"Live.fast's post tells us that we do not know the "point" of the poem. And, without having Eliot here for a panel discussion, we'll never know. "
People speculate on the meaning of his poem, on it's message, based on what little notes we have from him on his own poetry. But make note, here, you haven't yet disagreed with me yet.
"To surmise that Eliot's intentions were undermined by his own devices is rather ridiculous considering you don't know his intention to begin with. Which was the point behind my initial post. We have no clue on Eliot's specific intent. Therefore the interpretative process becomes the key point of studying poetry. "
Do you know what his intentions were to begin with? No you don't. Eliot's intentions ARE undermined by his own devices, because no matter what his intentions were, that people can draw different meanings, different intentions from his work makes his work that much less admirable - that he was trying to put across A meaning is purely logical. How so? Consider the other end of the specturm - To make a textual work that endorses no point, no meaning, only open ended ambiguity to which extremely subjective and speculative interpretation can be made on a poetry's MESSAGE and MEANING is what I would consider deceptively fraudulent. In our society, we see through the tricks of psychics, and their 'work' is not considered in the same high esteem as Eliot's - but it is of the same nature - that the meaning itself becomes left to interpretation is not the work of a genius, but the work of a criminal! In this way, Eliot was a literary criminal, because he was able to create a work like The Hollow Men, in such a way that not only could the ORIGINAL meaning become applicable to different contextual background, but that the MEANING itself becomes subject to change - it is deceitful indeed. But to question that he did have a meaning in his poetry? THAT is ridiculous:
Consider hypothetically, that you were a poet - do you write poetry without meaning? No. Yet then, what is the good in having a poetry with meaning, if the meaning itself is to be subjected to interpretation?
“Therefore the interpretative process becomes the key point of studying poetry. “
It is not the intention of most writers, of most creators of texts that the interpretation of their works also becomes an interpretation of the messages and meanings of those works as well. The interpretation in most cases was meant to be left to the context - that you live in your world, a different world that the writer lived in, means that whatever the setting of the writer's works, whatever HIS context, you could still re-interpret the work with regards to context - so that you could apply the writer's MEANING and MESSAGE to your world today. But Eliot's work does not put forward its meaning in such a way as to prevent interpretation of it from nobs like yourself. There are a million texts out there, movies, books, poems, all of which, without needing to explicitly state the meaning, put it across in a way that the meaning itself CANNOT be subject to interpretation - but Eliot's work, the way it is, allows for that same interpretation to occur. THAT is why Eliot is no genius. THAT is why his poetry should never have been rendered the same repute that other works beyond it have been rendered.
“Also I ask what is the point of trying to draw Eliot's intention? You seem very concerned with "what he really meant" or so to speak. That takes half the enjoyment out of studying the poetry. It's black-and-white, and something only available to those who research notes/transcripts of his on his work”
What is the point? I've put it across alot now in this post, but in case you still don't understand 'the point', here it is plain and simple:
If indeed Eliot wrote his work with a specific intention, with a specific meaning - then does it become your right to re-interpret that meaning to your liking? If so, then, what, I ask you, is the purpose in writing texts? So that people like you can say "I didn't know what you really meant in your book - so I'm going to re-interpret the meaning of it!" - That too, I label criminal! If someone writes a book about how men have faults, but you couldn't understand that THAT was the message, does it become YOUR right to re-interpret the message, to say, 'Women are superior?' Because no matter that the two seem simliar, they are not of equal meaning - and that same problem lies in re-interpreting the author's message, no matter if the meaning seems close to what you would believe the author's intention was. But the point is clear -
Poet's dont write their poems with the plan that no one will understand their intention - Where the skill of a poet lies is in HOW he gets the audience to understand the poet's meaning, the poet's message. And in this regard, Eliot is at fault, because his methodology is questionable - to the point where people like you question the meaning, and re-interpret it yourself.
Enjoyment of a poetry is one thing. But the enjoyment should come from understanding THE meaning of a poem, and not in re-creating another meaning yourself.
The interpretive process was never intended to be applicable to a poetry's meaning. Nor to a poet's intentions. Only to the APPLICATION of that poet's message - From a past world, to the world now - that's CONTEXT. But that the meaning should not change, lest the purpose of writing poetry should change too, is what supports this point.
“It's black-and-white, and something only available to those who research notes/transcripts of his on his work”
Finally, it comes down to this - the meaning itself, yes, should be clear - 'black and white' as you labelled it, although that does not in itself represent clarity (rather, you seem to be labelling it simple). That's what distinguishes proper, genuine poets who can weave intricate ideas, spin complex literary techniques to push forward a point, from those who also use complex literary techniques, but try for too much complexity, too much intricacy, to the point where the meaning itself is lost (and, according to people like you, HAS to be re-interpreted). Transcripts, notes of an author's work should never truly be neccesary if the text is sound, in order for us to understand a poet's work. But never mistake what I'm trying to say here, as meaning I want simple poems, simple works - I am myself a fan of those who use 'the big guns' of poetry, of literature - as long as the meaning can still be understood in the end - the meaning itself, the message itself, can be as complex and intricate as any writer deems fair - but it is also up to the writer to decide when too much is too much, and when it begins to take away from a poem, where it beings to lead a poem to become highly ambigious, subjective, and open-ended to the point where interpretation becomes a full neccesity, that's when it becomes a matter of simple judgement to see that the poet has erred, has over/under judged his audience, and compromised the ability of his own work to still be representative of it's original purpose, it's original message...of it's original meaning!
