"All happy families are alike, and all unhappy families are unhappy in their own way."

The beginning of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina speaks not only to the state of the world's families, but also to the state of the world's literature.  The phenomenon of people failing to write compelling happy novels is discussed constantly, and one of the primary reasons for this phenomenon that comes of these discussions is the assertion that uniqueness in stories arises from the story's conflict.  Without some conflict to make the characters unahppy, the story will likely fail to be unique and fail to captivate its audience.

This problem has fostered a culture where one can never expect a story to be hunky-dory all the way through.  Even a story with a title like Katherine Mansfield's "Bliss" is expected (rightfully) to have major strife.

But in poetry, this is not the case.  Plenty of poems successfully capture happiness in a way that is seeminly impossible for longer works of prose.  Why is this?  I posit this hypothesis, which I implore you to riddle with holes: Whereas prose has to explain a feeling uniquely, poetry has to simply describe it uniquely.  In prose, we need to know why the character is happy; a plot event must happen to make the character feel that way, and plot events must keep that character happy in order for this feeling to remain.  It is exceedingly difficult to do this and maintain a compelling story.  With poetry, however, no justification is necessary; if the poet writes about happiness in an uncommon manner, the reader will be transfixed.  As a result, happiness is much more plausible in poetry.

I was sifting through Hallmark's Father's Day Card selection at Safeway today.  Generally, the cards took one of two tones: sentimental or humorous.  My father is generally someone who would prefer the humor.  However, many of the humor choices were not particularly funny, and few were actually intelligent in their humor.  This got me thinking: what if I could write a line of humorous "literary" Hallmark Father's Day cards?  I'll post a few bad ideas of mine below, and if you have any others then post them in reply!

(Poor) Examples:

Front: You've given me life, so I feel it's my duty to save yours. As your Father's Day gift...Inside: I promise I won't let your brother anywhere near your ears with a vial of poison.  (Hamlet)

Front: You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view... Inside: And to be honest, I can't imagine what it must have been like to raise me, so I may never be able to understand you.  That doesn't mean I can't appreciate you though! Happy Father's Day! (To Kill A Mockingbird)

Today in my creative writing workshop one of my classmates had a laugh when I came up with an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of her work. More interestingly, however, was that (before the laugh) the rest of my classmates thought my incorrect interpretation to be a valid reading.  This again raised for me the age-old question that has always been asked by disillusioned high school students about great writers: Do they ACTUALLY intend every nuance that we write essays about?  Did Shakespeare or Tolstoy or Homer or Melville intend in every word they wrote the conclusions of the countless analyses of their works? Or are we just reading too far into it?

I know that, in a way, this question doesn't matter.  It's great that readers can find meaning in writing that might not have been intended, and if this impacts their outlook on life in a positive or interesting way then there's no reason to take that effect away from the author who caused it (even if unintentionally).  However, should we still give authors creative credit for EVERY interpretation?  I'd like to hear more opinions on this, so let me know what you think!