Dovina9 Sep 2004

Going back to my original comment, I could argue that it was only that – a quickly phrased feedback to BigD on how the poem struck me. When you mentioned the “excellence” of my distinction, facetiously no doubt, I looked again and realized I really had said two things in reaction to the poem, not just one, and quipped, “I'm glad you see the distinction.” Notice the two statements I made:

“Maybe a more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding,” and

“Maybe a more descriptive title might have eased my failure to know what you mean.”

Admittedly, the word “Maybe” is not needed, so let’s just look at:

“A more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding,” and

“A more descriptive title might have eased my failure to know what you mean.”

When I said, “my misunderstanding” I was saying that I had an understanding, but it was wrong. But how could I have known it was wrong? Because I judged my original understanding of the poem to be wrong. I know that because I remember, but you could have known it too, just from the way I phrased it, and maybe you did. When I added, “my failure to know what you mean,” it was a hands-thrown-in-the-air giving up on any more attempts to understand the poem. One reaction came before the other, neither very oafish in retrospect, and linked by the word “or.” So my comment, revised, is: “A more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding, then my failure to know what you mean.” Of course, I could dress it up with adjectives and allusions to the poet’s parentage.