Vox Populi
A curated webspace for Poetry, Politics, and Nature with over 10,000 daily visitors and over 9,000 archived posts.
Michael T. Young: How to Read a Poem
Generally, our culture teaches us to read poems as riddles, problems for which we must find an answer. Our primary concern is to formulate an explanation of the poem. And that misses not only an aspect of its meaning but the fundamental core of its meaning, for a poem is first and foremost an art object, something that gives us pleasure.
In our day-to-day lives we use language sort of the way we use luggage, i.e., to transport something we deem of more value than the luggage itself, the meaning. But once the meaning is delivered, the luggage, the language, is irrelevant. We order food at a restaurant, we make a grocery list, we tell someone we like their shoes. Once the thought or feeling is communicated, the language itself is dispensable, and often the specific words and their order are not crucial to carrying that meaning. In fact, an occasional malapropism or misplaced modifier in these daily communications generally can be ignored because context allows us to understand what is meant. And even in the absence of such errors, there are various syntaxes and dictions one could use to carry the same meaning and any one of them will suffice without harm to the intent. But that is not the case with an art object made of words; the specific words in their specific order is necessary for the particular feelings and ideas evoked. As Coleridge put it, “Poetry is the best words in the best order.” But this can be difficult to see with poems because of our daily use of language in a purely functional capacity. That pedestrian usage inclines us to approach poems with similar expectations. But if we consider music, especially music without lyrics, it’s easier to grasp what sets an art object apart. We don’t need to explain Bach’s Partitas to enjoy them, and that is the point of listening to them, to enjoy them, to experience whatever feelings—and thoughts—they elicit. The composer Sibelius once had a friend over for dinner. During the visit, Sibelius put on an album of his newest symphony. Once it finished, the friend said, “It’s beautiful, but what does it mean?” Sibelius’ response was to get up and put the symphony on again.
This is true of all art objects including poems. The poet Mary Ruefle said, “I believe that if a poem gives you pleasure, then you have understood it.” This ties the meaning of a poem to our aesthetic experience, as it should be. An explanation of a poem divorced from our pleasure in it is a misunderstanding of the poem. What a poem communicates is not merely semantic but is also and simultaneously visceral and intuitive. Eliot said, “Genuine poetry can communicate before it is understood.” What we receive from a poem when we read a poem as an art object is more than a reductive meaning we can then explain to others because no explanation can produce the sensations brought forth by experiencing the poem, just as no explanation of a song can give someone the experience of listening to the song. The semantic aspect of the poem is only one part of its pleasure, and the pleasure is an inextricable part of the meaning. So, whether listening to a song, reading a poem, looking at a painting, or any other work of art, the experience of the work of art is intrinsic to its meaning.
A large part of the pleasure of a poem is its music and that music is inherently bound up with its meaning. The poet Joseph Brodsky said, “to the poet phonetics and semantics are, with few exceptions, identical.” On the page, of course, the ideas, the sounds, the images, the grammar can all be teased out as distinct qualities. But they are little different than the different instruments of an orchestra performing together to make the music of a symphony. All these distinct elements perform together to make the music. If we remove instruments, we change the music, perhaps even destroy it. This is why, like a piece of music, every word in the order the poet places them is necessary. Speaking of Beethoven’s music, Leonard Bernstein said that it gives you “the feeling that whatever note succeeds the last is the only possible note that can rightly happen at that instant, in that context.” This sense of rightness, this struggle for inevitability was something the composer dedicates himself to. That is what the piece of music gives us, that sense of rightness, and this is not an explanation but an aesthetic experience. In a poem, that sense of rightness or inevitability is in every element as well, not just one thing, but each word, each comma, each image, and thought. Yes, even the thoughts or ideas play a part in the music of a poem. The poet George Oppen said that the music of a poem was “the progression of the thought.” I wouldn’t reduce it to any one element as he does, but the thoughts or ideas in a poem clearly play a part in the music.
When we sit back without attempting to explain the poem or expecting it to be merely meaningful in the way a restaurant menu is meaningful or the instructions to assemble a kitchen appliance are meaningful, but let it’s words, its sounds, its images, and ideas wash over us and allow it to pull out of us whatever it brings forth, both feelings and thoughts, then we experience its meaning. Then we experience the poem as an art object. We can, from this point, go deeper into it, thinking through what it calls up in us, considering why and how its elements relate to each other and to us. This can enrich our experience of the meaning, but any explanation we give from this analysis is something less than the meaning of the poem. To quote Brodsky again, “Any attempt to approach analytically a phenomenon whose nature is synthetic is doomed by definition.” This holds true for a poem because a poem is a synthesis, a bringing together of elements to make new associations in an aesthetic experience, in an art object. Analysis is an attempt to explain something by taking it apart. But the very new thing created, the art object, is what is taken away by analysis, by the dismantling. We can learn something from it, but we lose something essential as well: the poem itself.
If we attempt to explain a chair by taking it apart and laying out the legs, seat, and back on the floor, we have the pieces, but we don’t have a functional chair. We can’t sit in it any longer, and sitting in the chair is its meaning expressed. We might from such deconstruction learn how to assemble other chairs from similar pieces, but we don’t have a functional chair any longer. That exists by the specific relationship of the pieces configured as they were before deconstructing it. This is why Brodsky said what he did about analysis, since a poem exists by assembling specific words in a specific order to create a particular experience for the reader. That is a synthesis, a putting together. But analysis takes it apart and while it might tell you something about the construction of the poem, you lose the experience that art object gives you by its unique construction, just like the disassembled chair. So, while we can learn something from analysis, we don’t get the full meaning by analysis.
This also is clear in Robert Frost’s description of how a poem begins. He said, “A poem…begins as a lump in the throat, a sense of wrong, a homesickness, a lovesickness. It is a reaching-out toward expression; an effort to find fulfillment. A complete poem is one where an emotion finds the thought and the thought finds the words.” So, it begins not as an idea but resolves in a fully realized poem that includes idea. It is a groping toward thought and word, not a fully formed thought that is outfitted with language. Thinking of poems being written in the latter way is what leads people to believe that poetry is merely ideas dressed up in fancy clothes, it’s linguistic decoration and nothing more. Thus, they approach it as something to decode and trace back to an original thought or idea. But that’s incorrect. It starts as a feeling, and often a vague feeling. That feeling might be embodied for a time in a single word or image that, for some reason the poet can’t understand, haunts him. He doesn’t know why the weathered owl decorating his neighbor’s driveway post sticks in his mind, but something is there. It’s not as obvious as a thought or idea, that will be discovered as the feeling reaches toward expression, trying different words to move forward into meaning.
Similar to the way Frost says poems are written, starting in feeling and struggling toward thought and words, reading poems should follow a similar trajectory. The experience of reading a poem should not start in the meaning first, but in the feelings it evokes just hearing those words, in the images, and rhythms carrying you along, much like a good song. Those rhythms then bring us along toward the understanding embodied in them, like a boat being pushed along by the waves toward some distant island. But it happens gradually, gentling, and eventually. Sometime in the fourth or fifth reading maybe, the mind comes up on the beach to weigh anchor, the rhythms of the waves lapping its hull and repeating the name of the land we have arrived at.
Copyright 2025 Michael T. Young
Michael T. Young’s fourth collection, Mountain Climbing a River, will be published by Broadstone Media in late 2025. His poetry has been featured on Verse Daily and The Writer’s Almanac.
Discover more from Vox Populi
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Such a fine essay! I’ll be sharing it.
LikeLike
Yes, this has always been my credo regarding all art. There is a secondary moment of creation – no matter what it is (painting, poetry, novel, sculpture, music…) No matter how many people see, listen, read it, you have that many different perceptions/meanings of the same piece. And I love these secondary moments of creation. To analyze a poem becomes – for me – an intellectual exercise, killing the music of the words. That’s why we are often unhappy about a film based on one of our favourite books: the director is only able to interpret it with his understanding. And then you get the same thousands of secondary moments of creation when people go and see the film… et cetera and at infinitum.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, Rose Mary. I always look forward to reading your comments.
>
LikeLike
Glad you enjoyed the essay.
While I agree that there are perspectives on a work of art, it also isn’t infinitie. Certainly to interpret A Doll’s House as being for the wife staying under the thumb of her husband would be to misunderstand the play. No? I would say there is a range of potential meanings within a work of art, so that on the periphery of its meaning there are nuances where there is the possibility of difference that circles the core of it. In this sense, to analyize a poem think doesn’t necessarily have to lead to the killing of the music of the words. But I do think the way we are often taught to approach poems does. For instance, for me, to have spent time analyzing James Merrill’s poem “The Current” and its ingenious use of internal rhymes and slant rhymes left me nearly giddy with delight as I analyzed it. It enriched my pleasure in the music rather than killed it. But I don’t approach a poem as a riddle to solve or some onerous task to complete. It’s an exploration, an adventure of discovery and I only venture deeper as I feel the need or urge that is compelled by the pleasure I take in the poem. So, even as that engages my intellect, that engagement is energized by the aesthetic experience. That is how it remains a part of it and doesn’t disconnect from that pleasure in the poem. At least for me. I find this pleasure in poets who write about other poets such as Brodsky or Ryan or many others.
LikeLike
That is sort of what Ransom, Tate, Brooks and Warren, followers of “New Criticism” in the 1950s were saying, but they didn’t discount meaning at all. What interested then was how meaning and expressive techniques interlocked with mutual support. We’ve seen many poets for whom paraphrasable meaning wasn’t especially important. Poe was a master of meter and rhyme, but his poems don’t give us much by way of original thought. There was a movement among a few Russian poets a century ago called Zaum, which proposed a poetry of pure sound, not written in any existing language. Closer to home we have Ashbery, the unflappable author of poems that very stoutly resist being paraphrased and for that reason displease many readers (myself not among them, or not always). When I read your poems, yes, they are expressively phrased, but I can always discern a meaning that could be summarized. The summary is less than the poem, granted, but the meaning doesn’t strike me as negligible, something you didn’t care about. On the contrary.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Beautifully said, Alfred. I read a poem first for its sound and feeling, and if they please me, I read the poem again for its meaning. The best poems have a perfect merging of sound, feeling and meaning… but you know all this, Alfred. You wrote the book on it…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comments, Alfred. Although, I don’t see how you gather from the essay that it discounts meaning or considers it negligible. On the contrary, it’s core assertion is that meaning is in balance with all the other elements of a poem to produce pleasure in the reader. If that is not what you come away with then perhaps it isn’t as clearly written as I had thought.
LikeLike
Frost said it all for me, “It is a reaching-out toward expression; an effort to find fulfillment. A complete poem is one where an emotion finds the thought and the thought finds the words.” Whether that thought and the words expressing that thought are understood by others or not isn’t really important to me when I attempt to write a “poem.” I read poems all the time written by well known “poets” that evoke no emotion or meaningful thoughts in me, but the poet knows if it is a true poem or a produced product for a career or just recognition.
That smack of lips, that grin of achievement when I successfully ( in my mind) express my feelings in words, no matter the form or lack thereof, tells me I have written a poem, my poem.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lovely, Leo. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, Leo, that Frost quote is profoundly insightful and one that is important to me. It’s right up there with Dickinson’s comment that “If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know that is poetry.” That’s about the best standard of a poem I’ve ever come across.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow! Great quote by Dickinson.
LikeLike
I love this meditation on poetry reading as a kind of meditation. And I like that see poetry writing as “…a groping toward thought and word, not a fully formed thought that is outfitted with language.” You have a wonderful critical AND poetic mind, Michael Young. Thanks to you and our other Michael!
LikeLiked by 4 people
typos as usual: I like that see = I like that you see!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Mary!
>
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Mary, both for reading and for your kind words. Glad that perspective struck a chord with you.
LikeLike
Thank you, Michael and Sean!
LikeLiked by 3 people
HC!
>
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, H.C.!
LikeLike
Love the chair analogy, so visceral, and the quote from Mary Ruefle caused my heart to smile in recognition. Thank you Michael (poet) and Michael (editor).
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks, Jan. Michael Young has a genius for seeing the similarity of dissimilar things.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you for reading, Jan. Very glad you liked the analogy and the Ruefle quote. I find her poetry and thoughts on poetry quite inspiring.
LikeLike
Michael: Poetry itself has grown in our time exponentially in every way something can grow in a setting we should perhaps think of as the grand and ever burgeoning populace of the planet. The implications of this, even as poetry is a kind of activity on the fringe, are grand. Do we define poetry by the way there are so many voices, so many new forms & expressions to admit into the discipline— or do we seek a purification of the idea of poetry by its golden standard that first brought us into the notion of poetry writing to begin with?
What is that essence, we might ask, “that men [would] perish daily for the lack thereof?”
LikeLiked by 5 people
Profound questions, Sean. You’ve given me lots to think about. Thank you!
>
LikeLiked by 2 people
Seems to me, time will be the definer; scholars and professional writers may rant and rave, but the choice isn’t really theirs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
yes, time decides everything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Sean, I agree: poetry has grown in many ways in our lifetimes. It’s truly wonderful. I’m quite happy to be living in this time of poetry. I feel we are in a time of many great voices.
As for defining it, I feel that is something people will always strive to do with various degrees of–should we say “success”?–but perhaps in the effort, like many such things, it will expand and contract, trying this way and then that way, focusing on this aspect and then that aspect. I think this too is a part of the joy and fun of the poetic pursuit. I almost–and I stress almost–gather as much pleasure from reading Brodsky or Ryan or Stafford or Hugo on the art of poetry and what it is as I do reading their poetry. However, these masters have defined it, of course they are limited, but they are interesting, spark thought and even pleasure in the consideration which enriches my pleasure in poetry too. At least, this has been my personal experience. So, I look forward to other poets putting forth their views of the nature of poetry and language, expecting my own views to expand thereby.
LikeLike