Find the Hermeneutic
Poetry can be monstrous
if sewn without balanced sense.
Monsters can be wondrous
when given a generous heart.
Emperors protect their progeny
by removing private parts.
Poets protect their confusion
by removing any traces of thought.
Jesus preached in parables
to keep pearls from the pigs.
Preachers have hermeneutics
to tell us what he really meant.
by Sabio Lantz,
December 2012
_________________
Notes: Karin G. @ dVerse Poets Pub, tells us how her family attaches clues and puzzles to their Christmas presents. My post’s present is a puzzle picture with the poem offering the clue. Or is it the other way around? If you need further hints, you may need to read these wiki links on The Munsters (an old American TV show), Fred Gwynn (Herman Munster) , Hermeneutics, Matthew 7:6 , the pre-photoshopped image source and Matthew 13:13. Please let me know what you got from this poem — critical thoughts welcome.
some disturbing images in this poem at first reading, Sabio, which changed in tone as soon as i thought of Herman Munster. {smile}
Happy Holidays!
Ah … so it’s all down to interpretation, Sabio 🙂 Loving Herman Munster, what a fab play on words.
Seasons Greetings 🙂
nicely done. Herman is surprisingly not the sore thumb one would’ve guessed he’d be in such a photograph. Very nice. Thanks
haha…this is good…i think when it comes to poetry, you know…one lesson i learned very early is…as soon as the poem is published, it belongs no longer to the poet but the reader..and they will always read and interpret it through their specific glasses…and sometimes very far away from the original meaning…but..that’s part of the magic i think..and that’s one of the things i love so much about poetry..smiles
I guess appearances can be deceiving… very funny pic!
The hermeneutics seems to measure a little short…he he… 😉
Oh very good. I didn’t see Herman at all until reading your clues.
It is true that we see what we want to see, hear what we want to hear and speak that which is the ‘truth’ to us – that is unless we speak in riddles to hide the uncomfortable truths and in doing so, deceive ourselves and others.
I would echo Claudia’s thoughts re poetry.
Anna :o]
LOL… thanks for this!
ha, the key question is will others take the time to read and try to understand or will they just give you a , ‘dang you are so good’…and agree that once it is out there, the poem isnt yours and if they interpret it different then it just adds depth and maybe they see something in it you never did….
A creative way to work the theme of the day, Sabio!
It’s all in how the reader interprets the writers thoughts of where he intends to lead us, isn’t it? Very clever write and use of the picture to illustrate it Sabio.
RYN: No, I’ve never lived in a monsoon but have lived with severe flooding, this is why I wrote sometimes it is cursed if it shares too much, sometimes it’s a curse if it shares too little, for both flooding and desert conditions.
Herman Munster was a most lovable monster, and looks good in traditional garb as well!
I enjoyed the puzzle…Herman looks funny in that native outfit ~
A very funny photo, Sabio, and you make some good and direct points. Sometimes one feels that poets (and others) are being purposefully obscure – I tend to not like that either. Sometimes though I find (in my own poetry at least) that the obscurity arises because I am trying to work with sound or a metaphor or meter or trying to get at a meaning that is a bit more subtle than a flat-out statement–or I just can’t say the flat-out statement very well. Also, I try to cut and cut–perhaps too much at times. But, I’m sure, there’s undoubtedly a lot of confusion in my work too.
(I think you have a typo with The Munsters–I thought that was the name of the show.)
Also – last point I know Jesus spoke of not putting pearls before swine – but I’m not convinced that this applied to the parables – that they were meant to avoid a group of people. I tend to view the parables as not made for obfuscation but resonance. Hard to interpret! Just as you say. But a parable is memorable and resonates with people often more than a larger or less colorful statement, i.e. why in part anecdotal evidence is so popular. So I’m not sure that that the stories are meant as things with inner cores not heard not seen, but as things people would see and hear. (Unlike a statement or creed.)
(Of course, the lack of clarity is probably what you are getting at.)
You know it is interesting in this context that most jurisprudence is based upon individual cases. Courts are interpreting laws but in the context of little stories – sets of circumstances – (almost like parables). k.
An interesting project you’ve made for us Sabio. I compare the two images, pre- and post- and am not sure I’m seeing *any* real monsters, just constructs, social or frivolous. (Though I suppose there is indeed something monstrous about the concept of de-sexing, de-gendering fellow humans. You can’t say the eunuchs look very happy with their exalted position and fine clothes.) I like the second line of the first stanza most. AFA hiding thoughts. that’s very human, but when it’s done in Art I think it has a rather different purpose than in relationship. The puzzle, the clues, become a way to share self-knowledge, or speculation that might lead to self-knowledge, without turning it into, as Karin says above, a statement whose flatness does not entice and so is left to lay. Anyway, just my two cents. I enjoyed puzzling, even if I didn’t solve anything. ;_) Happy holidays to you, Sabio, of whichever kind you partake.
I am often surprised at how differently I interpret written works compared to the next reader. We have filters of which we might be completely unaware until another identifies them for us. I suppose that is one reason I embace concision and brevity. I rarely aim for hidden meaning. Thanks for sharing this today.
The first 2 lines were my fav.
The others went above my head 🙂
Kidding. They were great!
Meaningful and deep.
btw, Your comment on my post
well, thats the challenge to be perfect and near Him in His qualities and knowledge. To blame self and give Him credit keeps you engaged to hit success every action and thought and yet remain pure 🙂
very clever, well done Sabio!
Very cool, Sabio. Enjoyed the references and the comments as well.
I used to watch the programme ‘The monsters’. The monster with the generous heart really stuck out to me because we can view people by their looks and fail to really see who they are-a generous soul.
@ ManicdDaily :
(1) Thanks for the spelling typo catch — I fixed it.
(2) Good explanation how obscurity sometimes slips into your poetry. It sounds like your obscurity is sometimes accidental and sometimes intentional. You tell us that obscurity gets in because you can’t find a way of avoiding a flat-out-statement, without being obscure. I find it amazing when I find poets who don’t fall into obscureness and yet can get across metaphors, sounds, meter and subtlety and still not sound flat. But for me, obscurity seems like such a cheap move. If I have to choose I’d rather people err on being flat and plain then obscure with a pretension of being deep — but that is only a matter of taste, I guess.
(3) Concerning why Jesus spoke in parables:
The writer of the gospel of Mark tells us in 4:11-12
So, Mark’s Jesus seems to disagree with you — he didn’t tell parables to make it easy to learn.
Concerning common law use of stare decisis: fortunately, we don’t go on just former cases otherwise all sorts of horrible past bad laws would persist. Our case law is balanced by principle in constitutional and civil law. Anyway — I don’t think this has anything to do why Jesus is made to tell parables by the gospel writers whereas the founder or orthodox Christianity, Paul, mentions none of these parables or even miracles (short of resurrection). Which means, the Gospel writers put them in there for a reason — or, they put Mark 4:11-12 in there for a reason. All to say, it is very complicated.
@ claudia,
History, Religion, Inventions, Poetry, Movies, Novels and everything is out of our hands once it is in the hands of others. I agree — that is common sense. But that is not to say that the author of any of these did not have intent and thoughts and that we should ignore them and soak in solipism. We can try to understand others — we don’t have to stare into Narcissus’
pool until we too die in self-absorption.
But sure, it is fun to watch others use our work as personal astrology inkblots — well, mildly fun. But I am of the Ted Kooser school: I try to write to communicate.
But maybe I was too obscure in this poem. I was happy that several readers gave me their take on the poem but I can’t tell from many what they got from it. I was curious what folks got out of this poem. Maybe I was too obscure. Interestingly only 4 of the 56 people who read this post today actually clicked on the “Hermeneutics” link. I wonder why. Either most folks already knew its meaning, or they didn’t care.
@ Hedgewitch,
I think obscurity is a delicate balance of saying, “I am OK not knowing” (which I am very sympathetic with) and saying “See how heavy this seems if I don’t take time to present in a communicative way.” For instance, free association poetry is self-therapy perhaps but boring as hell to read. It is bad enough watching the monkey jumping around in my head as to listen to the chatter of others under the guise of some deeply meaningful Poetry — with a capital “P”. That balance is what I was trying to address here. Are we aware of what we do?
Happy holidays to you too, Hedgy, of whichever kind you partake.
@ Brian Miller,
My impression on reading many poetry blogs now, is that many readers blast through without really seeking understanding and just try to write something nice so others will visit their site. They don’t want to offend by saying, “I have no clue what you are saying.” so they just choose one or two phrases of thoughts and try to relate to them. As the second like of my poem says, the poem they are reading does not have a coherent balanced sense to it, but they want to say something nice and supportive. Or, they just don’t try. I have been guilty of both. But as you know, often I will take the chance of being rude and say, “I don’t get this” or “this makes no sense to me”. But then, as the scorpion said to the frog, “it is my nature.” [not a virtue]. 🙂
And I agree that if others see something in your poem to add depth, that is great, but I also prefer authors that are trying to communicate, and as I tried to write to claudia, I don’t enjoy post-modernist solipsism, where poems are only vehicles for self-therapy where everything is just fine. But those are my personal tastes. And it is those sorts of poems that cause most people I know to hate poetry
@hedge_witch ,
I am experimenting here. If I write the @ signature this way, does an e-mail automatically get sent to you. I think it does in Disqus, but does WordPress do it?
Very well done!
One reply, Sabio – I actually am pretty open about making flat-out statements in my work – and I didn’t mean to say that I try to avoid them – I guess what I try to avoid is a “flat” statement – that is something that will lead to flattening out of meaning into something that really misses the nuance and even ambiguity of experience. I don’t think of myself as a particularly profound poet – I wish that were the case, but it’s not – but I do try to go for both nuance and music, and I tend to shy away from pronouncements. But that may sometimes lead to a certain obscurity for some. Even so, I misspoke if I said I choose circuitous over direct simply to be circuitous. I do try to avoid being too long though, and I am aware that sometimes cutting can cause obscurity – I probably cut what seems redundant or draggy or anti-musical to me – but maybe that makes a poem harder to follow to others. k.
@ ManicDdaily,
Thanks. Great explanation!
Interesting. The only happy face in the whole bunch is a fabrication.