4 ms·

Can you give urls for Frost's letters?

vinceguidry 11y ago
I cannot, as I didn't read them, I don't need to. The quote itself is enough to show that Frost's intentions with the poem weren't straightforward, despite what the actual meaning of his words was. He could well have intended on a specific person that was hit, in a specific way, but that still implies deception, what he wrote was intended to be read in a different way than how he truly meant it, that the number of people who really grasp it are going to be smaller than the number of people who read it. What I was saying is that you could have, if you were really interested, go and research Frost's letters, instead of holding on to your traditional way of reading the poem, for that reason. That would be my response if I was interested in maintaining that viewpoint for those reasons, to investigate them. To make sure I have enough context to support the conclusion I'm making. The manner in which you dismissed the new way of looking at them indicates that you are more interested in retaining the old meaning. New context is thrown out, not even worthy of consideration. It's this binary response I'm interested in. I take an article like Orr's, which tries to color things in history with additional context, work that new info into my understanding, and try to find a new conceptualization of the past. I'm not so much interested in retaining my experience of the poem as much as all of the clarifying context, how these poets interact with each other, how America tends to view poems and culture and itself. To me the actual meaning of the poem is somewhat of a side show. You took it and read it as an attack on, well, what exactly?
- Randgalt 11y ago
  >Frost's intentions with the poem weren't straightforward But, it doesn't tell us what Frost's intent was. I did a Google search and didn't find much. > The manner in which you dismissed the new way of looking at them indicates that you are more interested in retaining the old meaning. Boy - you make a lot of assumptions. I read Orr's article and disagree with his conclusions. I'm not interested in retaining anything in particular. Frost's intentions with his poem are irrelevant. I read the words and draw a conclusion. If I listen to a piece of music, I'm moved in a particular way irrespective of the composer's intent. >You took it and read it as an attack on, well, what exactly? I think you've implied much more than what I wrote (irony?). My only issue with Orr is that I perceive him to be smug. "The Most Misread Poem in America" is a purposely inflammatory title. Is it really possible to "misread" a poem? Poetry is not non-fiction. It is intended to be subtle and have layers of meaning.
  - chippy 11y ago
    the layers of meaning is interesting. The layers of this poem extend beyond the words into heads and popular culture. That most people read it in a way that, when looked at it logically, reads in another way makes a layer. This was mentioned in the article. Is anyone being tripped up here or being tricked or mislead?

I cannot, as I didn't read them, I don't need to. The quote itself is enough to show that Frost's intentions with the poem weren't straightforward, despite what the actual meaning of his words was. He could well have intended on a specific person that was hit, in a specific way, but that still implies deception, what he wrote was intended to be read in a different way than how he truly meant it, that the number of people who really grasp it are going to be smaller than the number of people who read it. What I was saying is that you could have, if you were really interested, go and research Frost's letters, instead of holding on to your traditional way of reading the poem, for that reason. That would be my response if I was interested in maintaining that viewpoint for those reasons, to investigate them. To make sure I have enough context to support the conclusion I'm making. The manner in which you dismissed the new way of looking at them indicates that you are more interested in retaining the old meaning. New context is thrown out, not even worthy of consideration. It's this binary response I'm interested in. I take an article like Orr's, which tries to color things in history with additional context, work that new info into my understanding, and try to find a new conceptualization of the past. I'm not so much interested in retaining my experience of the poem as much as all of the clarifying context, how these poets interact with each other, how America tends to view poems and culture and itself. To me the actual meaning of the poem is somewhat of a side show. You took it and read it as an attack on, well, what exactly?

Randgalt 11y ago
>Frost's intentions with the poem weren't straightforward But, it doesn't tell us what Frost's intent was. I did a Google search and didn't find much. > The manner in which you dismissed the new way of looking at them indicates that you are more interested in retaining the old meaning. Boy - you make a lot of assumptions. I read Orr's article and disagree with his conclusions. I'm not interested in retaining anything in particular. Frost's intentions with his poem are irrelevant. I read the words and draw a conclusion. If I listen to a piece of music, I'm moved in a particular way irrespective of the composer's intent. >You took it and read it as an attack on, well, what exactly? I think you've implied much more than what I wrote (irony?). My only issue with Orr is that I perceive him to be smug. "The Most Misread Poem in America" is a purposely inflammatory title. Is it really possible to "misread" a poem? Poetry is not non-fiction. It is intended to be subtle and have layers of meaning.
- chippy 11y ago
  the layers of meaning is interesting. The layers of this poem extend beyond the words into heads and popular culture. That most people read it in a way that, when looked at it logically, reads in another way makes a layer. This was mentioned in the article. Is anyone being tripped up here or being tricked or mislead?