[ Home | Contents | Archive | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Frances
Date: 10 Mar 2004
Time: 18:26:19 -0600
Remote Name: 198.81.26.74
Gee, Al...I think you've described the very essence of poetry. But I don't accept the premise that in order to appreciate poetry at any level, you must appreciate (or understand) it at every level. By way of analogy, when I look at a piece of visual art, I don't instantly (or ever) understand all the nuances or references; that ignorance, though, doesn't diminish my appreciation of the work, and will occasionally provoke my curiosity. Is it really so very different if those nuances and references are contained in a poem, rather than a picture, or, as in your example, music? (I admit that I didn't always feel this way...I think I was, in my youth, unconsciously intimidated by much poetry, for exactly the reasons you discuss, with the exception of Shakespeare, whom I regarded as a dramatist, and, oddly, Blake, although it may be that I have Jim Morrison to thank for that last.) It occurred to me much later that a lot of my appreciation of Shakespeare was of the sheer beauty of the words as he combined them, in addition to the meaning of those words or the dramatic structure of the play. And, even though I know some of the "back story" with Shakespeare, I also know I'm missing a lot. I'm no longer uncomfortable with that ignorance, because I know how to cure it if I choose. So, I think I'm much more open to Yeats and other poets now than I would have been years ago, simply because I've learned to appreciate the beauty of the words, first, and add a deeper understanding over time. Speaking of nuances, though, Im fairly sure I missed a whole bunch of yours. I'll get to work on the cure.