Overall Aims for Creative Piece / Why Modernist Poetry Annoys Me

It dawned on me that I haven't specified any aims for this piece of writing. Not that a piece of writing needs aims particularly but I think it'll probably help a few people get a sense of what I'm trying to do.

Ok, so the precedent really lies in a short story called Museum that I wrote a couple of years ago but recently go published in the Newcastle University anthology Lit. Basically it's four interlaced (not particularly interlinked) stories that have thematic similarities but don't really connect together. The point being that the common points of each story create resonances with the reader and in some way criticise and illuminate one another showing thematic elements without the need to posit a single definitive interpretation. Thematically, Museum deals with loneliness, breakdown of relationships, telling lies and telling stories. It gives an equal weighting to each thread of the piece so that when you are reading about something that is being viewed by the protagonist on a television we lose all sense of the protagonist and concentrate entirely on the characters on the screen. The effect of this is somewhat disorientating however I "ground" these by dwelling on them for a reasonable period of time and by using concrete description and language. As Barthes noted (and I paraphrase) the reader derives enjoyment from being placed in an "active" state in terms of understanding the piece, however it is possible for the meaning of a piece of writing to become too hidden thus removing all sense of enjoyment from the piece because no meaning is derived from the words. This is my basic problem with a lot of modernist poetry. It's like you need an accompanying instruction manual, not to explain the poem, but to instruct you on what to do with the poem. Poetry like this is obviously clever (sometimes intimidatingly clever) and it's clear that something profound is occurring, however I object to being left in the dark with no way into a particular work. Even if the aim of the poet is to allow their reader free interpretation of the words on the page, then at least tell me that so I'm not sitting there trying to derive meaning from a piece (which of course is the first thing that most human beings do when they pick up a piece of writing) when there is no intended meaning and understanding is supposed to be derived from the hermeneutic interpretation of the piece and not from the poet's intentions. If you think that this is dumbing down high art then I ask you to consider the pedagogical aspects of any piece of writing. What is writing for if not to "teach" something (and I mean this in the loosest sense of the word). Even creating a piece of art that has lost its ability to "teach" (show a novel perspective or whatever)is in some way artistically profound in its own right and in this way actually teaches us something. I think what I'm saying is... if you set out with an intention for a piece of writing then at least allow me a way of understanding this intention. I know Barthes said that we should ignore authorial intention however if your intention is the only way by which I can unlock your piece of writing then I kind of need to know what it is unless, of course, you want to instigate the intellectual guessing games that only the incredibly intelligent have the confidence to justify. I think that good writing allows some way into a piece even if that way is the size of the author's arsehole.

Maybe, it's just that when I look at your work it makes me feel stupid. But then, why do you feel that it's ok to laud your intelligence over people? Surely working together is better than than fostering elitism. I'm not asking for people to change their writing, I'm asking for somebody to provide a lay-person's level explanation for what their doing so that we can all enjoy it. Something like a one-page A3 washing machine fold out "getting started" guide will suffice. You can even have a corresponding Latin translation if it makes you feel happy.