‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

 ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ 

The title is best left unsaid. Poetry pieces are some of the most complex works of literature to the point where it feels like the number of complexities and ideas you could draw from a poem is seemingly infinite. Unlike other pieces of art, poetry isn't only about the words of the poem, it's also about the words that aren't in the poem. The unsaid material. 

But what is the point of the unsaid words?

These words don't exist in the first place

It's like trying to determine facial expressions

The way you have to interpret text that looks to have been erased

The blank spaces are truly where the complexity comes from

As it's easy to read what's on the page, like listening to a speech

It creates depth and makes you question more and more

It's like a phrase from "Dover Beach"

"Ah, love, let us be true"

It raises the question, is it imaginative or real?

It is "answered" with the lines after, stating 

"To lie before us like a land of dreams"

A "land of dreams" sounds like a hopeful, imaginative place it seems,

So the question was answered, but only through the lens of a single interpretation.

It creates more questions, in fact, what else could a "land of dreams" represent?

What else could the "let us be true" line be hopeful for?

We don't know, but it's important to note, all these words on still on the page

What about the unsaid words?

What are the unsaid words that this poem could contain?

Well, when talking about "unsaid" words, I am not talking about any specific words To me, it feels like it's a more complex way to discuss interpretations. The way I see it, breaking down poetry is like painting or analyzing a significant piece of art. There are layers on layers on layers and in the most famous art pieces, there are meanings that only the artist knows about. The true meaning of a painting is like the true meaning of a poem, meanings that the artist/author created or intended. When we look at pieces of art, we like to reflect on our own interpretations, which works the same for poetry. Even when we are creating works of art, (I'm not a painter, but this is sort of what I've gathered throughout my years), we usually have a single motivation in mind. Perhaps an emotion to evoke, a message to spread, or a significant person to reflect on. We don't think about the other possible interpretations which are hidden beneath the surface, but they exist, just waiting to be dug up. 

But it raises the question, can interpretations be wrong? The overall idea is that all interpretations of a piece (art or literature) are correct and that there are no wrong answers. It's an interesting idea but I think it is all dependent on the author/artist. Did they want this piece to be interpreted in different ways? Is there a correct way they want this to be looked at? For the first question, it would be impossible to figure that out without the creator saying something, but for the second, if the creator had a specific motivation for creating the piece they did, then I would say yes, there would be a correct way to observe it. The true way. But realistically, no two people see through the same lens, so it would be impossible to understand the true grasp of any art/literature. So how does this all relate to the idea of "unsaid words"? Well, it's all about meaning. Reading through the lines of a poem is similar to solving an impossible puzzle, you can continue to connect the pieces together, endlessly, but you'll always be missing that final piece no matter how many unsaid words you are able to uncover. This is why I find poetry somewhat fascinating, because no matter how much you break it down, no matter how many hours you spend researching and analyzing a specific poem, you will never reach the true meaning/purpose of the poem, you'll never find the final piece to complete the endless puzzle.