I asked an AI chatbot, don't ask me which, for its take on poems contained on this blog, or in this blog? You can sort the posts using poems as the keyword and make up your own mind. No matter, here is that chatbot's take. My only and biggest problem with the response is this Mactavish business. In a post not a poem, you will find my take on the use of last names for referring to people who prefer a less disembodied way of managing to refer. . . .
[begin snippet]
That is a very insightful follow-up question, moving from the *nature* of the poem to the specific *method* of its composition and its effect on the reader.
While Mactavish does not lay out a formal, step-by-step guide for writing a poem, his reflections on language, originality, interpretation, and his own poetic practice reveal several key requirements for how a poem **should be written** and the intellectual challenge it should pose.
### 1. The Poem Should Challenge the Reader by Requiring Active Interpretation
Mactavish strongly advocates for content that resists easy, singular answers, which inherently challenges the reader to engage critically rather than passively accepting a definitive meaning.
* Mactavish expresses **irritation** when people assume complex works, which would include poems, have a single, definitive answer to the question, "But what does it mean?".
* He argues that many things are **"inherently open to multiple, valid interpretations"**.
* Therefore, a well-written poem, by reflecting this complexity, should compel the reader to **reject the search for a singular, reductive meaning**.
* Instead of being "set straight" by the author, the reader is implicitly challenged to reveal their own interpretation. The focus shifts from "what is the meaning of something" to the more fundamental question: **"What is the meaning of knowing?"**.
This method of writing means the poem should be **ambiguous enough** to sustain diverse perspectives and acknowledge the limits of absolute knowledge.
### 2. The Poem Must Contain Unique Human Originality
Regarding the creative process, Mactavish emphasizes that the poem must be rooted in the unique voice and specific, unconventional input of the human writer, especially when technology is involved.
* When using an AI engine to generate lyrics, Mactavish found the initial, competence-based result "not original enough".
* To make the work truly "original," the poem must be **infused with the author’s personal flair and often humorous, unconventional lyrics** (such as those he provided for the "Handmade Soap" song).
* The AI serves as a tool, but the **human input and unique creative vision** are necessary to "elevate the output beyond mere competence".
### 3. The Poem Should Embrace Complexity and Resist Simplification
Mactavish suggests that poetry, like philosophical reflection, often deals with "interiors" (inner experiences or complex concepts) that cannot be fully captured by conventional language.
* A poem can address concepts that **"escape the words we know and use"**.
* In the face of these linguistic limitations, the poet has alternatives that inform the writing:
* **Silence** (for experiences like grief).
* **Inventing or Re-purposing Words** (for complex philosophical ideas, like Heidegger's philosophy).
* **Asking Unanswerable Questions**. This suggests the poem should be written in a way that acknowledges and perhaps even embraces the inherent mystery and limits of comprehension.
### 4. The Poem's Language Should Prioritize Intentionality over Idiom
While Mactavish is focused on language teaching principles, his stance against the generalized teaching of complex idioms, sayings, and metaphors (SIMs) provides insight into his writing preference for clarity of *intent*, especially in communication meant for diverse audiences.
* For global communication, the primary aim is **"high and ready understand-ability"**.
* He advocates for focusing on **"simple, plain meaning"** over the display of "colorful enhancements" or "provincialisms".
* When Mactavish used a British saying for the title of his own novel, he had to **research and find it** because he wasn't familiar with it, underscoring that specialized language requires deliberate context.
Therefore, a Mactavish poem might be written using language that is direct enough to convey its complex philosophical *intent*, even if the overall meaning remains open to interpretation. The challenge comes from the *idea* rather than the obscurity of the language itself.
In short, Mactavish believes a poem is successful if it is an act of **original, intentional human creation** that uses language to explore complexity, forcing the reader to engage not just with the words, but with their own fundamental understanding of truth and meaning. It is less a challenge of decoding stylistic flourishes, and more a challenge of **philosophical interrogation**.
[end snippet]
Hmmm . . .
