navwin » Archives » Critical Analysis #2 » Melt
Critical Analysis #2
Post A Reply Post New Topic Melt Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada

0 posted 2002-09-03 02:09 AM


The icicle,
frozen to its prison,
drips in tears
toward freedom.

© Copyright 2002 Trevor Davis - All Rights Reserved
Madame Chipmunk
Member Rara Avis
since 2001-12-05
Posts 8296
Michigan
1 posted 2002-09-03 12:00 PM


Hi trevor...
That is such a beautiful little piece of poetry that it almost seems like a shame to mess with it...
but upon reading it over and over again...
I think it would be more dramatic if you dropped the article... the (the) which of course would force you to pluralize the entire poem... I tried it that way and it does read well... I think...
but one more change I would make is to remove the word (in) in line 3.
I think it makes a much more dramatic statement this way...
I hope this helped

Lyra

copyright2002 Lyra Nesius

"poetry is life distilled"  Gwendolyn Brooks

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
2 posted 2002-09-03 12:09 PM


Hello Lyra,

Pretty good idea, wasn't too crazy about pluralizing this piece at first but it kinda grew on me.

Melt

Icicles,
frozen to their prisons,
drip tears
toward freedom.


Anyways, thanks a lot for your ideas, I'm stealing them and there ain't a gosh darn thing ya can do about it

Trevor

Madame Chipmunk
Member Rara Avis
since 2001-12-05
Posts 8296
Michigan
3 posted 2002-09-03 12:14 PM


LOL....
Steal if you wish, Trevor...
I really love the imagery of this poem and it was totally yours
I wish I could have thought of that

Lyra

copyright2002 Lyra Nesius

"poetry is life distilled"  Gwendolyn Brooks

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
4 posted 2002-09-03 05:07 PM


Trev, the revision works fine but I thinkn I am still partial to the original. It just seems a little more personal whereas the plural revision is too much of a generality. I mean everybody alreqady knows that icicles melt but the original helps me to understand that from the point of view of that particular icicle. Go figure.

JMHO,
Pete

brian madden
Member Elite
since 2000-05-06
Posts 4374
ireland
5 posted 2002-09-03 07:04 PM


I have to agree with Pete, keeping it singular also round the poem off more, for
some reason focusing on more than one icicle
makes me feel like there should be more to this poem, it is no longer the story of an icicle.
Also I feel the word "drip" is could be replaced. We all know water drips. Instead something like "weeps"  for example.

A more emotive verb would add an extra dimesion to the poem.  


"To the depths of the ocean where all hopes sank searching for you Moving through the silence without motion
waiting for you" ian curtis

U K Hero
Member
since 1999-08-08
Posts 266
England
6 posted 2002-09-04 07:58 AM


Short and too the point. I like it.

I agree with BM above, 'weep' does sound better.

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
7 posted 2002-09-04 09:55 AM


I like weeps too instead of drips. But then I think you should drop in so it reads, "weeps tears." JMHO

Pete

Never express yourself more clearly than you can think - Niels Bohr

YeshuJah
Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 65
FL USA
8 posted 2002-09-04 10:27 AM


Trevor, this clever little verse has got me baffled. I feel like the boy who saw the King naked whilst everyone else saw his royal robes. My immidiate reaction after reading this was-- ok, now what? I guess I've been spoiled silly by poems that explain themselves. whadoiknow/
Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
9 posted 2002-09-04 11:51 AM


Pete, Brian, UK,

Thanks for your feedback. I might use "weep", pretty good idea. I have about a dozen different versions of this little poem...fascinating how a little verse can be arranged soooo many different ways. Originally it was,

The icicle loosens its grip
spears the plow
awaits the melt
freedom is
the simplest of things.

Then to...

The icicle
loosens its grip
spears the plowed
freedom is
simplicity

and onto a few different variations of that...

and now...

Melt

Icicles,
from their frozen prison,
weep tears
toward freedom.

Soooo, any more thoughts on this one?


Hi Yesh,

"Trevor, this clever little verse has got me baffled. I feel like the boy who saw the King naked whilst everyone else saw his royal robes. My immidiate reaction after reading this was-- ok, now what? I guess I've been spoiled silly by poems that explain themselves. whadoiknow"

Exactly...what are your thoughts on it? What did those lines make you think? Its always nice to hear if a reader likes the poem or not but its even better to hear why?(though I am unsure if you even enjoyed it or not, your reply is kind of cryptic..."clever little verse", followed by the Emporer's New Clothes analogy.

The original concept of the poem was that freedom can be found in the simpliest of acts...my original poem was the act of an icicle falling and now the idea remains but the act has changed to it dripping. Simple changes often equate to freedom. A very debatable statement sure but not for these personified icicles because they are my creation and that's what they long for...to be mobile water Another slant I could have taken was the exact opposite, their dripping being death, but I wanted it to be a little more of a positive poem.

I don't want this to be taken as a slag against you and in no way do I mean disrespect by what I am about to say, but, its hard for me to fully understand your critiques when you don't take the time to give examples of the what's and why's of your opinions. I mean its fine and dandy to say that you did or didn't like a poem but as a writer I find it much more helpful if you point at specifics rather than just alluding to the whole of a poem. Not only that but it helps validate your general sweeping opinions. I'm not refering to this piece but in general all your critiques seem to be broad statements without any specific examples to justify them. Its not always as important if you like or dislike something as it is sometimes why. The very same reasons you will go into depth and detail explaining your poetry to a reader is the very same outlook you should consider practising when critiquing other's work. Their work is as important to them as yours is to you. And I'm not trying to tell you how to critique or even that your opinions aren't valid, I'm just suggesting expanding on your thoughts when critiquing so the author will have a better understanding of why you felt the way you did. And like I previously stated I'm not so much referring to your critique here but rather your critiquing in general. Just thought I'd bring it up here because I have absolutely no idea of your opinion of this poem or why you feel that way. In fact I'd have to say that your critique has brought more confusion than clarity. Anyways, no disrespect intended, just thought I'd voice my opinion.

Thanks,

Trevor

Radrook
Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648

10 posted 2002-09-04 12:43 PM



Nice metaphore!
It lacks a bit of logical coherence though.
I find the description of dripping toward freedom while STILL frozen in prison contradictory. Apart fom that the poem is OK.

[This message has been edited by Radrook (09-06-2002 04:07 AM).]

Severn
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704

11 posted 2002-09-08 05:19 AM


Hey ho Trev...

Well, it makes perfect sense to me Rad - it's in prison and it's moving toward freedom, in tears - drips. The bulk of the icicle is still imprisoned...but slowly it is becoming free.

Now, upon reading this, I was affected by much the same thought-process as our little run in Deleted: less and less...

Icicles,
from frozen prisons,
tear toward freedom.

Which makes a play on the noun 'tear' by making it a verb also...I personally find weep and drips both a little clumsy, and bulky for such a precise piece. (I think a pluralised prisons works better too, matching the icicles..but then that might ruin your vision of the poem..)

Just my op.

YeshuJah - maybe you're not familiar with snapshot poems, perhaps that is why you were baffled? This is the perfect example of a snapshot poem, curious as to why you think there should be more?

K

[This message has been edited by Severn (09-08-2002 05:21 AM).]

Toad
Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161

12 posted 2002-09-08 06:31 AM



Trevor

I thought the original and the subsequent revisions worked brilliantly right up to the point where you gave your explanation:

quote:
The original concept of the poem was that freedom can be found in the simpliest of acts...my original poem was the act of an icicle falling and now the idea remains but the act has changed to it dripping. Simple changes often equate to freedom. A very debatable statement sure but not for these personified icicles because they are my creation and that's what they long for...to be mobile water Another slant I could have taken was the exact opposite, their dripping being death, but I wanted it to be a little more of a positive poem.


I didn’t so much see the king naked, I just thought the clothes I did see didn’t match the occasion or the explanation of the occasion supplied. Short poems have an in-built flaw – the readers interpretation – unless your words spark with exact precision the pictures you’re trying to get across your original meaning tends to be diverted along paths created by the reader. Take the first version you posted in this thread:

The icicle,
frozen to its prison,
drips in tears
toward freedom.

The icicle

I picture a cold thing, constrained in a form that is natural but beyond it’s control.

frozen to its prison,

Prison evokes thoughts of wrongdoing and punishment or natural trap, and the idea that the personified icicle doesn’t want to be there.

drips in tears

Dripping is a slow process and only occurs, as far as icicles are concerned, with the intervention of an outside agency, again the icicle has no control. Tears seem to denote a sign of repentance to the outside force or further evidence that the icicle “feels sorry for itself”.

Towards freedom

Freedom is not reached it just seems a little closer, freedom is not reachable without the outside force, the icicle has no control over events including it’s freedom and the outside force still exists to imprison the icicle at will.

If the original intent was that this was to be a statement about political or ideological imprisonment I’d have to say you’ve got it absolutely right, but given the above explanation I’d be more inclined to quote a certain famous dead physicist.

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
13 posted 2002-09-09 02:22 AM


Hello,

Radrook: Thanks for your comments, I'll just say see Severns post as my response.

Sev:

Pretty good suggestion, I'll definetly add it to the list of versions. I think though if I were to go that minimal with it I'd probably leave out "from":

Icicles,
frozen prisons,
tear toward freedom.

Thanks for all your input. Much appreciated.


Mr. Toad:

"The icicle

I picture a cold thing, constrained in a form that is natural but beyond it’s control."

Yes the icicle is a cold thing and once was water. The temperature has caused the water to freeze. No the water can't control the temperature, at least not to the degree that it can cause itself to freeze. I really can't slip anything by you can I? The physical makeup of water has as much to do with it freezing as does the temperature. Can't have one without the other.

"frozen to its prison,

Prison evokes thoughts of wrongdoing and punishment or natural trap, and the idea that the personified icicle doesn’t want to be there."

There are many types of prisons, not all for wrongdoing. A job can be a prison, a marriage can be a prison, substance abuse, being frozen and stagnation can be prisons... and many other things can be a prison...not all of them bad, but not all of them wanted. And you are absolutely correct that the icicle doesn't want to be an icicle any longer.

"Dripping is a slow process and only occurs, as far as icicles are concerned, with the intervention of an outside agency, again the icicle has no control."

I don't see the relevancy of the speed of a drip nor the intervention references. Personally, I don't know anyone who has found any type of freedom without an outside force first working with them, do you(ideas, people, law systems, etc.)? And I don't know anyone who intentionally imprisons themselves either. Outside forces at work doesn't make freedom any less so I don't really know why you have brought this up as a rebuttal against that line.  A person marries because they think they are in love...they discover they are not but stay together...25yrs go by and they meet someone else, they learn to love again...and freedom is obtained by intervention from an outside force. Not once did I say that the icicle is causing itself to drip, however it is part of the dripping process. But then again, technically speaking, the physical makeup of an icicle has as much to do with it dripping as does the temperature. And honestly Toad...would the poem be better for you if it read like,

The icicle,
frozen to a prison,
the sun makes the icicle
drip in tears toward freedom.

Does the sun really have to be in there for it to make sense....did adding the fact that the sun made an icicle drip change the meaning at all for you? Did it lessen the meaning or stregthen it? Or did it just come across as redundant? Is it still the simple act of dripping creating the freedom for the icicle?


"Tears seem to denote a sign of repentance to the outside force or further evidence that the icicle “feels sorry for itself”."

People do cry out of happiness too Toad. People cry for all types of reasons...Take a marriage for instance...all them blubbering women cyring for the newlyweds

"Towards freedom

Freedom is not reached it just seems a little closer"

Again, should I spell the ending out for the reader or just give them credit.

The icicle,
frozen to its prison,
drips in tears
toward freedom
until finally it is all melted and it is water again at last and is fully free.

How's that, a little more complete for you?

"If the original intent was that this was to be a statement about political or ideological imprisonment I’d have to say you’ve got it absolutely right, but given the above explanation I’d be more inclined to quote a certain famous dead physicist."
I would say you are right with your assumptions if all prisons had bars and held only bad people who did bad things, freedom was only ever earned, never found or given and tears are shed only in sadness or remorse.  I don't see why you seem to think that prisons, freedom, and tears should only be used in relation to a "statement about political or ideological imprisonment".  You seem to have some hang ups regarding prisons, freedom, tears, intervention and the speed of drips...I'll tell ya the speed of drips....first though, you'll have to run fifty yards for me Toad as fast as you can. j/k Perhaps my mistake was referring to the act of melting as simple. Maybe I should have gone into great lengths about the physics of such?

Let me ask you some questions Toad. Can someone be imprisoned in something other than a jail and for reasons other than their political beliefs? Is the opposite of imprisonment - freedom? and if an icicle feels it is imprisoned, what would you say is freedom for that icicle?...regardless of who that icicle has been voting for. Personally I don't know why you feel that this poem has to only be about political imprisonment, when it can be about freedom found in change whether it be Mandela or an icicle.

Anyways, as usual, been good talking with ya, thanks for the discussion,

Trevor

Toad
Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161

14 posted 2002-09-09 02:06 PM



Trevor

There really isn’t any need for you to try to explain your intent or reasoning in such great detail, it isn’t going to change my original interpretation on first reading the piece, which I thought might have been some use. I actually thought that was the main reason for this forum, so that a writer could get some idea and feedback on the thoughts evoked by the reader - whether the poem ‘worked’ - with an explanation of why or why not and perhaps advice on how it could be changed.

As I said earlier I liked the poem when I first read it but my interpretation differed from your explanation, there are two possibilities, that the poem could be interpreted differently than your original intent or that it cannot and only my inferior poetic ability allows for the misinterpretation.

I can live with either one

Thanks for the chance to read and reply

Robtm1965
Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263

15 posted 2002-09-09 02:44 PM


"Short poems have an in-built flaw – the readers interpretation – unless your words spark with exact precision the pictures you’re trying to get across your original meaning tends to be diverted along paths created by the reader."

And that is a flaw!!??

This is poetry we are talking about not a technical manual for your hard drive.

Please try and make time to read this little poem:
http://www.poems.com/intro_lo.htm

Rob

PS Sorry to hi-jack your thread Trevor - please forgive.

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
16 posted 2002-09-09 05:48 PM


Hello,

MR TOAD:

"There really isn’t any need for you to try to explain your intent or reasoning in such great detail,"

Sure there is, the same reason that compells the reader to explain their interpretation. And the same reason that has brought you back to reply once more.

"it isn’t going to change my original interpretation on first reading the piece, which I thought might have been some use."

No I suppose it won't, your first interpretation is your first interpretation and you can never have it back. However it may cause you to reconsider your opinion and form different thoughts or is it best not to rethink? And your comments were of use. Don't think I'm not appreciative for you taking the time to reply. I am always grateful, even if I'm in disagreement to what has been said. Everyone's ideas and suggestions are of use and right now I'll take the time to re-thank everyone. Thank-you.

I don't think your interpretation was "wrong" up until you referred to Feynman's, "not even wrong", in reference to my content vs interpretation of my own work. Hence the long winded explanation to show what I wrote and why I did and why I think that possibly this poem works to describe what I was thinking at the time of its conception....well originally the poem didn't work but with the help of readers I think the poem is in pretty good shape and is pretty accurate as to what I'm trying to convey.

"I actually thought that was the main reason for this forum, so that a writer could get some idea and feedback on the thoughts evoked by the reader"

Yeah and???? When you say it this way it sounds like you're trying to be a spin doctor. "Oh, the nerve of Trevor to respond to Mr. Toad! Doesn't he know this is a forum for readers to respond and writers to simply accept what the reader says as true!" Do you mean to say that the writer shouldn't respond to comments made about their work and only listen to what a reader has to say? Because that is all I did, respond to your comments. This forum is to discuss people's work...hardly a discussion if only the reader has a say. Sounds like a certain Mr. Toad is trying to deflect..ping-pong anyone.

"whether the poem ‘worked’ - with an explanation of why or why not and perhaps advice on how it could be changed."

Yes of course...but what you didn't say in this latest reply was, that after my comments do you still feel that my interpretation of my own work is "not even wrong"?, is there more than just your interpretation allowed? Is mine not valid -  should I not rebute your claims?....see, I told ya you shouldn't be quoting Feynman all the time, just look at the mess we're in now...there are times to quote and times not to

In my response, if you noticed, I did incorperate the validity of your interpretation as well as my own, in no way did I say you weren't allowed to interpret my work a certain way but rather that perhaps your opinion of my interpretation was wrong..and of course with my response I had to use my poem as reference to help explain my opinion...here's a section of my reply:

"There are many types of prisons, not all for wrongdoing."

"People do cry out of happiness too Toad. People cry for all types of reasons."

"I don't see why you seem to think that prisons, freedom, and tears should only be used in relation to a "statement about political or ideological imprisonment",

and then onto:

"Personally I don't know why you feel that this poem has to only be about political imprisonment, when it can be about freedom found in change whether it be Mandela or an icicle."

I'm not refuting your interpretation, only saying that perhaps there is a larger, less narrow interpretation available...whereas by your initial response you seem to think it can only be about "political or ideological imprisonment" and anything else is "not even wrong".
"I said earlier I liked the poem when I first read it but my interpretation differed from your explanation, there are two possibilities"

Actually that is not what you said. In your response you said,

"If the original intent was that this was to be a statement about political or ideological imprisonment I’d have to say you’ve got it absolutely right, but given the above explanation I’d be more inclined to quote a certain famous dead physicist."

And the quote by Feynman being, "not even wrong". So basically what you are saying here is that my explanation of my poem seems to not match up with the content of the poem. Basically saying I am misinterpreting my work or misusing words. Now when someone tells me I'm wrong about what I've said I must do one of two things, look at the facts and also conclude that I was wrong, or present my opinion of why I don't believe I was wrong.

"that the poem could be interpreted differently than your original intent"

Again, never did I dispute your interpretation of that poem, I only presented what it means to me.

"or that it cannot and only my inferior poetic ability allows for the misinterpretation."

Well I think all of our poetic abilities allow not only for misinterpretation but also for miscommunication.

You never did answer my questions Toad.

"Can someone be imprisoned in something other than a jail and for reasons other than their political beliefs? Is the opposite of imprisonment - freedom? and if an icicle feels it is imprisoned, what would you say is freedom for that icicle?"

After answering those questions do you still feel that my interpretation is not valid and that, "I didn’t so much see the king naked, I just thought the clothes I did see didn’t match the occasion or the explanation of the occasion supplied."?

I wasn't so much defending the poem as I was my interpretation of it but of course to make my points valid I had to refer to not only your comments but the poem as well.

Well thanks again for the discussion.

ROB:

"PS Sorry to hi-jack your thread Trevor - please forgive."

No need to apologize whatsoever. More than happy to give up this thread to an important topic. Plus I've shang-hi'd enough threads to fully appreciate what you are doing. Fantastic poem by the way. Really good. I'm jealous of it, wish I had written it. Made me think long and hard about how effective or ineffective my critiques may be. I said it on another thread but I'll expand on that previous thought: I wonder if perhaps I have a narrow view of poetry and I have been working at trying to expand my scope, not so much in line with what is written about poetic techniques but rather more so what is unwritten about people and their different views on life.

And since this thread has been captured by the dread pirate Rob, please feel free to comment about how we "poets" critique poetry. I have no problem with this thread being used to discuss things other than the poem so none of you be shy now.

Thanks Rob for sharing that insightful poem.

Thanks everyone,

Trevor

Toad
Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161

17 posted 2002-09-09 06:17 PM


quote:
This is poetry we are talking about not a technical manual for your hard drive.


It doesn’t really matter which form of communication you’re talking about, if the aim is solely to get the reader to a certain point of understanding then the possibility of the natural flaw (perhaps stumbling block would be a better description) of miscommunication or misinterpretation is introduced.

Connect the hard drive to the motherboard and switch on the power
Ensuring that the case is securely fastened.

Is as open to interpretation as

quote:
When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter,
And when he cried the little children died in the street.
W. H. Auden – Epitaph on a Tyrant

If I connect the hard drive to the motherboard with string, switch on the power without plugging in the mains lead and ensure that my tool case is closed the technical instructions have failed to get me to the required point of understanding. The fact that I’m stupid may have helped but that’s just another incarnation of the stumbling block.

If Auden in the two lines of poetry above was describing Hitler I’d say he got it spot on, if Auden said the intent was to describe the weather I’d be the first to admit my poetic stupidity and offer interpretation as my only defence.

Poetry does of course differ from technical instruction in that one relies and plays on the stumbling block of natural flaws caused by interpretation while the other seeks to totally irradicate them. One forces the direction of thought while the other allows excursions based on interpretation, once the ability to interpret is removed and the fixed point of the authors intent is explained the possibility of a flaw arises and a poem can lose it’s brilliance.

This raises several questions about the involvement and importance of the author in poetry after the act of production, how much of the poem is a creation of the reader? Should every interpretation be a carbon copy of the authors’ original intent? Would it be better to read the explanation of a poem in thirteen volumes than a poem of thirteen lines, and if thirteen volumes are necessary how good was the original poem?

Trevor

“"Can someone be imprisoned in something other than a jail and for reasons other than their political beliefs? Is the opposite of imprisonment - freedom? and if an icicle feels it is imprisoned, what would you say is freedom for that icicle?"

Yes someone, including a personified icicle can be imprisoned for something other than political beliefs, yes the opposite of imprisonment is freedom and freedom for the icicle would be it’s extraction from imprisonment.

I’m still tying string to the motherboard though  

Thanks for the chance to read and reply.

[This message has been edited by Toad (09-09-2002 06:19 PM).]

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
18 posted 2002-09-09 09:12 PM


Hello all,

TOAD:

"It doesn’t really matter which form of communication you’re talking about, if the aim is solely to get the reader to a certain point of understanding then the possibility of the natural flaw (perhaps stumbling block would be a better description) of miscommunication or misinterpretation is introduced."

But where is that elusive point of understanding? For example in my poem I didn't really deal in too many specifics to try and get my idea across. It was meant to be an idea that was broad in definition and not dealing with too specific a view on freedom. I don't think it's fair to group all poetry in the ideology that all interpretations of such work must be in exact accordance to the writer's words or that the writer's words must be effectual enough to ensure that all people interpret the work the same. Take my poem again for example, you knew what I was saying, however you felt that it should only be applied to "political or ideological imprisonment", allowing for no other interpretation in your opinion. Now because of past explanations I believe this approach to be wrong, and if my response was a correct one, than can it be said that there may be more than one interpretation that differs from the writer's interpretation without it being a bad thing. I wasn't thinking of the liberation of a political prisoner when I wrote it, (more of social) but I'm glad that it made you think of such, and I do think that my description of an icicle's freedom does suit your interpretation while still allowing for mine. If my intent was to specifically describe the liberation of a person imprisoned by their life then I would have included references and descriptions to help narrow a person's interpretation. Your views may not be spot on to what I intended with the poem but it definetly doesn't make your interpretation any less meaningful. Sometimes, from a poetic perspective, it may be enough that a person forms a similar idea rather than specifics of that idea. For us to all form complete specific interpretations we would all have to think and write exactly the same...and how much fun would that be?

"If Auden in the two lines of poetry above was describing Hitler I’d say he got it spot on, if Auden said the intent was to describe the weather I’d be the first to admit my poetic stupidity and offer interpretation as my only defence."

I don't think it fair to just take a snippet from a poem and treat it as an example of interpreting the poem as a whole.  The writer does not give much specifics of who is the tyrant in those two lines other than a reference to "senators". And unless he alludes to senators being something other than senators then we should assume he is speaking of senators or their various counterparts and draw our interpretation from the information given. Although I have not read the poem, I'm guessing that within the poem there are enough descriptions, metaphors and poetic device to allude to a more specific meaning to what the author is speaking about. However if those two lines were the whole poem, then I think it would be fair if there are numerous interpretations. We can get into more detail about language in relation to thought to futher the discussion. If I were to say "fruit" and you thought of an apple, then this would be somewhat effective communication. If I said "apple" and you thought of an edible red spherical fruit that grows on trees, this too I believe would be effective communication. However if I said "an apple is fruit" and you thought of a spaceship then there is something wrong with your interpretation. But if I said "apple" and you thought fruit but I wanted you to think of a space ship then I think there is something wrong with my communication skills. It would be Auden the foolish to think those two lines should inspire thought about weather just as it would probably be foolish to think that his words could only be applied to Hitler.

"Poetry does of course differ from technical instruction in that one relies and plays on the stumbling block of natural flaws caused by interpretation"

Well if poetry plays on interpretation then couldn't it be said that occasionally this is not a flaw? If it is a poetic tool? Especially if the writer is allowing for varying degrees of interpretation...take your Auden snippet...I'm sure he wouldn't mind if people thought of a person other than Hitler after reading the poem. In fact I'm sure he would be happy if it inspired someone to think of general oppresion in relation to human nature rather than simply a political tyrant...I shouldn't speak for him but I did anyways.  

"while the other seeks to totally irradicate them."

Which is an impossibility; we all view the world differently because we all have somewhat different experiences to make up who we are and define the language we use to express this. Therefor it must be accepted that there will always be to some degree, different interpretations.

"One forces the direction of thought while the other allows excursions based on interpretation,"

Thought can't really be forced...only guided along. Here's my analogy, as a writer, if I tell a story about me driving through some town then - I don't care if you take the same car as me as long as it acts and looks similar to how I describe it. I don't care what street you drive on as long as its called Elm, has a tall pine on the Robertson's lawn and at least one house with a white picket fence. I don't care what Bill the drunk looks like on the corner of Elm St. as long as he has a large red nose, old brown trench coat, cleft lip and smells of pee....basically unless your Dickens getting paid per word, or James Joyce or Joesph Conrad, then as a writer, most don't care that you don't see exactly what the writer sees but only that you get the basic picture. It would be a boring read if a writer were to try and get you to see the world exactly as how they see it. I can't force you to drive the exact same car only try and guide you into a car that's similar.

"once the ability to interpret is removed and the fixed point of the authors intent is explained the possibility of a flaw arises and a poem can lose it’s brilliance."

I agree with you to some extent but I think you're example with Auden wanting the reader to think of weather is extreme and should be viewed as such. Take "Melt" as an example, I wanted the reader to think of freedom happening through change, though I don't think the poem to be brilliant, I do feel that my explanation allows for a lot of leeway for interpretation. Now if I wanted you to think of spaceships with my poem and explained it as that, but you thought of freedom, then of course now it is most definetly apparent through my explanation that my poem is flawed in relation to my intent. Though I still wouldn't consider that poem a failure because now I'd be aware of how to get people to think of freedom.

"This raises several questions about the involvement and importance of the author in poetry after the act of production, how much of the poem is a creation of the reader?"

I would say 50 - 50. You have to take into consideration how one's work will be interpreted while writing for an audience and accept that the town you just described will never be the same one seen by those you described it to. That's how writing is able to relate to so many people of varying bakcgrounds, it is specific enough to paint a certain picture while still allowing that picture to be incorperated into the reader's life experiences.  Take for instance me describing to you the bird the "Hurlyknot", I know you haven't seen this bird because it is only found in one place on earth. I can't very well just say "Hurlyknot" to describe it for if I did you would probably paint a picture that is far from how I want you to see it. But if I were to say it has long red tail, dark black beak, long legs that are about two feet high..etc,ect. Then you would get the general impression of what the bird looks like even though the author knows for certain that you will never truly know exactly how it looks because the bird can only found in the author's head. Yet this would be as about effective a picture I could possibly paint without drawing a picture or inventing a smell, etc, etc. So basically I'm stating that my opinion is that the reader and author are both responsible for the picture...the author for inspiration and the reader for interpretation.

"This raises several questions about the involvement and importance of the author in poetry after the act of production"

How important is the involvement of the reader in poetry? Look at the first version of "Melt", without reader participation it wouldn't have improved. I think the better the reader and writer are, the less interference is needed from both. Sometimes good work is poorly interpreted and other times its poor work that can't be interpreted....and on that special occasion both see pretty much the same thing.

"Should every interpretation be a carbon copy of the authors’ original intent?"

Again I believe this to be impossible...at least while we all have "free" minds.

"Would it be better to read the explanation of a poem in thirteen volumes than a poem of thirteen lines, and if thirteen volumes are necessary how good was the original poem?"

Shakespeare has far more than thirteen volumes explaining thirteen of his lines and many of them slightly different interpretations. How good of a writer was he?

Well, that's all I have in the old gas tank for know. Thanks for the comments, and although they were directed towards Rob I felt inspired by you....and although that may not have been your intent I still feel that replying is a good thing  

Thanks,

Mr. Hurlyknot


PS "yes the opposite of imprisonment is freedom and freedom for the icicle would be it’s extraction from imprisonment."

Your use of "extraction"...is that one of you's city folk's term for "drip" or "crack" or "fall" or "melt"? Or were you simply trying to say the opposite of imprisonment is freedom and freedom for an icicle would be it not being imprisoned....well with side-stepping redundant jargon like that you have my vote for any office. Or simply put, was it another "big-word day" on the Toad-ay Show - Well I guess that's what I get for asking a rhetorical question...sorry I couldn't resist the quip, I'm only horsing around with that last comment and I would put a smiley face in there but I'm afraid PIP will delete the post if I have too many images.

Thanks again,

Trevor




[This message has been edited by Trevor (09-09-2002 11:04 PM).]

Robtm1965
Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263

19 posted 2002-09-10 05:22 PM


Toad

I interpreted your original post as, inter alia, suggesting that lack of precision of language in a poem might lead to the reader travelling down a path other than that the poet “intended”.  Perhaps I did you a slight injustice in that I maybe should have explained that I am certainly not condoning “sloppy” writing on the basis that it doesn’t matter because the reader will have wider scope for interpretation.   Perhaps what I should have said is that poets should use language deliberately to create something that is “an experience”, and sure, that is a form of precision.  And maybe it could also be said that the better crafted the poem, the better experience the reader is likely to have.  None of this takes away from my central point however which was that reader participation (be it 50:50,  20:80 or whatever) and reader interpretation is “part of” a poem.  There is of course no such thing as an “invalid” interpretation - there can’t be, because each reader brings to the words on the page and the sounds he hears a unique interaction based on his or her own life experiences, culture, political persuasion, education etc etc.  

All of which may be somewhat irrelevant to the ongoing discussion as I see from your several paragraphs or rather convoluted analogy that you are effectively agreeing that, to use your words, “excursions based on interpretation” are a good thing.  

However, and it is a BIG however, I worry about your opening statement:

“It doesn’’t really matter which form of communication you’’re talking about, if the aim is solely to get the reader to a certain point of understanding then the possibility of the natural flaw (perhaps stumbling block would be a better description) of miscommunication or misinterpretation is introduced.”

Surely getting “the reader to a certain point of understanding” is very low indeed on the list of what is important when writing poetry.  In fact I might go so far as to say that it is positively NOT what a poet should be striving to do.  Misinterpretation is an irrelevancy here.  (Although now I mention misinterpretation I am really not at all clear as to how you distinguish between a “natural flaw” and a “flaw”?).  

Poetry is not really primarily about conveying meaning - in fact one of the better ways to look at the difference between poetry and prose is to avoid the interminable discussions about the importance of line breaks, emotion, or the frequency of recurrence of certain literary devices, and look at what prose and poetry do.  Basil Bunting puts it succinctly: “Poetry, like music, is to be heard” he wrote, believing that without the sound, readers would look at the lines of a poem as they look at prose, “seeking a meaning.  Prose exists to convey meaning, and no meaning such as prose conveys can be expressed as well in poetry.  That is not poetry’s business.”

Ok, there is more imo to contemporary poetry that simply sound.  There are a whole range of options available to the poet to enable to him or her to compose a piece, but if a “poet” sets out with the intention of trying to put across a “certain point of understanding” then he or she will certainly fail to write a good contemporary poem.
  
Poetry should open possibilities for a reader not close down horizons by “telling” a reader what to think, or by means of some formulaic approach lead a reader down a precise and narrow path.

The last word to David Constantine:

“It is a widening of consciousness, an extension of humanity.  We sense an ideal version when we read, and with it we arm ourselves, to quarrel with reality.”

Regards

Rob  

[This message has been edited by Robtm1965 (09-10-2002 05:32 PM).]

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
20 posted 2002-09-11 11:47 AM


Okay, I only read half of this thread.

'The icicle,
frozen to its prison,
drips in tears
toward freedom.'

Initially, I'm lukewarm to this. Nothing really stood out to me.

After reading it a couple more times, I found myself questioning 'frozen to its prison.' Is the icicles prison a gutter, or whatever it is frozen to? Or, rather, is it frozen to itself, and that is the prison? I'd lean toward the latter.

I liked

'The icicle
loosens its grip
spears the plowed
freedom is
simplicity'

much, much more. Only problem is, spears the plowed what? Street? I really only see it shattering in that case. Plowed snow, as in a pile of plowed snow at the side of a road? That makes more sense.

I also like Severn's re-work quite a bit.

'Icicles,
from frozen prisons,
tear toward freedom.'

The frozen prisons bit here makes more sense, because they are the frozen prison. I also like the double-entendre of 'tear' here.

Now... I didn't read all of the Trevor/Toad standoff, but... I do feel compelled to add my two cents anyway.

Toad said:

'Dripping is a slow process and only occurs, as far as icicles are concerned, with the intervention of an outside agency, again the icicle has no control.'

Trevor replied (in part):

'Personally, I don't know anyone who has found any type of freedom without an outside force first working with them, do you(ideas, people, law systems, etc.)?'

The difference between people and inanimate objects is that we can interact with our environments. An icicle can't escape a rise in temperature. It's pretty much doomed. As humans, we have the element of free will on our sides- if temperatures above 32 degrees F melted us, it would be a simple matter to hang out in a freezer for a while. But an icicle can't do that. To use this as an accurate comparison and personification, what you're really saying is that people are subjects of fate, and, uh temperatuer... in other words, that we are, essentially, uninvolved in whether or not we are free, that it's up to outside forces.

I've run out of time here right now, but I'll be back to this later. Hope I've helped.

I did not design this game, I did not name the stakes
I just happen to like apples, and I am not afraid of snakes.

-Ani DiFranco, "Adam and Eve"

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
21 posted 2002-09-11 08:43 PM


Hello,


ROB:

Nice reply and I agree with a lot of what you said but...

"but if a “poet” sets out with the intention of trying to put across a “certain point of understanding” then he or she will certainly fail to write a good contemporary poem."

I have to disagree with you here. Just as Toad has seemed to take a hard right, you seem to be taking a sharp left. I'll cite the poem by Billy Collins as my example. It is contemporary and I would say it is a well written poem too. I also believe that Billy wanted to get a certain point across with this poem, I believe it was his intention to have the reader understand his opinion on reading poetry. I believe he did a good job in that and I'm sure I'm not the only one who understood what he was trying to convey. I may not have seen all his images the way he wanted and some of his words will most certainly differ in meaning than what he intended, but on a whole, the poem does give us understanding. Therefore he did reach a certain point of understanding with his readers, intentionally I believe. How close it is too what he wanted is not known because it varies from reader to reader, but on the whole I'd say he would consider the poem's intention was successfully understood by his readers. Also, referring back to the quote that started my post. I don't think it fair to try and set such a constrictive guideline on how good contemporary poetry can or can not be written.

I'm guessing though, in that snippet that I cut out you probably meant to put in "solely" somewhere in there. If this is the case, then there may be validity to your statement...but I'll still argue with ya if you want

Thanks for your interesting post.

Trev

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
22 posted 2002-09-11 09:40 PM


Hello,

HUSH:

"To use this as an accurate comparison and personification, what you're really saying is that people are subjects of fate, and, uh temperatuer... in other words, that we are, essentially, uninvolved in whether or not we are free, that it's up to outside forces."

Yes Hush, the poem must be really saying all that for it to be an accurate comparison and personification. Forget what I derive from it or what the personification means to others. All other interpretations are inaccurate.

What I'm really saying is:

"The icicle,
frozen to its prison,
drips in tears
toward freedom."...and variations thereof.

which means to me that freedom is sometimes found in simple change....and what it means to you is in your reply. Which I thought was great and very interesting until you told me how I, or anyone was supposed to accurately interpret my work. I know your derivative of my work can be reached through my statement of "simple changes often equate to freedom", a lot of things can, hell I can probably reach a thousand different points through that statement.... and I don't dispute your interpretation, it is most definetly valid at least until the above quote, because all I've said and all you've said is highly debatable. I don't think its fair to pigeon hold this or any other poem solely based on what it means to you. There are many derivatives of the truth and oddly enough if one tries hard enough they can all be connected and validated to some extent. I could easily have said, after connecting certain dots, the poem is my way of describing the beginning of creation.

It seems there is some effort being put forth trying to dispute that I have a right to a valid interpretation of my own work. I know other depths and thoughts can be reached through the poem, through my interpretation and through other people's interpretations, so why does there have to only be one, your one? I'm not disputing anyone's claims because that is what those words mean to them. I could very well do so just by saying that no one but myself can interpret it properly because the language I use is solely reflective and 100% accurate of my world, and my world alone, and is lost to the reader through their variances of individual experiences and use of language. How can you dispute that? But that's not how I feel, a poem means something different to everyone and the wrong way to view expressed words is to think they should only carry one meaning to everyone.


Try and think of poetry as a grenade....it doesn't have to land on an exact target to be effective and it doesn't always hit only one thing.

Anyways, sorry to sound bitter, just a bit tired of defending the fact that I have an interpretation of my work just like everyone else and that there is room for all of them, well almost all.... I'll be pissed if Toad says this poem is about Feynman trying to make snow angels with Auden and Hitler and the result is them being "not even wrong".

Thanks for your comments,

Trevor


Robtm1965
Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263

23 posted 2002-09-12 05:31 AM


Trevor

You are right, "solely" would be good.   Also you need to bear in mind that I was replying to a particular comment and a particular point of view, and thus maybe trying to ram home a point too hard by going, as you say, to the other extreme.  Of course there are always exceptions.  I suppose for instance that pure narrative poetry doesn't necessarily meet my idea of what is "good".  

And you have a point about the Collins poem, although I of course read it as a suggestion for tackling life in general rather than just a way of reading poems!  I did really!

Thanks again.

Rob

[This message has been edited by Robtm1965 (09-12-2002 05:32 AM).]

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
24 posted 2002-09-12 09:39 AM


Hi Rob,

"And you have a point about the Collins poem, although I of course read it as a suggestion for tackling life in general rather than just a way of reading poems!  I did really!"

Well your wrong! Kidding of course, I just wanted to reiterate the idea of multiple interpretations and add one more little thought. Not only does it seem that readers will interpret poetry differently because of past experiences, I also believe that interpretation is also based on what a person is going through at the time...not just in poetry but writing in general. I was thinking along the lines of my response to Hush. If I hadn't just finished a debate with Toad (where'd he go BTW?) then I probably wouldn't have interpreted her words the way I had. Just thought it kinda of interesting that not only did her words inspire me to respond the way I did but someone else's as well. Anyways, just thought I would throw that out into the air.

Thanks for the interesting discussion,

Trevor

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
25 posted 2002-09-12 11:39 AM


I wasn't trying to say that the interpretation I happenned to agree with Toad on was the only interpretation, don't get me wrong... I was only expressing that after reading that comment and looking back at the poem, I agree with him. Maybe a few "I think's" put back in my comment would have helped, but I thought it was understood that when we critique poetry it's only one person's opinion?

Anyway, I thought the whole thing was more on the philosophy side than the poetry side anyway- that is, having accepted your poem as a statement, debating the statement's nature based on personal interpretations thereof- and maybe that's not what someone's looking for in a critique forum, and maybe you said as much in one of the replies I didn't read, so maybe that was an error on my part. Sorry if I ticked you off...

-Amy

I did not design this game, I did not name the stakes
I just happen to like apples, and I am not afraid of snakes.

-Ani DiFranco, "Adam and Eve"

[This message has been edited by hush (09-12-2002 11:40 AM).]

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
26 posted 2002-09-12 02:55 PM


Hiya Amy,

"Maybe a few "I think's" put back in my comment would have helped, but I thought it was understood that when we critique poetry it's only one person's opinion?"

It usually is, guess I was just a bit sensitive after playing tug-o-war with Toad. Everyone's opinion is valid...I guess even Toad's opinion that there should only be one interpretation has some merit...its all debatable, all gray lines, hence the posts regarding it. I guess it was your wording that struck a nerve...

"To use this as an accurate comparison..."

Which kinda rings very familiar to "for this to be accurate"...

I think I interpreted it a little too harshly and I'm sorry if I seemed to get up in arms over your words or if any of my comments insulted you. No need for you to apologize, I think I'm in the wrong here, so again, please accept my apologies for getting in a bit of a huff.

Thanks,

Trevor  

Robtm1965
Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263

27 posted 2002-09-12 03:58 PM


"...I guess even Toad's opinion that there should only be one interpretation has some merit"

Nah! ... ~Rob in a huff~

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
28 posted 2002-09-12 04:35 PM


....even if that merit is the discussion that followed?

I'm trying to let go of my anger Rob, don't encourage me or my mind will race and I'll never get any sleep. Ug, I think this place is giving me an ulcer

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
29 posted 2002-09-12 06:19 PM


Nope- not insulted, I just felt kinda bad... I have this tendency, like, to speak in a way that exudes pretense- I don't think I know everything, but I've been told I can be a bit on the high-handed side... I think that's just my personal philosophy that there should be no 'h' in 'IMHO.' So... people who view humility as a virtue that talk to people, such as myself, who consider it a vice, probably think I am terribly arrogant and snooty- I'm not... or, uh, I don't think I am. I hope not, at least...

Anyway, lost track of what I was saying... I'm doing that a lot lately... so, anyway, I guess I'm just sort of saying let's not worry about it... heh heh let's all get back to happy poetry land where we all agree about everything always.

I did not design this game, I did not name the stakes
I just happen to like apples, and I am not afraid of snakes.

-Ani DiFranco, "Adam and Eve"

Toad
Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161

30 posted 2002-09-12 06:45 PM



Hello

Sorry I went AWOL, I had to make a last minute unscheduled trip to Cambridge.

quote:
I guess even Toad's opinion that there should only be one interpretation has some merit


I never said that there should be only one interpretation, in fact I believe the exact opposite, that the main attraction of poetry is the fact that the interpretation of the reader is perhaps THE most important part.

Let me try and clarify, I posted this in reply to the original thread after Trevor had posted his explanation of what he was trying to say in the poem:

“I thought the original and the subsequent revisions worked brilliantly right up to the point where you gave your explanation.”

And

“I didn’t so much see the king naked, I just thought the clothes I did see didn’t match the occasion or the explanation of the occasion supplied.”

The point I was trying (and failing) to make was that Trevor’s intention as the author introduced the possibility of misinterpretation (the flaw). If Trevor hadn’t explained the intent, which differed from my interpretation, no such possibility could have existed. I’d be merrily thinking it was a sad lament on the inability to obtain absolute freedom. Trevor would be thinking that it was a succinct description of an escape to freedom and some Physics  freak in Uzbekistan would probably be thinking we were both nuts and ‘not even wrong’.

Trevor

You will be happy to learn that this is Toads last post, so while I’m still here I’d like to wish you good luck with any re-writes and thank you for the chance to read and reply.

bsquirrel
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-01-03
Posts 7855

31 posted 2002-09-12 07:16 PM


You need to make this two stanzas,
just to include the bit about spearing a plow.
That's too good
to destroy.

Mike

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
32 posted 2002-09-12 11:07 PM


Hello all,

" heh heh let's all get back to happy poetry land where we all agree about everything always."

Now what fun would that be? I think we learned a lot from this thread...we learned that Terrible Mr. Toad is not all that terrible or terror-fying , we learned that Amy is likes to ride on Mr. Toad's fantasy ride , we learned that Rod is as huffy as Trevor and we learned that Trevor sometimes feels guilty for being right all the time

But thanks for your words Amy, I'll try not to kick and scream so hard next time you try to inject some of your opinions...I'd put a smiley in there but I've used up my limit already.

MR TOAD:

Glad you could join us.

"The point I was trying (and failing) to make was that Trevor’s intention as the author introduced the possibility of misinterpretation (the flaw)"

But how can there be misinterpretation if the author is open to the fact that a reader may not see the poem in the exact way that he does. If the author feels there is a great leeway for interpretation and accepts the variables that a reader's experiences will bring to interpretation, then in fact how flawed a thing is it? For me, right now...before my mind changes, for there to be misinterpretation of something then it has to be more to the extreme as illustrated in some of our examples. So perhaps, your right - explaination does open the door for misinterpretations in comparison to the authors intent, but misinterpretations are the extreme or non-linear views towards a poem. I guess too if we wanted we could argue semantics in that misinterpretation is not always misinterpretation even though it is sometimes referred to as such when the intent of the writer is to only take a reader to a similar area rather than specific...I dunno, my mind is starting to do cartwheels and my ass is getting numb from sitting behind the computer.

"Trevor would be thinking that it was a succinct description of an escape to freedom and some Physics  freak in Uzbekistan would probably be thinking we were both nuts and ‘not even wrong’."

How'd I know you'd work Feynman in there some how.

" You will be happy to learn that this is Toads last post, so while I’m still here I’d like to wish you good luck with any re-writes and thank you for the chance to read and reply."

You'd be surprised to know that it doesn't make me happy, who else will let me so graciously tie them to the whipping post and flog till my heart's content?...like I've said to Amy, I'd put some smileys in there but I've used my limit.

I really have enjoyed our discussion on this thread and I thank you and everyone else for participating. And don't get me wrong, I don't think I'm right about this...(that's my disclaimer in case of the fluke chance I'm actually wrong)j/k,... I think like most things there is a lot of middle ground for opinions to share. It is funny, the more I seem to learn, the more confused I get...sure I can add and subtract better and now I occasionally remember to put the cap back on the toothpaste but it really hasn't made life any easier. In fact just the opposite...but that truly is the fun part of life...I mean no one buys a jigsaw puzzel that's already put together.  

Anyways, if ya don't respond back that's cool with me, I know you said it was your last post here...I hope you mean this thread and not PIP in general...those lashes couldn't have hurt that much.j/k. Thanks for the well wishes and I hope to have the chance to prattle with ya again and read some more of your work.

Trevor

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
33 posted 2002-09-12 11:09 PM


Hi Mike,

Glad to see you could put down the chicken long enough to post something ...ahhh, do you mind...you're smudging the page a bit...go wipe your hands

Well I have literally a dozen versions of this one poem now. It's been great watching it evolve with the help of everyone.

Anywho, thanks for the words Mike,

Trevor

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
34 posted 2002-09-13 12:25 PM


Trev:

Long thread and limited time.  More than likely I'll be rehashing old stuff ... but here goes.

(1) The icicle is rooted to its prison, (2) it slowly melts toward "freedom" and (3) will likely fall at some point in the future when it will finally be "free" ... soooooo ... what is worse: imprisonment (being rooted in a place of relative safety) or freedom (becoming so much crushed ice on the sidewalk of self-determination)?

Jim

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
35 posted 2002-09-13 01:07 PM


Hiya Jim,

Glad to see you're still kicking

Heavy thoughts my friend. Makes me think of another rewrite.

"what is worse: imprisonment (being rooted in a place of relative safety) or freedom (becoming so much crushed ice on the sidewalk of self-determination)?"

I guess it depends on the imprisonment, on the freedom and the feeling towards it. Consequence vs action. From an icicles point of view, it is enevitable that it will become water - just as it is enevitable that humans will die, but it would have to weigh the consequence of its demise against the consequences of its "imprisonment". Maybe all freedom is - is having more than one choice? I guess we are all slaves to some degree to some natural factor in our existence but we often get to choose our owner...ie We have to eat, but we can decide what to eat. We need shelter but can choose where to live and what to live in (to some degree). We need sleep and can decide when to and where to do so. We need sex and can decide who to have sex with. We need water but have some choice in the manner that our body extracts it (juices, coffee, tea etc.) Oxyegen...ohhh, it is our owner regardless of what we want...well I guess we can breath it from a canister if we want. But then for all of this we have to take in influence upon our choices...life experience, advertising, peer pressure, genetics, addictions etc. What am I saying...I have no clue anymore what I was trying to get at. Oh yeah, about choosing our master...maybe it boils down to, do you want to be ruled by that which imprison's you to life or that which imprison's you from life? Unless of course you are a Bhuddist then the only master is change and the rest is all somewhat a bonus to experience. Actually I guess any religion is like that, where the master is a god and all things revolve around it regardless of its nature. I think that your question is limited to an individual even when used in the context of a whole society. For considering the seriousness of the question and possible repercussions of the decision, it should, as best as one can, be decided by oneself. I think what keeps humans grounded from always making the choice of the great leap is our forethought and realization of change. We know we may be an icicle, but we also know that we won't always be such. And we also know that each teary drip of change can bring about something entirely new, can bring to light a new master which we will want to serve that is better than the old master and their is always the possibility for us to find that one particular master which brings us great joy to be controlled by. Well, like always, just kind thinking aloud. It's all debatable though any other opinion is wrong

Thanks Jim,

Trevor

Robtm1965
Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263

36 posted 2002-09-13 04:26 PM


Trevor

What are you on?

Rob

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
37 posted 2002-09-13 06:11 PM


Nothing that I'm addicted to. Hey, I like going off on tangents, sometimes I like writing them out or speak them aloud...sometimes I just keep them to myself. Today I was playing around with thoughts inspired by Jim's posting and decided to write them out. Master's - owner's, not to be taken literally. Influence, environment and needs. Just trying to say that to some large extent we are ruled by natural forces and influence in relation to needs and we can either choose how to deal with such or pack it all in early.

And yourself, what are you on...is it GIN that makes you so cranky?

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
38 posted 2002-09-13 09:11 PM


Well, I don't dip my toe in CA often enough, and almost never post when I do, but …

First, the poem. Of all the versions available, I like the first posted the best. While I agree "The" is less than ideal, it's still more specific than the general pluralistic form, and I really couldn't think of anything that would be more ideal and not also change the meaning. Of course, if you let me change the meaning just a little … (and I will in a moment, so I sure hope your head is nodding).

I'm also going to run against the current and say that "drip" is unbelievably perfect in this poem. Not only do I think it creates a much stronger image than weep or tear (as a verb), but I feel the incongruity of the phrase "drips tears" (I agree, the preposition is unnecessary) is the fulcrum from which simple observation tips toward poetic insight. Personification is easy. Clever personification gets my attention.

While I'm not normally into minimalism, I think this image cries for either even more crunching or, perhaps, different elaboration. Specifically, I'm not thrilled with the second line. I've never seen an icicle that wasn't frozen and I think "its prison" is vague, ambiguous and - with just a few breaths of verse remaining - somewhat unnecessary. Unless the word's purpose is foreshadowing (difficult in four lines?), I think a move "toward freedom" implies it is away from a prison. In short, I think the whole second line is unnecessary.

Blue icicle
drips tears
to freedom.


Blue is more concrete than "The," but obviously also changes the image. Maybe you wanted the icicle to remain generic? I also changed "toward" to "to," partially because it seems to flow better, but mostly because "toward" is one of those distracting words I think best avoided. Too many readers will inevitably stop at that word and wonder if it should be "toward" or "towards," moving their attention from where it should be. Some words, I think, are intrusive that way.

Honestly, even though I dislike "frozen to its prison" as unnecessary and vague, I do prefer the flow with the dependent clause there. That's why I suggested a "different elaboration" might work.

Blue icicle,
in staccato sacrifice,
drips tears
to freedom.


Oops. Didn't mean to write a different poem for you, Trevor. Please consider that second line just an example of  suggested direction? I'm sure you can come up with a "different elaboration" more suitable to your intent (and more poetic, too). Or just stick with the original.

Finally, I'd like to add my two cents to the issue of interpretation.

My own views are much closer to Toad's, in that I believe a poem IS the same as a technical manual for your hard drive. If creative words, whether prose or poetry, are to communicate, then the very first job the writer must face is deciding what he wants to communicate. That's not just the first job, either. It's the most important job and, IMO, determines both the success and worth of all that follows.

To use Trevor's example, if I say "fruit" and you think "apple," that's fine as long I don't care what fruit you see in your head. I have decided to communicate fruitiness and, for my purposes, it doesn't matter which fruit you see. But if my purpose demands you see an edible read spherical fruit that grows on trees in your head, I would be a fool to simply say "fruit." I need to say apple. Should it be a fresh, glistening apple just begging to be bitten, an already bitten apple with tinges of oxygenated brown, or perhaps a hard, golden apple of mythic legend? Maybe it doesn't matter? All of that will depend, entirely and completely, on my purpose and what I'm trying to communicate.

That's why I said deciding what I want to communicate is the most important job I face as a writer. It doesn't matter if I'm telling you how to hook up your hard drive, trying to provide insight into freedom, or simply trying to evoke a remembered feeling, the words I choose MUST follow my purpose. Does that mean that anything written without explicit and detailed purpose is meaningless? No, there's some waffle room, and I'm going to be wiggling in it very shortly.

I want you to think of an apple. I say the word fruit. You, in turn, think of a banana. Your interpretation is certainly valid, and you might even get a great deal of pleasure and insight out of my communication, but I have nonetheless failed miserably as a writer. I allowed my choice of words to thwart my purpose. Even if my poem is a success, my purpose is a failure. You didn't think of an apple.

Ready for the waffle room? The poetic partnership is not 50-50 as has been suggested. It is, rather, more like 25-25-25-25, because the writer and the reader participate at both a conscious and unconscious level. Many writers, I think, write without a specific and detailed purpose, at an almost unconscious level, but at some point go back and attach some meaning to their words. The mistake that bad writers make is stopping there and assuming that everyone else will see that meaning. Good writers, having now found their purpose, will rework their words to better convey the meaning they have found. Ironically, the truly great writers may not discover their purpose until a reader tells them about it. The unconscious can, for those rare few, be a glorious tool. But those exceptions only prove the rule, and the more specific a writer is in defining his purpose for writing, the more likely it is he can avoid misinterpretation.

How?

We've all heard the advice that detail is important in creative writing. We shouldn't say "tree," but instead should say "oak," because it is the detail upon which the reader can hang their hat. But how much detail is enough detail? I have a pin oak in my back yard, the kind that retains its dead, dried leaves throughout the winter, tall enough to provide a wind break but far too short for to hold an adequate swing, with knurled limbs that often meet at impossible angles and protect small wooden pimples that I know hold dormant worms ready to strike next Spring … and I probably could go on for another two thousand words. Too little detail communicates nothing. Too much detail is distracting. The line between the two is drawn where the writer has found his purpose.

After the writer has decided on his purpose, his next job is to provide EXACTLY the details necessary to meet that purpose. It's important to realize, the writer can't do that without a specific and well-defined purpose. Differences in interpretation are largely a result of providing either the wrong details or, very very often, too much detail. If I want you to think apple, I can't say fruit. But if I introduce you to a fruit bearing tree in order to get you to think about an apple, I damn well better have a reason beyond it being a necessary prop. That tree is opening the door for distraction and a misinterpretation of my all important apple. A good writer knows this and will either eliminate the tree or, failing that, spend five words describing the tree and 50 describing the apples. And even that leaves the door open a crack. There is no room in a poem or short story, and very little in a novel, for anything that doesn't directly serve the writer's purpose.

Purpose dictates detail. Detail "should" dictate interpretation. And if you see some more waffle room coming up because of those quotation marks, you're absolutely right.

There's still that awkward, and largely uncontrollable, 25 percent of the equation we haven't met yet. The reader is also participating at an unconscious level and even the most perfect details can still be misconstrued. If I say apple and you think of a woman who talks to serpents, my purpose likely just took a mortal blow. The only answer for any writer, unfortunately, is to read widely enough to understand the most common symbolic traps and, much more difficult, have a good grasp of human nature and the directions the mind wants to follow. The better writers, I think, understand this, and even they will inevitably be misinterpreted by someone.

I'm not quite out of waffle room yet, because I still have to admit that a writer's purpose is rarely as simple I might have suggested. We seldom have a single definitive purpose, and the more layers we weave, the more difficult it becomes to avoid misinterpretation. That just comes back to level of skill, of course, and being able to juggle more balls, but the progression of difficulty isn't necessarily linear. Juggling two purposes is more than twice as hard as one, and juggling three is maybe a thousand times harder than two. Each purpose introduced new details, but those details don't stand in separate corners while the reader is reading. They intermingle geometrically.

Mmm. I think I just remembered why I stay out of CA. You guys make me think too much and work too hard.

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
39 posted 2002-09-14 12:28 PM


Hiya Ron,

Thanks for taking the time to comment on the poem.

"Specifically, I'm not thrilled with the second line. I've never seen an icicle that wasn't frozen and I think "its prison" is vague"

Well I have a glass of water in front of me that is screaming "My last job was an icicle"     I liked the vagueness of "its prison". I've seen icicles hang from the strangest of things...a moustache for example...and maybe you're right then about, how necessary is it?

"Blue is more concrete than "The," but obviously also changes the image. Maybe you wanted the icicle to remain generic?"

I was going for a more generic approach to the icicle and personally if I were to give more life to it, I think the icicle would lose its appeal, at least to me, in the sense it would now be more about one icicle's plight rather than icicles in general.

"but mostly because "toward" is one of those distracting words I think best avoided. Too many readers will inevitably stop at that word and wonder if it should be "toward" or "towards,"

Too funny, ...don't think I didn't stop while writing it to have the same conversation with myself     Nice insight, thanks.


Blue icicle,
in staccato sacrifice,
drips tears
to freedom.

Oops. Didn't mean to write a different poem for you, Trevor."

Please, no apologies needed. I know you're only playing around with it. I'm not big on "sacrafice", seems to much to lend itself to martyrdom.  But I like "staccato"...or how about "Frozen stilleto"...this made me think about leading off with something other than blurting out the subject, perhaps something to do more with the nature of its formation.

Frozen stilleto
of prison water
drips a tear
to freedom.

I'm also thinking now that "prison" does lend itself well to the poem in the sense that perhaps it gives freedom more impact.  Any thoughts on version #3112?    

"Finally, I'd like to add my two cents to the issue of interpretation."

How'd I know that was coming?    

I'll respond to what you said a little bit later, but thanks so much for taking a look at the poem and offering a lot of insight. Always appreciated,

Trevor

[This message has been edited by Trevor (09-14-2002 12:36 AM).]

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
40 posted 2002-09-14 02:45 AM


Hi Ron,

I think we all are somewhat in agreement here or at least not far off from each other. Where I disagreed with Toad is in, where lies the point of understanding necessary for a piece to be successful?, and how important is it for the reader to be in total sync with the writer? I think it varies from idea to idea based on the intention of the piece as a whole and sometimes becomes less or more important when looking at singular words in relation to the intent. With "Melt", it wasn't my intention to have the reader arrive solely at "simple changes often equate to freedom" but I was trying to communicate the idea of freedom...and of course with it being a minimalist piece the reader is forced to do a lot of the leg-work, and if they so choose, uncover different levels of meaning. Which in turn equates to many variations of interpretation. But all interpretations seemed to somewhat revolve around the basic idea of freedom and its derivatives, therefore I think the poem was successful on whole, rather than it being flawed writing or flawed reading because of mild variations of interpretation(which was Toad's arguement). And if this is so then I also agree with Rob in the sense that misinterpretation isn't really a "flaw" because it is a natural occurance and is what brings familiarity to a piece. Familiarity is a good thing in writing because it allows a reader to bring a large part of themself into any well written piece. And that is the appeal of reading, the really great writers make you feel as if they had you in mind while they wrote. I think the "flaw" is the bridge between writer and reader. I think any thoughtful writer allows for individual interpretation thereby causing a unique rendition of a single piece for every reader. Like you said,

"Too much detail is distracting.",

and no matter how hard a writer tries, they will never be able to squeeze the reader into absolute understanding and if they do try, they will most certainly drown the reader in words.

I liked your analogy of "25-25-25-25" and thoughts that followed. I think it really helps illustrate how important the reader-writer relationship is, which is often a great big hurdle for us amateurs to leap over. I think a lot of us are afraid to compromise feeling that it lessens the work or cheapens its individualism. And to some extent I think it does, I'll cite Hollywood Entertainment as my example. However, it might be a good idea for a writer to go both hard left and hard right occasionally to discover the width of their road, so to speak.

Anyways, interesting discussion, and as always it was a pleasure to hear your opinion on the matter, thanks for your time,

Trevor


One more version,

Slow stilletos
frozen

hanging prisoners
drip tears
to freedom.

okay two versions...

Slow stilletos
frozen prisoners
drip tears
to freedom.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
41 posted 2002-09-14 03:07 AM


Glad some of it made sense, Trevor.

quote:
I think the icicle would lose its appeal, at least to me, in the sense it would now be more about one icicle's plight rather than icicles in general.

There are good reasons to keep the icicle generic, such as avoiding the distraction of description, but I would question whether the icicle as individual should be one of them, Trevor. If you wanted to write about the rampantly obsessive potential in the human heart, you could certainly do it in generic terms. Or, you could write about a man who needs, more than anything else in the world, to kill a big whale. I suspect you'd find that the latter technique, generalizing from the specific, works pretty well for some.  

As to your new version, I have mixed feelings. I definitely would like a replacement for icicle, which is less than pleasing to the tongue, but would have real concerns about mixing your metaphors. Comparing the icicle to a stilleto, I think, detracts from the more powerful personification of it as a human being. Most minds are going to have trouble seeing it as both, simultaneously. You're in real danger of depicting a really cold knife trying to run away?

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
42 posted 2002-09-14 03:36 AM


Hi Ron,

"You're in real danger of depicting a really cold knife trying to run away?"

LOL     Hey, didn't the spoon run after the plate or something like that?    

"Comparing the icicle to a sharp knife, I think, detracts from the personification of it as a human being."

Yeah, I think you might be right on this one. It wasn't the image of a knife I was going for, it was the way it pops out, "Slow stilletos", kinda like the formation of the icicle, a slow unsheathing thing...but it does detract from the personification.

Thanks again for the input,

Trevor


Icicles,
hanging prisoners
point to freedom.


Icicle

The limb
of a frozen prisoner
point downward
to freedom.

Icicle

The thoughts
of a hanging prisoner
point downward.


Icicle

The tears
of a hanging prisoner
drip downward
to freedom.


I like the last one...having the title describe the subject and using the whole poem as a metaphor for the icicle. Hate to be a pest but any thoughts, anyone?

[This message has been edited by Trevor (09-14-2002 03:42 AM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
43 posted 2002-09-14 07:30 AM


Trev:

You MUST be on something and now Ron's on it too.

I still like the first version best, although version #1573 has some promise as well.  Actually, I like the hanging prisoner version too (the very last one you posted).

I think that getting too clever with your wording in this one is going to be distracting ... "stacata" or "stiletto" distract me ... well ... the latter because all I can think of are legs and high-heels when I see the word (@#$%& testosterone).  Anyway ...

Ron:

Is it more important for the poet to communicate his/her ideas or to move the reader?  Is the former necessary before the latter can take place?

Jim

Robtm1965
Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263

44 posted 2002-09-14 09:30 AM


Ron

"My own views are much closer to Toad's"

Well you write that, but then you go on to say more or less the opposite of the statement he made which provoked my original comment and his subsequent follow up:

" ... if the aim is solely to get the reader to a certain point of understanding"

Toad said that and then in subsequent posts slid away from it, or at least expanded on his intention to the point where the validity of the original was lost. Ironically you seem to me to do more or less the same thing.

When you say that "a poem IS the same as a technical manual for your hard drive" I profoundly disagree. But then I find myself in agreement with much of what you say later (and I've decided incidentally that it's not me who's inconsistent!). I think where you are maybe slightly confused, or confusing the issue, is right at the start of your commentary.

Of course the purpose of poetry is to "communicate".  But this is certainly not the same thing as "getting the reader to a certain point of understanding" or even for that matter conveying a specific "meaning" in the sense that you convey information in a technical manual, and it was only these latter that I was taking issue with.  

Let's look at what a manual does. The fundamental purpose of that form of communication is to close down possibilities; to narrow thought to a point, or as Toad would have it, get across a particular point of meaning, the idea being to try and prevent the wrong wires being connected to the wrong terminal.  In contrast the best poetry imo seeks to communicate in a way that opens up possibilities, expands thought and, often in a visceral way, allows the reader scope to enjoy revelations that might well not have been contemplated by the writer when the piece was conceived.  Poetry and a technical manual are about as far away as they can be in the spectrum of written communication.  The fact that they both use precise and intended language is entirely irrelevant.  All good communication should use well thought out accurate language.  What is important is what sort of reaction and interaction that language is intended to provoke in the reader.

In the remainder of your post you are making the case for that effective and precise communication, and surely nobody who has spent weeks and months constructing a poem can disagree that this is what good poets try to do. I certainly don't.

Your comments become most interesting towards the end where you try to write about the process of writing and, with respect, become a little bogged down in the "this is how it is, ah ... yes but, there is this exception, and oh ..., by the way there is a further exception to the exception ..." scenario.  Good poetry cannot be "misinterpreted" (we may need to consider what I mean by misinterpretation) and there are potentially an infinite number of "layers" and "purposes" in a poem. Which isn't of course inconsistent with stating that a poet may have taken years to write a piece painstakingly conceived and constructed to present a particular tone and particular set of ideas. But that's only the start, the poem begins when it goes out into the world.  Debatably, it never ends.

Rob

[This message has been edited by Robtm1965 (09-14-2002 02:58 PM).]

Robtm1965
Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263

45 posted 2002-09-14 09:33 AM


Trevor

Interesting points.  Much I agree with, but out of time now, so apologies are due once again.

Rob

PS No, it's whiskey!

Much later.  (And no wiser!). Seriously Trevor, nice tangents, nice mind you have there, and, after everything, dare I comment on the poem. Nah, why break the habit of a thread (some would say a lifetime, but then maybe a lifetime IS a thread.  There's a thought, each thread a lifetime in the world of the forum which is itself a mote in the galaxy of the site which is itself a mere speck in the universe of the net (or should that be the net of the universe?) which is itself, conceivably, a simple momentary though of the great I AM ... or some such).  Anyway as I was saying, nice mind, it's been very enlightening.

Rob

[This message has been edited by Robtm1965 (09-14-2002 03:10 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
46 posted 2002-09-14 05:25 PM


Jim asked:
quote:
Is it more important for the poet to communicate his/her ideas or to move the reader?  Is the former necessary before the latter can take place?

Jim's questions and Rob's confusion over what I contended versus what I detailed are related. Both are my bad.

Rob, I still think a poem is exactly like a technical manual, especially in the sense that most could be a whole lot better. My old company sold software, very expensive software with liberal guarantees, and I insisted that our manuals do more than just tell the user what to do. We had to get the users enthused enough that the owner of the business never heard any complaints. Explaining how to get from A to B was certainly part of that, but we had to also foreshadow the hidden pleasures that eventually awaited them at C and D if they would just continue using the software long enough to build an extensive database (and long enough to lock them into our system).

It all comes back to the writer's purpose, and is exactly why I earlier said the first job the writer must face is deciding what he wants to communicate. Most poems and technical manuals are content to tell the reader how to get from A to B. "This is how to hook up a hard drive" and "This is how my lover makes me feel" really aren't all that different. Both explain, and that ain't necessarily a bad thing. Hard drives need to be installed, and many writers feel an equal need to immortalize the one they love. Nor does going from A to B necessarily preclude an emotional response from the reader - the exhilaration of success and of understanding are much the same.

Rob contends, and I think rightly so, that these explanations close down possibilities. I don't want you connecting the hard drive to your video card and I don't want you confusing my lover with Phyllis Diller. Again, that ain't necessarily a bad thing. If your purpose is to take the reader from A to B, you MUST eliminate all of the possibilities that will land them at X.

If manuals and poems that explain are on one end of the continuum, then words that explore are on the other end. By way of analogy, I have a series of mathematical formulas I've been playing with for over twenty years. I don't have a solution, don't even know if there is a solution, but I have enough experience to suggest a solution could be important. Poems that explore don't tell the reader how to move from A to B, they just encourage them to leave A and head "somewhere" new. At this far end of the spectrum, exploration is an unknown, because even the writer doesn't have any answers. Only questions. Of course, perhaps to Rob's disappointment, even the most open-ended explorations still close down possibilities by setting a direction.

Most poetry, of course, falls somewhere between these two extremes. Trevor's poem in this thread, for example, both tries to explain freedom (his interpretation and intent) and explores other possibilities (by not strictly imposing his interpretation on the poem). Only the author can tell us if that was the purpose of the poem. If Trevor wanted us to arrive at his interpretation, then the poem fails. If he wanted to open a door, beyond which lay his interpretation and others, then the poem succeeds.

Personally, I think it's both very easy and very difficult to write exploratory poetry. It's easy because I can say "icicles freedom" and claim I'm opening a door, when in fact I'm simply showing the reader a closed door and asking them to open it. It's difficult because the writer has the responsibility to take the reader as far as possible before saying, "I don't know what lies beyond this point." That inherently means the writer assumes the possibility of being completely wrong. Returning again to Trevor's poem, coupled with his explanation, he said, "I wanted the reader to think of freedom happening through change," and later added the qualifier "simple" to the word change. If the poem doesn't juxtapose "slow change" and "freedom" in our mind, it fails. Period, no where else to go. If we agree his poem takes us to that point, we then have to decide whether he is right or wrong. If the reader agrees with the premise, they can then move forward to explore further insights. The poem succeeds. If the reader disagrees, there is no reason to move forward. The poem fails. In this sense, the success of most exploratory poetry depends both on the writer's "wisdom" AND on their ability to communicate it. The important point for my thesis, however, is that the writer has to have the courage to take the reader at least as far as he can before turning the reins loose to other interpretations. Anything less is a cop-out. In really bad poetry, the cop-out is obvious to the reader and even if they can't put it into words, they will feel cheated. In better poetry, the only one who will see the cop-out is the writer. And, in my opinion, HE will feel cheated.

I think that determining the purpose of a poem is both the first and most important step because it is at that point the writer sets the course for everything that follows. If I want to take you from A to B, perhaps convincing you that simple changes lead to freedom, then I will write one poem. Failure to convince you, or allowing you to arrive at a different conclusion (misinterpretation), means the poem fails. If I want to take you from A to B and then shove you in the direction of C, perhaps with the contention that "some" simple changes are "one way" of achieving freedom, then I will write an entirely different poem. Failure to at least get you to B by putting the concepts of "slow change" and "freedom" into your head, or allowing you to arrive at a different conclusion (misinterpretation before we get to B), means the poem fails. (I think this latter possibility is a real danger with Trevor's poem. There is an almost inescapable image of "death" mixed in with the images of slow change and freedom, allowing for interpretations that do not follow the course the author has set. No one else here has read this poem to mean "freedom leads to inevitable annihilation," though, so maybe I'm completely off base?)

It's important to realize that the failure of a poem, under my definitions, does NOT make it bad poetry. The purpose of the poem, after all, is set by only 25 percent of our 25-25-25-25 partnership. But it's the 25 percent we can most readily control, and that makes it still very important. For most of us, barring the rare genius and the once-in-a-lifetime serendipity, I believe it is all-important. How many of us have written poems that were warmly received but left us, as the writer, unsatisfied? Look at those and I'll think you'll agree your dissatisfaction was the result of failure to achieve your purpose. But you nonetheless achieved, at least in some part, "a" purpose. (At that point, I believe the writer should return to the poem, determine what purpose was actually achieved, make that his new purpose, and then consciously edit the poem to better achieve the new purpose. Serendipity rocks, but Skill rules.)

Alternatively, the success of a poem, under my definitions, doesn't necessarily lead to good poetry. Any more than it leads to good technical manuals. If the bar is set too low when the purpose is determined, as I think is very often the case with writers, the poem will succeed in reaching that purpose but still suck the big weenie. The best writers, I believe, will set the bar higher than they can possibly reach - and then work their butts off until they learn how to reach it. And, yea, that means failing. A lot.

Jim, to directly try to answer your question about the importance of communicating ideas versus moving the reader, I think we're looking at a teeter-totter with (what else?) the author's purpose as the fulcrum. If I'm writing an explanatory poem, moving from A to B, the ideas are the most important. I say that with the obvious stipulation that lasting understanding is impossible without emotion. I can show you how to install a hard drive, but next month, when you want to hook up another hard drive, you'll be reading the same directions again.

Moving to the other end of the spectrum, my mathematical formulas with no known answer represent almost pure emotion, with little emphasis on ideas. More poetically, I want my poem to evoke specific feelings (often, I think, contradictory feelings) and see where they lead us. Pure exploration.

Most poetry, of course, falls somewhere in the middle of our spectrum, and I think it becomes very difficult to separate the communication of ideas from the very necessary step of moving the reader. I think the communication of the ideas has to start before we move the reader, else we have little control over which emotions are evoked, but I also believe the communication of ideas CANNOT end until we have moved the reader. The emphasis will necessarily depend on the teeter-totter. The better poets, I think, can point at different sections of their work and say with certainty which of the two they were tackling. The best poets, on the other hand, merge understanding with emotion, with each word and phrase performing double duty.

Trevor:

Icicle

The tears
of a hanging prisoner
drip downward
to freedom.

I like it, but not without reservations. First, I fear you've lost the impact I so liked of "drips tears" by separating the words. Mostly, though, I think "downward" is semantically unnecessary since drips so rarely rise, but ironically necessary for phonetic flow. Simply removing the word renders a "hard" resonance. Unfortunately, my only suggestion would (again) be a slight change in meaning.

Icicle

The tears
of a hanging prisoner
drip
into freedom.


Robtm1965
Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263

47 posted 2002-09-15 05:56 PM


“Rob, I still think a poem is exactly like a technical manual, especially in the sense that most could be a whole lot better.”

Ron, you surely aren’t serious with that opening comment?  My  mother-in-law could be a whole lot better and so could my can-opener but they  aren’t exactly alike.  (Although now I think on it they are both sharp and capable of opening cans of worms so maybe that was a bad example.)

“ My old company sold software, very expensive software ...”

This gets worse!  I’m sure YOUR software manuals were sheer poetry right from the first mouse click Ron.  (Oh why did I have to pick the one technopoet in the whole wide world to debate with!)  

“Most poems and technical manuals are content to tell the reader how to get from A to B. "This is how to hook up a hard drive" and "This is how my lover makes me feel" really aren't all that different.”

Now I KNOW your kiddin’!  Tell me you are.  I mean, I can just see me this evening over a nice candlelit Mc Donalds telling my wife that she isn’t corrupt and doesn’t need a defrag.  I sure hope you can recommend a good divorce lawyer for when I eulogize her curvy database.

“It all comes back to the writer's purpose, and is exactly why I earlier said the first job the writer must face is deciding what he wants to communicate.”

I’ll come back to that later.

“If manuals and poems that explain are on one end of the continuum, then words that explore are on the other end.”

Ok, fun over, now we get to a serious point, and of course as is usual with debates of this kind we probably aren’t that far away from each other.  You’ll never get me to agree that poetry is like any technical manual except in the most superficial way with justifications like: they are both printed on white paper, they both have words, they both could be a whole lot better ...  Nevertheless our joint confusion here is one I think of specifics.  On the one hand you seem to be taking your own conception of a software manual as the norm.  A manual constructed by R Carnell Esq, poet and analyst extra ordinaire is not the manual I had in mind in reply to Toad’s original post.  I’d go so far as to say that you are being just a little disingenuous as you must know perfectly well that I was talking about your ordinary “tell it as it is” manual, the sort of manual I am looking at now in fact, the sort of manual which makes up 99.999% of all technical manuals.  On the other hand perhaps I am also guilty of choosing narrow ground, although to be fair I did say in reply to Toad “ if a poet sets out with the intention of trying to put across a certain point of understanding then he or she will certainly fail to write a good contemporary poem.”  The emphasis on “good”.  The difficulty I think is that I have been generally referring to what I personally regard as being good poetry.  Poetry which helps a reader to grow in some way, or at the very least tries to bring something fresh and constructive into the world.  Poetry which merely seeks to explain, lecture, tell or get across a point of understanding is, I would agree, at the technical end of your spectrum.  So we agree on something.  Do we?  Probably not, because at that extreme I would say we don’t have a poem, we might have some form of prose, but not a poem.

“Most poetry, of course, falls somewhere between these two extremes ...”

I would probably have said “Most mediocre poetry, of course, falls somewhere between these two extremes ...”  But basically I agree with you, and would go on to say that the further away from the technical end of the spectrum you move the more merit the writing is likely to have.  But here we are way off my original point which was simply that poetry which seeks merely to convey  a particular meaning (especially a singularity of meaning) is not poetry.

“ perhaps to Rob's disappointment, even the most open-ended explorations still close down possibilities by setting a direction.”

Yes and no.  See the grenade later.

Ron, from this point on in your reply your broaden the discussion into an attempt at an analysis of how poetry is written.  What I mainly draw from this is that you and I seem to have a fairly fundamental divergence of opinion as to what a poem is.  I say this because your main point of reference (ie one which you return to constantly) seems to be that the starting point for a poet is to decide what it is he wants to communicate.  I can’t argue with that.  But then your postulations in several instances make it fairly clear that the emphasis is on the author conveying meaning by means of the words on the page.  Granted in some instances you seem to SAY things that make me think you might have a broader view, but all the time I have this feeling that you have “technical manual” ticking in the back of your head.  I may be doing you an injustice, and I can’t possibly deal with your reply line by line, but what I can point to are the parts which engender my uneasiness.  

For a start you attach far to great a weight to the writer feelings, as if he is somehow the arbiter of the success or failure of the poem itself.  Later in your post I think you sense the ambiguity in your position to some degree by writing the paragraph which begins “It's important to realize that the failure of a poem, under my definitions, does NOT make it bad poetry”.  Poetry imo is much more closely allied to music or painting that it is to prose.  The fact that it’s composed of words on paper as prose is is a distraction.  What’s important is a comparison of the effect on an audience.  When Handel wrote his Water Music and sat watching the faces of the audience at the premiere he registered the joy and pleasure, and afterwards in the bar chatting to some of the punters it became apparent that they hadn’t “got” the sound at all.  He didn’t rush out of the place in despair realising that he had failed to covey the sound of water in music, the piece itself wasn’t a failure.  Strictly he might have failed to achieve exactly what he wanted to achieve but the composition itself didn’t fail.  The author therefore doesn’t determine whether a poem fails or not, he merely decides whether he succeed in doing what he wished to do.  In your later paragraph you introduce the concept of “good” and “bad” to cover this point.  So now a poem can have “failed” but be “good”?  This seems to me to be an unnecessarily convoluted way of saying that the poem didn’t do exactly what the author anticipated but it nevertheless inspired, impressed and received plaudits, and therefore succeeded.  

“Personally, I think it's both very easy and very difficult to write exploratory poetry.”

I think that you’ll have gathered by now that I feel that poetry that isn’t as you say “exploratory” in some way probably isn’t poetry.

“ It's easy because I can say "icicles freedom" and claim I'm opening a door, when in fact I'm simply showing the reader a closed door and asking them to open it. It's difficult because the writer has the responsibility to take the reader as far as possible before saying, "I don't know what lies beyond this point." That inherently means the writer assumes the possibility of being completely wrong. Returning again to Trevor's poem, coupled with his explanation, he said, "I wanted the reader to think of freedom happening through change," and later added the qualifier "simple" to the word change. If the poem doesn't juxtapose "slow change" and "freedom" in our mind, it fails. Period, no where else to go. If we agree his poem takes us to that point, we then have to decide whether he is right or wrong. If the reader agrees with the premise, they can then move forward to explore further insights. The poem succeeds. If the reader disagrees, there is no reason to move forward. The poem fails.”

Ron, I think its this section that worries me most.  You seem to be utterly determined to nail down this thing called a poem..  to drag out its mechanics or guts and to lay them bare and say “THERE that is what a poem is, THAT is how to write one, THAT is how it succeeds ...”.   A poem is not an equation Ron (why do I just get the horrible feeling that I KNOW you will say that a poem and an equation are very similar!), you can’t subject it to empirical laws with any real ultimate benefit.  This fixation with leading the reader, conveying meaning is misplaced imo.  I read Dylan Thomas’ and John Ashbury’s  more obscure pieces.  I don’t “get” them at all but I get them totally.  My pleasurable experience has nothing to do with wrongs or rights, or concrete meaning and everything to do with the holistic experience of absorbing the sound shape rhythms just like standing in the Louvre or visiting Covent Garden.  That of course is an extreme, but nevertheless a major part of nearly every poem I have really enjoyed.

I’m trying to think of an analogy here and the best I can come up with is this.  Your idea of a poem seems to be that the writer takes a grenade carefully sets the timer and lobs it into circulation where it should, if the writer has done his job properly, follow a predictable trajectory until a particular point where it might or might not explode.  If it doesn’t then it settles to earth in a predictable place.  If it does then the fragments fly off in straight line trajectories, granted, a good number of them, until quite naturally running out of energy.  My writer on the other hand carefully constructs his grenades packing it with a painstakingly thought out mixture of explosive which satisfies his own compulsions, while at the same time realising that the effect on release, given the heterogeneous environment into which it will be sent, may be unexpected.  The grenade is lobbed immediately and explodes inside the equivalent of an infinite pin ball machine hopefully to the entire satisfaction, pleasure and benefit of all concerned.

Rob

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
48 posted 2002-09-15 10:08 PM


I think you both greatly misunderstand what I'm saying, Rob, and understand it all too well. I'm not trying to define a poem, because I know I can't. Because I can't, because I KNOW I can't, I'm unwilling to make the exclusions you make. Is there poetry in the conveyance of a singular, unambiguous meaning? I don't know. Would it be fair to take a single passage out of a greater work, a passage that is unambiguous and singular, and call it poetry? How many lines could you thus extract from just Shakespeare? His metaphors touched so deeply that many are now cliches or, to use a phrase the Bard first coined, household words. Poetry? I don't know. But I'm willing to LOOK for the poetry in a technical manual, if only to see if it touches me at some level.

You define good poetry as something "which helps a reader to grow in some way, or at the very least tries to bring something fresh and constructive into the world." Unfortunately, until you qualify your reader, your definition fails to necessarily eliminate technical manuals as poetry. "Mary Had A Little Lamb" can help the reader grow and certainly bring something fresh into their life -- if the reader happens to be five years old. I'm not trying to be deliberately facetious, but rather am trying to make the point that not all readers read at the same level. Your definition of good poetry is, indeed, your definition and much too subjective to be of any use to anyone but you. The "reader" in your definition is You. And that's cool as long you realize there are other readers out there who would consider YOU to be the five-year-old. There are readers below your level of understanding, and readers above your level, and they, too, have to have a shot at poetry.

While I wasn't trying to define a poem, I'll admit I was definitely trying to say "THAT is how to write one." Subjectively, perhaps, imperfectly, to be sure, but yes that was my intent. I think purpose is important, and in more than just the most simple ways. Modern poetry, in my opinion, has been seriously handicapped by the "any interpretation is valid" school. Not because it's untrue, which isn't the issue, but because it encourages too many writers to evade responsibility. I would never say that "a" poem can't be a simple Rorschach Test, but as writers push more and more of the responsibility on the reader I think we are in serious danger of turning poetry as a genre into a Rorschach Test. I believe the writer has to assume responsibility for the purpose of the poem, and that suggests he has to at least know the purpose. More, I believe the writer has to take the reader AS FAR AS HE CAN before he starts throwing bottles of ink on the wall. Anything less is a cop-out.

Your grenade analogy is a good one, Rob. Mind if I borrow it for a minute?

In Newton's classic physics, the grenade is every bit as predictable as you satirized. If I know the mass, momentum, and trajectory, I can accurately predict exactly where the grenade will land. If I know the precise composition, and the position of every molecule and atom, I can predict exactly where every fragment will fly, what speed they will reach, and even where they will eventually come to rest. Newton firmly believed that if he knew the location, momentum, and spin of every particle at the time of creation, everything beyond that point could be accurately predicted.

I know that active voice is more powerful than passive. I know that a strong noun is more powerful than an adjective. I know that some words (like toward and towards) are semantically correct but will nonetheless distract. I know that showing is more powerful than telling. I know, I hope, something of the human condition. And, yea, I even know that if I insist on doing all the work for the reader, my power will dissipate in the smoke of apathy. These tools, and a thousand more like them, are my locations, momentum, and spin. How I use those tools will depend on my skill as a writer and, like Newton, I'll never have all the data I need to make 100 percent accurate predictions. There's no way for me to know how my words will be interpreted by every possible reader. And, still, I have to TRY to make those predictions, adjusting my work when I see paths that don't go where I wish to lead. I think writers who write without a purpose, or with an ill-defined purpose, aren't trying to predict at all. They are just throwing the dice, hoping if they throw them enough times, something will connect with the reader.

I believe that writers have to try to calculate the momentum and spin of every atom that impacts the reader. If that sounds a little cold, I assure you that I realize the limitations of skill. Classic physics gave way to quantum physics in the early 1900's, when Einstein and Heisenberg showed us the universe is build on Uncertainty. Newton could never have predicted the course of the universe, even with all the data, the grenade will explode just as haphazardly as you suggested, and skill will never produce more than an adequate poem. And it changes nothing. Because the tools we have, though inadequate, are the ONLY thing we can readily control. We have to use them as best we can, and then hope Heisenberg's hidden factors will surface as that rare quality we call talent.

Yep, I think I pushed that analogy about as far as it could go …

It's been a great discussion, and I've truly enjoyed the dance, but let me clarify lest Rob again think this has all been my impression of George Carlin.

Anything can be poetry, even "good" poetry, in someone's eyes. That's not true, of course, but being unwilling to define good poetry, it's all that's left. More importantly, it's all that works.

The only interpretation of a poem that matters is the poet's. That's also not true, except while the poet is still writing. If he doesn't accept the truth in the lie, he has absolved himself of responsibility for the poem, passing it to others.

Come to think of it, Rob … maybe this IS my Carlin impression.



Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
49 posted 2002-09-16 07:04 AM


Hello all,

I will probably be a bit jumpy with my response...so much said it might be difficult to string together thoughts, but I will try and most likely contradict myself a few times before arriving at a conclusion.

ROB:

"(some would say a lifetime, but then maybe a lifetime IS a thread.  There's a thought, each thread a lifetime in the world of the forum which is itself a mote in the galaxy of the site which is itself a mere speck in the universe of the net (or should that be the net of the universe?) which is itself, conceivably, a simple momentary though of the great I AM ... or some such)."

Great thought, very interesting analogy. It gets me thinking about how human inventions seem to mimick nature...especially computer technology, seems a more basic interpretation of humans even down to a cellular level.

RON:

"Rob, I still think a poem is exactly like a technical manual, especially in the sense that most could be a whole lot better."

Perhaps, but if there is a steadfast manual, it was most definetly written after the fact. Much like Magellan (sp?) mapping the world behind him and not the world ahead. And if this is so, does a poet follow a manual, or write one from their own journeys? Take the invention of the wheel, most likely inspired by nature, (what else, they didn't have Gilligan's Island back then), lets consider the first wheel - the first poem, and was written solely without a manual, therefore invention, though inspired, does not have to always be formally taught, "learned"(quotations in ref. formal education) or need any more than a language and inspiration as a starting point and therefore may have no need for a manual. And I'm guessing the first use of the wheel was non-practical in nature but instead was more for entertainment...why? because nothing yet had been made for its use. "Ugg" the cave dweller rolled a rock around after seeing one spin down the mountain and clunk "Ouch" on his head...and of course because his cable was out. However, though the thought of his wheel rolling pyramid blocks was not his intention, should that lessen the success of his invention?


"It all comes back to the writer's purpose, and is exactly why I earlier said the first job the writer must face is deciding what he wants to communicate."

I agree that the first job of a writer is to decide what to communicate, or more so, realizing what has inspired him to do so. But I'd like to state I really dislike the analogy of computers to poetry: far too narrow a science to describe poetry. If one single wire is hooked to the wrong part of the computer then it is kapootz, it will not work, or if there is one faulty part the same result. Failure is much too easy and success much too narrow. I believe not every word, in every line, in a piece of writing has to work for it to be successful. Plus not only does the builder have a lot of width into their design of a poem but also the operator has a lot of leeway in its use. Seems that all who are involved have a broad range and so the spectrum of, success vs. creation and use, seems to be emmense. And this is where I really begin to disagree on the technical nature of a poem. How does one nail down a constant variable into a technical manual? We can describe sunlight, the physics of such and so on... but I can't tell you how much sun will shine today anymore than where it will no matter how hard I try...it is simply impossible. Sure, we can have educated guesses but not even the most astute meteorologist or "trick" knee can accurately predict the weather. I think you are being overly logical in your technical manual analogy by looking at the horizon through a telescope.

Even your 25 - 25 - 25 - 25, in relation to the manual thingy, seems narrowed (though I still enjoy reading it and holds some wisdom). What is probably a better equation of writer to reader is x+y+z=100%i. inspriation+writer+reader=the whole of a poem within a infinite amount of time(crap yesterday is classic today and vice versa). That to me more accurately depicts my current thoughts on the process of poetry. Now how "good" or "bad" a poem is, well that's up for debate and most likely will always be. But with such a large range of possible figures how can success be so easily defined as the writer's intent. But I will say this, to say that bad poetry is actually "bad" is to say that nothing good can be learned from mistakes. Though bad poetry, as an educational tool, is not the intention of the writer, it still may find success as a poem from a writer/reader learning perspective. Plus where does intent stop, or does it only change? If a poet writes a piece with the intention to entertain, and it does not, it is deemed a failure, yet he uses it to learn from and writes an entertaining poem, then it may be accurate to say that the initial poem was both a failure and a success because his intentions had changed. And if the only thing needed for a poem to be successful is changing intent to suit the poem's use, then every poem is successful regardless of its initial intent, if in fact the writer learns from it. And what is more important in terms of success, viewership or education? Is it better to have a thousand content readers, or a thousand lessons?


which brings me to the next snippet of yours...  

"If Trevor wanted us to arrive at his interpretation, then the poem fails. If he wanted to open a door, beyond which lay his interpretation and others, then the poem succeeds."

Where does intent end? If my intention for "Melt" was solely to have a reader think of icicles melting but everyone seemed to be thinking of freedom, then I would think it a failure. So now everyone has found a new depth to the poem...so I look at it again, and say "Yeah, it does mimic the plight for Mandella's freedom. I will now use this poem as an example of freedom instead of a picture of an icicle."....I've changed not a word, only my thoughts on it, which is entirely different than my original intention. So one minute it is a failure, the next a success because the same tool now has a different task. So in sense, by that train of thought, a poem's success isn't really about what is written, but rather what is derived from it before and after it is read. If the same poem that was a failure, has become a success without changing a word, then the intent of a writer solely dictates the success of a poem. But if the intent of a writer is dictated by the interpretation of a reader, then actually success is dictated by the reader. However, if interpretation is based upon the written word, then the writer dictates the success of a poem. Nonetheless the writer is still writing with the intent of reaching a certain audience, therefore his word choice is based upon the audience's preference, henceforth the success of a poem is dictated by the audience...But then again, if a reader their choice upon another reader's interpretations which were based on the writer's words, which were founded from his intention then....and so on and so on in one big circle. This too is another reason why I have trouble with the technical manual analogy defining success of a poem. Too many reasons why this isn't a hard science.

"It's easy because I can say "icicles freedom" and claim I'm opening a door, when in fact I'm simply showing the reader a closed door and asking them to open it."

But if words are an extension of myself and are my tools....and by vocalizing my will - it is done, thennnnn....people are also an extension of myself and I just opened the door...a little off topic but I was just thinking of this after reading your statement.

"It's difficult because the writer has the responsibility to take the reader as far as possible before saying, "I don't know what lies beyond this point."

Your last point here...is my starting point for a poem  

"If the poem doesn't juxtapose "slow change" and "freedom" in our mind, it fails. Period, no where else to go. If we agree his poem takes us to that point, we then have to decide whether he is right or wrong. If the reader agrees with the premise, they can then move forward to explore further insights. The poem succeeds. If the reader disagrees, there is no reason to move forward. The poem fails. In this sense, the success of most exploratory poetry depends both on the writer's "wisdom" AND on their ability to communicate it."

Again I think this is too narrow a definition of success. A hard science look at a variable. How far apart do you build the walls that contain the meaning or writer's intent? Where does interpretation end....where does inspiration end? These are all large variables between reader and writer. And I disagree that, "If the reader disagrees, there is no reason to move forward. The poem fails.", because it is often that which we disagree with that propels us forward the most. Seems to be the very nature of this that pushes us forward, whereas agreement, tends to birth stagnation. And again, if disagreeing with a writer's words in relation to intention propels the reader forward, then is it totally fair to brand a poem a failure just because its use doesn't match the author's intent?

"The important point for my thesis, however, is that the writer has to have the courage to take the reader at least as far as he can before turning the reins loose to other interpretations."

But how long is the road? How wide? and how many people must fall off it or stay on? If you are going to treat poetry or writing as a technical manual then there must be an equation to explain how far the writer must take the reader for it to be successful. Again your measurement of success tries to corner a huge variable. Is it okay if one person reaches x and another gets as far as y? How much of a reader's self can be included in interpretation? If you describe a yellow dog and wanted me to think of a yellow dog but I thought of my black lab I buried five minutes ago, is that okay or does yellow dog become unsuccessful? How many readers specifically does the writer have to reach and can that figure change over time in relation to the initial intent? Again, so many variables.

"Anything less is a cop-out. In really bad poetry, the cop-out is obvious to the reader and even if they can't put it into words, they will feel cheated. In better poetry, the only one who will see the cop-out is the writer. And, in my opinion, HE will feel cheated."

I don't know if I agree totally with you here....vagueness has its place too. William Carlos Williams is a fairly respected poet who made his mark by usually only by saying no more than, "its over there somewhere". For me, the cop out in writing is the cliche. Writing the same poem over, and over and over....I swear, if I read another poem that contains this list, "darkened soul - bleeding heart - ocean blue eyes - moistened lips", by people who have written over a hundred poems (ample time to use up all those cliches), I will stuff half those poets into a large cannon and then shoot the other half with them   Ah, yes, the cop-out. But I guess you have a valid point though, I do think some writer's get lazy and don't want to do the proper leg work needed to encourage the reader...or worse, don't ever think revising is necessary.

"If I want to take you from A to B and then shove you in the direction of C, perhaps with the contention that "some" simple changes are "one way" of achieving freedom, then I will write an entirely different poem."

But you are dealing with such grey areas. What a poet may want from one poem may change daily, just as what a reader derives from one poem also can quickly change. If authors intent and reader's interpretation changes constantly then where does one aim exactly?

Van Gogh, died penniless and in his eyes he probably thought himself a failure because part of his intention was probably to be recognized as a good artist within his lifetime,(No one plans for themselves a future they won't be a part of). Was he a failure because he wasn't appreciated by his audience? How many better painters than Van Gogh were lost, died penniless and are left unknown because none of their work survived. Were they unsuccessful as painters? Or just unsuccesful marketers? Again, how should success be defined? I think solely placing that responsibility upon the shoulder's of the artist is too easy a scapegoat.

"Alternatively, the success of a poem, under my definitions, doesn't necessarily lead to good poetry."

Then good poetry does not always equal success.
But if, success = intent
and, success does not always = good poetry,
then if my intent is to write good poetry, how will I ever know I'm successful, if in fact, by your definitions, good poetry does not always equal success?

Don't get me wrong Ron, I believe a lot of what you are saying to have great merit but I think you are wrong in your hard line stance on technical manuals. I think a poem is often quite better on the drafting table after its conception rather than before. I think the manual for most great poetry is written after its built. Why? Because even the poet never fully understands what he is making. And if this is so then how can he fully realize his intent? Isn't the intent of building something unique success in itself? The intent of my first poem was not to get me into poetry...in fact it didn't even enter my mind...yet my first poem has lead me here. Much like the first poet's intent probably wasn't to have me read a book of poetry based upon his creation of a form of expression. I guess theoretically you could say the possibility exists that a writer could pen a poem with intent that the whole world love it and they did so...but then again maybe we should just buy a monkey and a typewriter. Which brings me to an interesting question. If success of a poem is based solely on the intention of a writer, and the intention of a writer is to have the whole world love it, how would any of his writing ever be successful even if he was the greatest writer on earth? Technically speaking, we could say there was the possibility that Shakespeare had this intent, yet if he fell short of this...should we deem his writing a failure? For him, yes, on a whole no? And if on a whole no...then why should the sole intention of a writer dictate the success of a poem?

And that's the only thing I really have trouble swallowing of yours and Toad's claim. I can not find enough reason to believe that the whole success of something shared with so many is based solely upon the singular belief of one.


I'm so out of wind now its not funny. It's about 7am and I haven't slept yet. I apologize for only picking through bits and pieces and not being able to address, refute or reinforce some of the great points that have arised in this discussion. I also like to restate how tired I am right now so if none of this makes sense chaulk it up to a sleep deprived mind ruled by a silly man.

Thanks all,

Trevor

[This message has been edited by Trevor (09-16-2002 08:36 AM).]

Robtm1965
Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263

50 posted 2002-09-16 08:07 AM


Ron

Yes, you are right I have been subjective, inevitably so of course.

Now there's a thought: (Poetry is the sending out of subjectivity in the (impossible?) search for perfect objectivity. Discuss.)

And yes, while you have been trying to broaden the discussion I have tried (unsuccessfully) to keep it focussed on the reason for my original comments which were as ever just an opinion.

In another post I tried to make a case for an incredibly wide definition of poetry (to the extent that I think I offended some sensibilities) as being anything (and I mean anyTHING) that moves, or changes thought. Ok, maybe I was being a little provocative. But still this I think is entirely consistent with my stance on the technical manual issue. You make my point for me by citing the nursery rhyme example. A good nursery rhyme sent out to its target audience will move and bring fresh ideas.  That is certainly poetry - my arid tech manual (which I admit probably doesn't exist in an absolutely perfectly arid form will bring nothing to anybody. Or should I be saying nothing to nobody these days!).

You seem to be suggesting though that I was subjective to the point where I if I say that I don't like a poem then it isn't a poem. If I said that then I didn't mean it. All I have ever tried to say is that if a poem aims at nothing more than a conveyance of meaning then it is likely not to be a good poem. There may well of course be poems which I don't personally like but which affect others in a strong way. But please, not software manuals! Enough!

Far more interesting is your statement that: "Modern poetry, in my opinion, has been seriously handicapped by the "any interpretation is valid" school".

When I first started reading poetry I was fixated with understanding the import of every single phrase and even word. To use Billy Collins's analogy, I would beat it up until I extracted THE meaning, feeling intensely frustrated when no clear meaning (or solution to the puzzle) arrived. I remember particularly carrying the Best of the Best of American Poetry around for a long while getting steadily more irate with what I regarded as the rudeness of the poets for writing incomprehensible nonsense.

At that time I would have agreed unreservedly with your statement above. And so long as a reader regards the extraction of THE meaning as an essential element in making a poem a "valid" experience then I can quite see how the often apparently "airy-fairy" approach of the "any interpretation school" could be viewed as handicapping.  However, l et go of that view and start to see a poem as something other than a mere presentation of ideas and things become a little different. It's not a question of the writer abdicating responsibility or pushing that responsibility onto the reader, more a question of the writer accepting a responsibility that doesn't necessarily embrace "leading" the reader.

I'd like to change the definite article in the following quote.  You say: "I believe the writer has to assume responsibility for the purpose of the poem, and that suggests he has to at least know the purpose" .  I'd change this to: "I believe the writer has to assume responsibility for a purpose of the poem, and that suggests he has to at least know a purpose." That small change makes it more palatable to me. It doesn't bridge all our difference, but it narrows the gap perhaps.

I thought Newton would appear at some point!

"And, still, I have to TRY to make those predictions, adjusting my work when I see paths that don't go where I wish to lead"

"I believe that writers have to try to calculate the momentum and spin of every atom that impacts the reader"


It's becoming fairly clear to me that your perception of the responsibility of the writer extends in a fairly dramatically different direction to my own.  You clearly see the poet as controller, as a kind of leader who in an ideal situation would guide the reader (EVERY reader) through the poem to a point or points he ordained.  It seems to me that in your perfect poem the balance you keep referring to would be 100 - 0 - 0 - 0.  Yes, even the writer's inconvenient subconscious being eliminated.  Ok, I'm being a little unfair but you get the point.  You are aiming at an ideal which you acknowledge is an impossibility, but which is nevertheless worth striving for, but which I happen to think is at best irrelevant to poetry and at worst misses the whole point of it.  My inclination is to go in nearly the opposite direction.  I want the poet to have purpose first and foremost in the creation of a thing of beauty, inspirational, to paint pictures and conjure sound and yes even present ideas.  The writer should write in a way that moves and excites HIM and then sent out the poem in the expectation and hope that it will move and excite others but always accepting (even hoping) that this will never be in precisely the same way that it moved and excited him.   Welcoming that diversity as a positive adding to the poem.  So "skill" rocks, "responsibility of a kind" rocks, "precision" rocks but so does "letting go", "accepting the unexpected and unanticipated" ... "when it goes it grows".  

And thanks to you also for the discussion Ron, although I've just noticed that Trevor has weighed in again so maybe ...

Btw if you're Carlin then I'm Laurel and Hardy (yep both of them!  Work that out!)

One last quote from you:

"... he has absolved himself of responsibility for the poem, passing it to others"

Is that so bad?

Rob


Robtm1965
Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263

51 posted 2002-09-16 04:49 PM


Trevor

Before Ron can get at you I shall preempt what he is about to say about this:

“then why should the sole intention of a writer dictate the success of a poem?

And that's the only thing I really have trouble swallowing of yours and Toad's claim. I can not find enough reason to believe that the whole success of something shared with so many is based solely upon the singular belief of one.”

I think Ron tried in one of his posts to distinguish between a “successful” poem and a “good” poem.  This is a distinction which seems to have caused some confusion, especially as when Ron used the words “success” and “failure” in application to a poem, what he really meant I think was the success or failure of the writer’s intent.  Not quite the same thing.  So I suspect that there is no disagreement between you on this point.  If you simply change your question to:

“why should the sole intention of a writer dictate whether a poem is good or not?”

then Ron will doubtless say that he would never suggest that that is the case.  

And of course we can all agree surely that if a writer thinks that his original intent failed then he is entitled to think so and there’s not a lot anyone can do about it as we don’t know what his original purpose was.

By the way this little sentence caught my eye from you:

“a poem's success isn't really about what is written, but rather what is derived from it before and after it is read”

Nicely put.  Totally agree.

Rob

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
52 posted 2002-09-16 05:30 PM


Hi all,

ROB:

"I think Ron tried in one of his posts to distinguish between a “successful” poem and a “good” poem.  This is a distinction which seems to have caused some confusion, especially as when Ron used the words “success” and “failure” in application to a poem, what he really meant I think was the success or failure of the writer’s intent."

It's starting to sink in now...man, I was really bushed when I started writing last night...by the end, I could barely focus on a word...and a couple times I did notice a couple times I was confusing success of a poem based on the writer's intent with success of a poem as a whole....you should have seen all the crappola I erased....double that actual post, that was just the stuff that made it past the chopping block.

But I guess logically the success of a poem in respect toward a writer's intent is measured by how well the poem has met their espectations. But that still that can't dictate on whether a poem is successful or not as a whole, or measure good and bad poetry. It takes me awhile but I eventually catch up.

"And of course we can all agree surely that if a writer thinks that his original intent failed then he is entitled to think so and there’s not a lot anyone can do about it as we don’t know what his original purpose was."

Yes I can agree with that. It was difficult balancing the idea - success of the intent of the writer vs. the success of a poem as a whole. I think I often confused the two points. Perhaps though, and this is slightly deviating from the discussion again, but maybe the best way to look at a poem is not through intent or manuals or whathaveyou's...but through what it offers everyone as individuals.

Like your Billy Collins reference in where you say that you've tried to beat the meaning out of a poem, I have as well done the same. I still do sometimes...But I'm finding now that with a looser mind, I can enjoy poetry much more than before. But perhaps the step of trying to "beat up" poetry is needed first in order to fully appreciate what poetry truly has to offer.

Anyways, thanks for helping clarify the main points for me. So much was well stated by all that it was difficult to keep focus on everything at once and take into account all that has been said while at the same time scribbling my own thoughts....not to mention I have a natural tendancy to play devil's advocate. I'm always looking for the tiny flaws so I can be the first one to point at them

Thanks Rob and again thank you to everyone who read or participated in either the poem or ensuing discussion.

Trevor

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
53 posted 2002-09-16 10:47 PM


Rob said:
quote:
You seem to be suggesting though that I was subjective to the point where I if I say that I don't like a poem then it isn't a poem. If I said that then I didn't mean it. All I have ever tried to say is that if a poem aims at nothing more than a conveyance of meaning then it is likely not to be a good poem.

I'm sorry, Rob, but that one was worth a belly laugh. Two sentences to deny it, then a third to do much the same thing again? A good poem to whom?

Trevor said:
quote:
I think you are being overly logical in your technical manual analogy by looking at the horizon through a telescope.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Trevor, but this seems to be the basis for virtually all of your disagreements. You don't think writing is a hard science. I completely and totally agree. There are, as you said, far too many variables, and almost all of the important ones are unknown. (Introducing inspiration as one of those variables was an interesting move, and I wish I could address it without losing focus. Maybe another time?)

I still think, however, that the writer needs to treat it as a hard science as much as is possible while still engaged in the act of writing.

Indeed, most of us already treat it as a hard science. When was the last time you used a singular noun with a plural subject? There are rules to writing, just as there are rules to physics. No, they're not as "hard" as the speed of light in a vacuum, but they're still rules and writers break them at their own risk. Break too many and the result is incomprehensible nonsense. I tend to see those rules as an inverted pyramid, with the rules of grammar and English as the capstone upon which we build. Move farther up the pyramid, Trevor, and you'll find the rule about avoiding those cliches you so detest. As we get farther and farther from the inverted apex, the rules become less clear, less "hard," but in many ways even more important. I think that's especially true when, at some point, we reach the level that stops talking about words and language and starts concentrating on human reactions. You know, like sympathetic characters creating a different response than unsympathetic characters, even when they ostensibly carry the same message? It is at this level where writers decide how much to leave to the readers' interpretation. And, yea, at the broadest layer of the pyramid, at the very top layer, we're still discovering the rules as we go.

How does this relate to interpretation?

I believe too liberal an application of the "any interpretation is valid" school poses the danger of turning writing from science to mysticism. And William Carlos Williams isn't a bad example of what I mean, either. When an electron "tunnels" from A to B without moving through the intervening space, it seems to be magic to most of us. When Williams seems to say "it's over there somewhere" and evokes a deep response in the reader, that too seems like magic. I'm not smart enough to explain quantum mechanics, nor can I detail the mechanics of Williams any better. Williams used voice (what he called the variable foot) with an uncanny eye for detail (we talked about that, remember?) to suck the reader into his own little world, allowing us to see the things he sees the way he sees them. He called it "a fraternal embrace, the classic caress of author and reader." Every time Williams said "I" we knew he really meant "you," and we readily followed where he led. That isn't magic, that's incredible use of technique, coupled with the insight of genius. Still not convinced? Williams also said, "When they ask me, as of late they frequently do, how I have for so many years continued an equal interest in medicine and the poem, I reply that they amount for me to nearly the same thing." I seriously doubt Williams treated his patients with mysticism, but rather with skill and insight. The same way he wrote.

Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced science would seem as if it were magic. I put it to you that any great writer who seems to not be following the rules of writing is simply following rules too advanced for us to easily see. And I'm often more blind than most.

How does this relate to purpose?

I've always differentiated between two groups: those who want to write and those who want to be writers. The latter usually want the rewards without paying the price and, indeed, rarely understand what it means to be a writer. The former, on the other hand, will pay the price even without a promise of the rewards. In a very similar fashion, I differentiate between those who have something that will move the reader and those who want to move the writer. The latter have only a goal, while the former have a purpose.

I have, to this point, avoided defining purpose because, frankly, I don't know how. Purpose is as nebulous and slippery as poetry itself. I know that meter and imagery are not the All of poetry, even though they are often the language we use to describe poetry. In a similar fashion, I know "message" is not the All of purpose. It's just the only language I know for talking about it. Poetry that doesn't "say something" is merely sound. There is always meaning, always purpose, even in the soft sibilant cries of a baby. Meaning and purpose are impossible to escape. It's just that in too much poetry the meaning is unfocused and the purpose ill-defined. We are presented with nothing more than an image, a mood, or an emotion and told, "There, what do you think about that?"

I'm not suggesting that an image doesn't carry meaning. It does, and in the hands of a master like Williams, something as seemingly trivial as a red wheelbarrow will carry profound meaning. Focused meaning. Will each of us arrive at the same interpretation? No, but I strongly suspect we have nonetheless made a very similar trip. Williams very purposely took us from A to B, and then shoved us in the direction of C. I don't think he even cared what each of us would see at C. He just wanted us to realize that B was not a destination as much as it was a stepping stone. He had a purpose (even if I'm wrong about what it was). He knew what he was doing.

Those who throw pretty words on a page in hopes of evoking Rorschach associations are wasting my time. I can program a computer to do the same thing in far less time and probably with equal success. It's just magnetic poetry without the novelty. Those are the writers who want to move the reader, not the ones who have something that will move the reader. It's intellectual melodrama.

Purpose is complicated because, like good writing, it often exists in multiple layers. Every poem I write has at least one purpose, to entertain. Most have a message. Some few have a meaning behind the message, a philosophy that clarifies the message. Each, I hope, touches the reader. And though my skills rarely allow me more depth than that without losing focus (I've tried), certainly there are many examples of poems that do ostensibly serve even more complex purposes. My intent has never been to imply that purpose need be simple. Just definable.

I will even admit that purpose can border on the mystical. There have been times when my poem has followed the dictates of not my conscious purpose but of my unconscious. Sometimes those work, sometimes they don't. Invariably they would have worked better had I recognized the dichotomy before turning the poem loose to the readers. The unconscious can sometimes seem mystically wise, but it's a lousy craftsman.

One of the things I've done repeatedly in this discussion, and I'm unsure anyone has noticed, is try to separate the creation of a poem from the reading of a poem. That's another one of those it-can't-be-done-but-we-have-to-try things I keep throwing at you. I can anticipate the reader (and must, if I'm to succeed), but I cannot control him. While engaged in the act of writing, the ONLY thing I control is myself. If I fail to define my purpose explicitly, or fail to use all of the tools in our inverted pyramid to realize that purpose, I have abdicated the only control I ever had. I have relinquished authorship to the whims of my subconscious and serendipity.

Rob, the separation of writing from reading is where I think our misunderstandings arise. Nothing I've said applies to the reading of poetry and, no, I don't feel any need when reading good poetry to extract THE meaning or even the author's intent. The skills needed to write and the skills needed to read, though there is overlap, are very different things. One of the hardest thing I ever had to do was learn to read as a writer, and I'm still in the process of learning to write as a reader.

You supposed, Rob, that I "clearly see the poet as controller, as a kind of leader who in an ideal situation would guide the reader (EVERY reader) through the poem to a point or points he ordained." To which I resoundly cry, "YES, YES, YES!" Though an impossible one, that is absolutely my singular goal.

Why? Because I think what I have to say is important. I'm sure the reader has important things to say, too, but that's his poem, not mine. That doesn't mean I won't take a reader from A to B and then shove him in the direction of C, because I fully recognize the necessity of reader participation. But in the ideal world you postulate, I would KNOW exactly where the push I gave would take him. He might thoroughly enjoy a trip to D, but again, that's his poem, not mine. I think C is of vital importance (though no more so than D) and will be unhappy with my efforts if I fail to get him there. I do not and will not write a poem to simply move the reader. Movement without direction is pointless.

And, yes, I recognize the arrogance inherent in that view. Art is communication, and I think the artist who isn't arrogant enough to believe he has something worth saying should probably take up psychology instead. Rorschach tests at least make some sense when the reader is laying on a couch and paying $200 an hour.

No, I never meant to talk about success or failure in terms of good or bad. Success and failure revolve around the writing of poetry, while good and bad revolve around the reading of it. I'm perfectly willing to discuss "good poetry," but that should probably be done in the Philosophy forum - where we're very accustomed to never arriving at answers.

If it wasn't already apparent, I was talking about the same divorcement of writing and reading when I expressed my distaste for the "any interpretation is valid" school of thought. Unless the readers have Trevor around to explain his intent, they really have little choice but to assume their own is valid. Even if it differs from those of others. And that's cool, because they may well be right -- even at the expense of the writer being wrong. At the point the poem is being read, deeper minds may well see something the writer missed. Remember, some of the content of that poem was penned by the poet's unconscious. During the reading, there is indeed a partnership at work. During the writing, however, there can and should be only one interpretation. During the writing, if the writer notices unconscious thoughts taking shape he either needs to make them conscious and deal with them, or squash them like the distraction they are. During the writing, the writer is alone, because until the poem is born, there are no readers.

You guys have said some very insightful things, and I disagree with very little - in the context you meant them. In the spirit of divide and conquer, however, I try to pare the writing down to as narrow a context as I can, and in THAT context I try to make the act of writing as close to a hard science as possible. That doesn't mean I forget the reader, nor does it mean my unconscious won't slip a few hot peppers into the stew I'm brewing. On the contrary, after the first draft, I "become" a reader and try to see where the writer and his damnable unconscious are trying to take me. The second draft is a honing of the poem to meet my purpose, or (as often as not) an expansion of my purpose to meet what I've learned from the poem. At the completion of my final draft, however, I know EXACTLY what I hope to accomplish with the poem, and the only limitation in meeting that purpose is my skill as a writer.

That's not really science, of course. As I learn more and more of the "rules," I try to make it as rigorous as I can, but it will never be science. It's art, at least on a good day, and just frustrating on the bad ones. But I hope that's still a far cry from mysticism.


Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
54 posted 2002-09-17 05:50 AM


Hello all and damn the lot of ya...there I was trying to sleep but this bleeping thread kept creeping in my head...I hope some of you will visit me in my padded room....they have crafts there...but I don't know if that's art or science anymore  

RON:

"Correct me if I'm wrong, Trevor, but this seems to be the basis for virtually all of your disagreements."

Ya got me copp'a!   Logic wasn't the best choice of words, what I was more aiming for was stern or rigid. It seemed too hard lined an approach for the subject of art even though I'll admit that the two (art and science) do cross over into each other's realm.

"(Introducing inspiration as one of those variables was an interesting move, and I wish I could address it without losing focus. Maybe another time?)"

Well you are the disciplined one because I wish I could properly address any single issue here without losing focus, not just inspiration...so if you have the time and patience to decipher my responses, I'm always up for interesting discussions with an interesting person.

"I still think, however, that the writer needs to treat it as a hard science as much as is possible while still engaged in the act of writing."

Even though you stessed "as much as possible", and I agree there is some science involved in writing, I still feel you have it reversed. A writer, or at least a creative one, needs to treat writing as much as an art as possible and as a science as little as possible. For me, that is what breeds creativity and creativity, in my opinion, is a large portion of what art represents. Only using the science of writing technique, language, interpretation, etc. and so on, when needed. Otherwise it could become overly formulaic or constrict the creative process. I mean why coddle the reader with a pre-existing technique, etc. if you can use an original way of expressing yourself while still remaining "understood". And there is a science to that but I believe it is often created after the fact and not before.

"Indeed, most of us already treat it as a hard science."

Perhaps but that is only because most don't engage in creative writing but rather nonchalant emails, letters home and office reports. BTW I'm interpretting most as people in society rather than the writers here. Much like there is art in science (HG Wells), there is science in art (linguistics). They indeed influence each other but in my opinion should be treated firstly as their respected titles....at least if the intent of the writer is creativity and not just marketing.

"When was the last time you used a singular noun with a plural subject?"

zep. Now for discussions sake, "zep" is the phatom singular noun that defines a plural subject. Or maybe PIP might be a better word. The point I'm trying to make is towards your next statement...

"There are rules to writing, just as there are rules to physics."

Apples and oranges I think. Just because football and basketball have rules doesn't mean they should be played the same way. Zep...there I have created something that can not be disbuted, there is absolutely no way that that you can disbute the meaning of this word to me. It is now a steadfast law in my writing with no variables to offer until I so declare it different. I am the king and the pauper in a world of language. I decide what I say and how, yet I am subjected to the same by others. However if I tell you that I'm going to drop a pen and it will float...you can prove me wrong based on physics. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that physic's rules apply to all, I can't escape the law of gravity, however I can escape the law of a singular noun with a plural subject.

"No, they're not as "hard" as the speed of light in a vacuum, but they're still rules and writers break them at their own risk."

But there are no real "risks" to breaking the rules of a writer if the writer's intent is creativity. Jumping off a cliff to rebel against the practise of gravity is not smart...but Zep, well zep has no consequence. Zep is now a word, why?, I created it and it works for me even if it doesn't properly act as a reference for you. And if there are no real consequences to breaking these rules then are they really "rules"?


"Break too many and the result is incomprehensible nonsense."

Or abstract, which is in my opinion, a valid art form. A difference between art and science is sometimes incomprehensible nonsense is the beauty of art.

"I tend to see those rules as an inverted pyramid, with the rules of grammar and English as the capstone upon which we build."

Now I really like the analogy here, and I'm in agreement for a large part...except of course if you try and force Zep. into it. This is where I think writing is forced to meet with science...linguistics and the writing of language. There must be some sort of similar agreement between writer and reader as to what language a writer will use to describe whatever, in consideration to the purpose of that writing. But beyond that I don't really see it as a pyramid, but rather as something only definable after its built.

"Move farther up the pyramid, Trevor, and you'll find the rule about avoiding those cliches you so detest."

Actually I would stick them on the base as well. They are the proven form of communication. I know what that "broken heart or soulful look" means because I have stepped on these blocks as well as everyone else, that is something that can be in the manual, its been fully mapped out in my opinion.

"I believe too liberal an application of the "any interpretation is valid" school poses the danger of turning writing from science to mysticism."

Maybe, maybe not. To be honest I'm really reserved to comment on this(imagine that!), too large a gray area to decide.

"He called it "a fraternal embrace, the classic caress of author and reader."

And that was a point I was alluding to earlier in the thread. There is an embrace between reader and writer because a good writer will let the reader personalize their work. I still believe this to be more of an art than a science because it too has more variables than I'd even like to try and think of.

"That isn't magic, that's incredible use of technique, coupled with the insight of genius. Still not convinced?"

Of course not, because you haven't mentioned the creative process in the involvement of his art. It's been so far, solely about technique. I can't argue against technique playing a role in writing, but how large a role, yes, especially when you take into consideration creativity and inspiration. I can write the exact same poem that Williams did, word for word and I can have it mean the same as well, and even the same intention he had writing it(minus the creativity of course)...so if writing is more about technique, then why wouldn't it be as well recieved as his...I mean technically, I did everything he did correctly? I built the same house but why does no one want to live in mine? Why is my poem less even though I did everything techinique wise, perfectly? What made Williams write about the wheelbarrow might be even more important than how he wrote about it. But why did the wheelbarrow jump out at him and speak? Why does it speak to us when he says it? I'm sure he could give you some answer but the real depth to it is probably far from his or our understanding. So maybe there is some mysticism left in writing.

"Williams also said, "When they ask me, as of late they frequently do, how I have for so many years continued an equal interest in medicine and the poem, I reply that they amount for me to nearly the same thing. I seriously doubt Williams treated his patients with mysticism, but rather with skill and insight. The same way he wrote."

This isn't going to help in the discussion, at least not for my arguement's sake but maybe for yours, but, I haven't read the interview in whole, only the snippets shown so if I'm way off base just let me know, but how do you know he was even talking about his patients? That's a pretty vague statement especially when he states "amount to me nearly the same thing" and "equal interest", what is his interest in medicine, science or the humanities? How close is his nearly and what does thing represent? Damn him and his vagueness, yet I can't help but think what a wonderful statement that was. Personally I think he was talking about "personal happiness and fulfillment", maybe even the healing process rather than the science of treating patients and writing.

Perhaps the big and only gap between our sides is that yours is based more in science and my version - the creative process. Both have their place in writing, yours on computer manuals and mine on cheesy Hallmark cards. I get the impression that you feel science should employ creativity and for me, its creativity that employs science. Nonetheless they same to work for the same company.

"Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced science would seem as if it were magic. I put it to you that any great writer who seems to not be following the rules of writing is simply following rules too advanced for us to easily see."

But now it seems you are treating the rules of writing as a constant, something that has always been there, whether in use or not rather than something that is man made and constantly changed and reformed. Perhaps its not advanced rules, but rather new ones?

Gosh darn it Ron, you sure wrote a lot...and again I'm out of fuel and having trouble focusing so I don't think I'll be able to address all the points you've made...hope you don't think this is a cop out..but to be honest I'm too tired right now to care if you do . I do agree with a lot of what you have to say, probably most though each point to varying degrees, how can I not, most of it makes sense and though overly logical...still logical nonetheless   After all this I have to say that there is a place for science in art, just like there is a place for art in science. And art being such a broad term and a subjective look at something that is based in creativity and expression, seems to be elusive to nail down to a when, which, where, how, why it is successful or purposeful? From both a writer's perspective and a reader's. I also think at times both art and science bend hard right and left, and can be successful in doing either. Art can be abstract whereas science can be solely based on experience rather than forethought. Art can be rigid and constrained whereas we have quantum physics as a creative science. However I think for the most part both often suffer without being coupled with each other or coupled too often.

Anyways, I'm officially out of gas. Hope I've contributed something to this discussion...though when I get this tired I feel as if I'm just a babbling bafoon...which isn't necessarily a bad thing...every courtyard needs a jester to beat on.

Thanks again,

[This message has been edited by Trevor (09-17-2002 05:57 AM).]

Robtm1965
Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263

55 posted 2002-09-17 10:15 AM


“I'm sorry, Rob, but that one was worth a belly laugh. Two sentences to deny it, then a third to do much the same thing again? A good poem to whom?”

No need to be sorry Ron, even God gets confused - or so I’m told!  And yes it was kind of droll.  In any case I think you know what I mean, but for the dubious benefit of any other poor masochistic souls who happen to be following my ramblings (not you Trevor!)  I’ll be clearer.  You said I was being “much too subjective” - that was my attempt to disprove the “much too”.  Sure, it’s still subjective, but by much too I assume you meant that my subjectivity was so way out, so totally different from anyone elses as to be difficult to support logically in any general discussion.  By narrowing down my problem to one of poetry not being about “meaning” I think, in fact I know, I bring my views within one of the mainstream ideas of what poetry should be.

“I never meant to talk about success or failure in terms of good or bad. Success and failure revolve around the writing of poetry, while good and bad revolve around the reading of it.”

“You supposed, Rob, that I "clearly see the poet as controller, as a kind of leader who in an ideal situation would guide the reader (EVERY reader) through the poem to a point or points he ordained." To which I resoundly cry, "YES, YES, YES!" Though an impossible one, that is absolutely my singular goal.”

And I resoundly (sic) cry No, No, NO.  Ah well Ron at least we know where we disagree.  You are determined in all areas to make a clear distinction between the writing and writer of the poem and the reading and readers of it.  I don’t see that distinction as being important or even desirable.   I know I’ve stated that simplistically (and at a superficial level nonsensically) and I could elaborate at length but I’m out of time here.  

And Trevor, lots I agree with in your post, a little I might query some.  Maybe later.   And maybe I might even read some poems.

Thanks to both of you.

Rob

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
56 posted 2002-09-17 04:58 PM


Trevor asked:  
quote:
I can write the exact same poem that Williams did, word for word and I can have it mean the same as well, and even the same intention he had writing it (minus the creativity of course) ... so if writing is more about technique, then why wouldn't it be as well received as his...

Because no one even knows what the hell a little red zep is?  

Sorry, sometimes my impulses get the better of me. More seriously, it's been said there is a fine line between genius and madness, and I've often thought the difference might lie only in communication. Today we recognize the genius of van Gogh, but he died penniless because his contemporaries saw only the madness. (The ear thing might have contributed a little to that perception, too.) Maybe zep is pure genius, Trevor. Or utter madness. And maybe the only difference is how well you communicate it?

Inspiration, I think, is that inexplicable insight that allows one to see something in an entirely different way. Einstein was struck by inspiration, I suspect, when he looked at formulas that had been circulating for over two years and realized the Lorenz transformations were the tip of a much larger iceberg.

Creativity, in a limited sense, is the process by which one takes inspiration and makes it intelligible to others. Sensing the importance of the Lorenz transformations wasn't enough to turn Newton's classic world upside down. Even if Einstein intuitively knew where they would lead, and I think perhaps he did, that effected no one but himself. He had to carry inspiration to the next level, to one of personal understanding, and then communicate that understanding to others in a way that would make sense.

I have the utmost respect for inspiration and creativity, and will readily admit they are the foundation for all art and most certainly for poetry. As my examples above might have hinted, they are equally important in the sciences and, yes, even in mathematics. I would even go so far as to say that inspiration and creativity are the foundation upon which humanity has carved a definition of itself. In a short story written more than two decades ago, I called it the "God Factor."

However, to draw a very quick analogy, I also believe that love is the only thing in existence to give lasting human satisfaction. And in 52 years of trying, I've yet to find a way to control who I love and who I don't love. I can nudge it. I can coddle it. I can even, at times, ignore it. But control? Not even in my wildest dreams!

Inspiration and creativity are vital to writing, but they represent the mystic side largely beyond my control. They can be nudged, coddled, even foolishly ignored, but are adamant in their refusal to be regulated. I can't wake up on Monday morning and say, okay, TODAY I will see something in a brand new light. Maybe about one o'clock in the afternoon? I can be receptive to inspiration, I can learn to recognize it when it comes, I can even pursue it once it touches, but there is nothing I can do to control it.

Inspiration is the mystical beginning of the writing process, and I both recognize and appreciate it. But from a pragmatic standpoint, my control begins with craftsmanship. Once inspiration has granted her sweet kiss, I have to find ways to communicate that intimacy to others. That is the "science" side of writing and has been the focus of all I've said in this thread. I certainly don't pretend it's the only side of writing, or even the most important side, but it is sadly very often the most neglected side.

How often have you heard a writer say, "I don't do rewrites, because it destroys the spontaneity?" That writer has been captured by the mysticism of writing and refuses to even acknowledge the science of writing. I think we are all captured a little bit by the mysticism, and that's probably not even a bad thing. What is bad, perhaps, is to fail to recognize the chains that bind us. When a writer (sic) refuses to edit, that is mysticism. But I've clung tenaciously to metaphors I knew didn't work, and that too was sometimes mysticism. Only when I recognized the chains was able to escape them (if but for a while).

Maybe it's ironic that good writing, though born in the womb of magic, can only be nourished to maturity at the teat of science?

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
57 posted 2002-09-18 01:22 PM


Well, you heavy hitters have far exceeded my mental power to add or detract. But I have enjoyed following this thread. Who would ever have thought that 11 simple words could have generated this much discussion. This is the most thoroughly covered subject and the longest thread of my recollection in CA ever.

Well ok, I guess I can add a little bit even though it is an uneducated opinion. The painter must have the skills (read that as the science) to accurately render his inspiration on canvas. But it is the inspiration or thought that makes it art. Without that art, no amount of science could create a masterpiece. It is also true that without the science, even a masterpiece of inspiration could probably not be rendered into a memorable painting. The same is true for the poet. It is unlikely that any artist could achieve master status without posessing an abundant amount of both the inspiration (art) and technical skills (science) appropriate to his endeavor. It is impossible, IMHO, to claim that one is more important than the other. The inspiration comes first but to convert it to reality requires the skill. That is not to say that the art and science must be attained in that order. Some are probably born with the art but then have to learn the science to succeed. Others may learn the science first then gradually attain the art.

Thanks for the excellent thread,

Pete

Never express yourself more clearly than you can think - Niels Bohr

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
58 posted 2002-09-22 01:42 AM


a bit late here, but i caught this as i was browsing around and just wanted to throw a thumbs-up in your direction. i have to admit that i've only read the first dozen or so replies, so i may repeat something already said...

i really liked the first version. it's personal as someone (jim?) mentioned, and gave me a CLEAR visual image of the occurence, while at the same time leaving a wonder in my mind as i finished as to the possibilities of further meaning. the metaphor (if it is such, i read it so) can extend to so many things... and that's GOOD! it allows the reader to choose (or have chosen for them) from their personal experience something that would read these lines in a very personal manner.

me - i began to think about my brother... he's had some problems over the years with drugs - a prison of sorts. and slowly, he's attempted to pry free from that prison, but it's been a hard journey. the image first of an icicle; a solid, unyielding state of existence. it is followed by the reference to prison, which extends itself out naturally as a metaphor to being a self-locked state. then, it drips in tears, showing of course the image of a melting icicle, but also right in line with something that alludes to the pain of breaking away from this prison.

in all, a striking poem, for all that it's so sparse. amazing and muchly appreciated.

C

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
59 posted 2002-09-22 01:52 AM


rofl - teach me to read the replies before posting my own. oh well, we know where to put the foot...
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
60 posted 2002-09-22 12:01 PM


Spit out that foot Christopher. I think your interpretation was not only valid but a slightly different and interesting twist. Come around more often friend.

Thanks,
Pete

Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354
Listening to every heart
61 posted 2002-09-22 12:24 PM


Hello Trevor.  Just so you know, I've bookmarked this one to come back and read throughout the cold winter...my gosh, you folks really tore this one apart with enough information to make one not only think, but think about why one would even WANT to think.

Trev, just a note...

this version?

quote:
The icicle loosens its grip
spears the plow
awaits the melt
freedom is
the simplest of things.


...suits me best.  I like the plow being in there...it really brought out the picture.

Gads, you folks are good.  I'll be back, just to read...

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
62 posted 2002-09-22 05:29 PM


DIE THREAD DIE!!!!!

Kidding, wow, super that this is still going....I don't know about any of you but this whole discussion took a lot out of me....burnt me out a bit...ah vell I guess the weak mind tires easily

I think now this is the longest thread ever at CA...second I believe was Coffee at 60 posts...which turned into a discussion about critiquing.

I just wanted to take the time to thank again all who contributed to the poem and the ensuing discussion.

Pete:

Yeah, I think we're all sorta on the same page as what you said. Science and art seem to go hand in hand. Thanks...btw, what the hell took you so long...I thought you'd be in there battling too.

Chris:

I agree with Pete, thanks for taking the time to read it, glad you enjoyed.

Sunshine:

Thanks for your comments and taking the time to read it.


Well thanks everyone,

Trevor


Robtm1965
Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263

63 posted 2002-09-23 10:45 AM


“... second I believe was Coffee at 60 posts...which turned into a discussion about critiquing.”

Fomented by WHO Trevor?!

Worth reading though, and incredibly I agreed with your point of view (or perhaps not so incredible).  Is there anything worse than the “wow” critique?

Rob

Sudhir Iyer
Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943
Mumbai, India : now in Belgium
64 posted 2002-09-23 11:44 AM


yeah ROB... but that's another discussion already done at PiP, I think... check something on "sincerity of replies" or something similar
how about this: "WOW...WOW...WOW you wouldn't believe how good this is..."

Actually, thanks guys for the millions of thought waves you supplied me in the past 2 hours... I also now know why I don't come here more often...

but maybe, I should!!!

Cheers,
regards,
Sudhir

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
65 posted 2002-09-23 06:04 PM


Well Trevor, I couldn't do too much "battling." Like I said, you guys got over my head in a hell of a hurry. So I just enjoyed all the activity.

Pete

Never express yourself more clearly than you can think - Niels Bohr

Trevor
Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700
Canada
66 posted 2002-09-24 02:32 PM


Hello,

ROB:

"“... second I believe was Coffee at 60 posts...which turned into a discussion about critiquing.”

Fomented by WHO Trevor?!"

The Who? Great band...I didn't know they posted here....okay and lets take a look-see at the cheesojoko-meter...yeah, that's about an 8.8. I hope you're not implying that I'm a little long winded...perhaps Mr. Trevor Goes to Washington? Besides, this thread should be credited to you...I mean you did hi-jack it

"Worth reading though, and incredibly I agreed with your point of view (or perhaps not so incredible).  Is there anything worse than the “wow” critique?"

Maybe only bamboo shoots between the nails or a burning sharp stick in the eye

SUDHIR:

"yeah ROB... but that's another discussion already done at PiP, I think"

Okay lets get something straight here bucko...CA is the Rangers of PIP, we lead the way...."philosophy of replies" came after "Coffee"...not before, but after "Coffee"...and that thread only made it to a piddly 56, didn't even crack the 6.0. I'm kidding of course. I did read that thread and it was very interesting as well.

" I also now know why I don't come here more often...

but maybe, I should!!!"

Yes you should, this is the happening spot here...the place to be...and we are so far out of the in crowd that we are actually way out in the in and even more in than the in crowd, just nobody knows it yet....who am I kidding, we're just a bunch of babbly mouth book nerds...but hey, being unhip is hip again. Just ignore me when I get like this okay?

PETE:

"Well Trevor, I couldn't do too much "battling." Like I said, you guys got over my head in a hell of a hurry. So I just enjoyed all the activity."

Nonsense Pete, it's not what you say but who yells the loudest and longest.
Trevor

WhiteRose
Member Elite
since 2002-07-23
Posts 3208
somebody's dungeon
67 posted 2002-09-26 10:10 AM


I am with Sudhir, if I wasn't afraid to come in here before, I am now. YIKES!
doreen peri
Member Elite
since 1999-05-25
Posts 3812
Virginia
68 posted 2002-09-26 07:46 PM


the poem was
very short.
it said a lot.

the thread was
very long.

less is more.
more or less.


Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Archives » Critical Analysis #2 » Melt

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary