhile to read! I'm sure many of you agree. 1205455855

Br. Tom said in class when we read this essay that he sometimes thinks "simplicity is boring." he likes to search for the deeper meaning. I guess at some times I actually agree with it. As much as i would love to say that I wish the meaning would just pop out (it would make english class a little easier), the searching for the meaning is a huge part of learning. In searcing for symbolism and stuff, i find myself gaining a deeper knowledge of the poem i am reading. Shepherd says, "I hated to be led by hand through a poem..." he goes on to say that he would rather a poet assume that we can read our way through poems. I agree. 1205465368