the gift of the reader

so the first poet's works that i read really blew my doors off. the rest, not so much. the trouble is, that no one else really got the poet i most enjoyed, save one person. so we three sit together at meals after the workshop and discuss what went down. i didn't agree with most of what was said about the works. and for me, i didn't think the comments were applicable to my poetic style. these ladies agree.

so, two new poets today and i'm groping around for nice things to say. not necessarily nice, but helpful. helpful is good. trouble is, i got nothing. maybe it's the effect of my overmuch honesty, but i don't know how to be helpful in this situation. i don't know if the girl wants her own mirror held up and reflected back on her works, i doubt it. so what to do.

besides, the things that concern me do not concern her. she is more about the structure and form of poetry. where i'm more about the organic nature of poetry.

what is the meaning of this poem?

what does it mean to you?

something entirely different from you, so it needs to be clarified.

i don't agree. i've read a poet's works and gotten an entirely different interpretation. i call that the gift of the reader. was the poem written imprecisely? no. it is just my frame of reference is different. it is not a bad thing to have multiple meanings.

how comfortable are you with ambiguity?

horribly so. i don't mind it at all.

you see, what they were saying was i had to be black or white. but i'm all about the shades of grey. i'm down the middle road, not the left or right. it is my nature, my perspective as a poet.

i think it might be helpful to explore where poets are coming from. if you are just banging out the work FOR publication, that is one thing. if you are writing because it is your purpose on this planet, that's another. i'm too damn mystical for most academics, but i'm also certain that this is my bliss. this is my vocation in this life. they cannot dissuade me. i know my voice, and while i can and will refine it, i don't know that opening myself up to critique based on inaccurate interpretation is the point.

in this poem you should focus on the dance.

later at lunch i told the ladies, that poem is not about the dance. that poem is about appropriating the masculine by a woman. they missed the picture for the frame.

we understood that,

they said.

and i knew they did because they were defending and explaining my work to the others.

it's something when a complete stranger can look at a page and say,

this poet is...

and be right on the money.

i did not speak during my workshop, by design. i just listened. but the things they wanted me to do, the ones who did not get my work will never be me, so i dismiss them.

there are some questions i need to explore. do the author and the speaker have to be the same person? if they are what are the ramifications? if they are not, how does that change the poem.

i don't know how a confessional freeverse poet can separate out what is and isn't their life/work.

when someone is the author and speaker, the advisor said,

i don't feel i have the right to comment on the poem, to critique it.

of course you do. i gave you that right when i put it on the page.

i understand that if i'm going to lay it all out, there or here, it is fodder for critique. so be it. it is a choice i'm deliberately making. i think it a copout to say,

this is your life, i can't critique it.

so don't, critique my poetry.

that is entirely different.

these distinctions must be made. we spent an hour and a half workshopping three of my poems. it was not that helpful, but i trust it will get better, and i'll glean much from this experience. even if i have to chase it down and tie it like a prize steer in calf roping.