»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #2
»
Oclock in Damornin
| Critical Analysis #2 |
|
Oclock in Damornin |
|
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
You had no right to barge right in dam it! You had no right to barge I tellya! Howlin dawgs all ova the place! Two clock in damornin! Yer a disgrace! and Look at yer face ya good fer nothin! Bargin in this time damornin! Should be shamed! Dag nabit! Should be shamed! And what's this hea ya got in yer pocket... Drugs? I been tellinya! Haven't I been tellinya? But ya don't listen do ya! Two oclock in damornin willya! Two oclock in da mornin-- Huh? We'll see about that! We'll just see about that! [This message has been edited by Radrook (09-27-2002 03:59 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2002 Radrook - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Hello Radrook - I am wondering if your purpose was to wander over the course of this supposed conversation... and then leave it hanging? Honestly, it seems to me as if you spent too much time building up the suspense, without delivering the proverbial punch-in-the-gut I was expecting toward the end. The language, I feel, is well portrayed, giving on the feeling of incipient violence due to frustration... but i also have to say on the flip side that i got a bunch of clichéd images stuck in my mind at the same time. It's probably just me, but by the time the second stanza began, i could clearly see in my mind a picture of an older, potbellied man, stained wifebeater & boxer shorts, with beer in hand, yelling at his young, rebellious teenager (possibly stepson). I have no clue whether this was your intent, but thought you might want to know the images it brought to mind based on the language choice. Also curious about the importance of two in the morning... uhm, aside from the fact that it's, well, two in the morning, lol.  it seems that there is a lot of signifigance to that, or maybe i'm just looking too hard.oh well, that's my 2 cents. Christopher |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
Hello Radrook - I am wondering if your purpose was to wander over the course of this supposed conversation ... and then leave it hanging? Hi! Thanks for the feedback! Yes, my purpose was to leave it hanging and let the reader fill in the ensuing details. No, it is not a conversation. It is a monologue since the "barger" doesn't say one single word in response. The poem's purpose is to portray an ineffective method of responding to our kids. It was meant to indirectly condemn the father's overbearing and broach-no-response or explanation attitude which serves only to alienate. Feedback: Honestly, it seems to me as if you spent too much time building up the suspense, without delivering the proverbial punch-in-the-gut I was expecting toward the end. If I intended to deliver the proverbial punch you mention, then, yes, I WOULD be spending too much time. But delivering a punch was irrelevant to my poem's purpose. Feedback: The language, I feel, is well portrayed, giving on the feeling of incipient violence due to frustration ... but I also have to say on the flip side that I got a bunch of clichéd images stuck in my mind at the same time. Response: Certainly! This is a common occurrence and not intended to be unique in any way. In fact, I aimed for it to be a common scene with common language and common emotions. So that was not at all accidental. Feedback: It's probably just me, but by the time the second stanza began, I could clearly see in my mind a picture of an older, potbellied man, stained wifebeater & boxer shorts, with beer in hand, yelling at his young, rebellious teenager (possibly stepson). Response: Well, I was not trying to portray Saint Francis of Assisi. Actually, I wrote it so that each reader would fill in the the man's appearance from memories or expectations as you did. Feedback: I have no clue whether this was your intent, but thought you might want to know the images it brought to mind based on the language choice. Response: Well, he certainly was not meant to depict an English college professor! His vocabulary chosen was meant to hint at his educational level and possible socio economic status. And yes, at his probable cliche'd appearance as well. Feedback: Also curious about the importance of two in the morning... uhm, aside from the fact that it's, well, two in the morning, lol. it seems that there is a lot of significance to that, or maybe I'm just looking too hard. Response: No, the only significance of is that it is not a time to awaken people and be making a racket that wakens the dead and sets the neighborhood pit bulls barking. Apart from that, I intended no deeper meaning. It is simply a catalyst for the ensuing scene. Actually, I personally have had no such experience with any of my kids since they are well-behaved and true Christians. Neither would I react that way if they did barge in at two in the morning. But there too many people who would react this way, further awakening the remaining dead and causing additonal pit bulls to join in the keening, barking, and howling. It is this attitude which is the focus of the poem. That is why having portrayed the attitude--I leave the scene at that point. But hey! Thanks for the feedback! BTW If the poem manages to create a condemnatory attitude within the reader concerning the speaker's method, then it is serving its purpose. Are there other ways to accomplish this? Of course! But this is the particular method I chose at two oclock in the morning. LOL : ) [This message has been edited by Radrook (09-27-2002 02:58 PM).] |
||
|
lizzy-luv Junior Member
since 2002-10-12
Posts 20new hampshire..oh, the hicks abound |
Radrook, I like. I was left with an image of my dear sweet mommy tweaking out at me. Granted, I haven't really managed two a.m yet, but still. Your poem was very successful. At least with me. The phrasing and the dialect are almost comical. But they work. The intended cliches are gotten across. Thanks! 'everyone is broken by something they love and worship'(Fransesca Lia Block) |
||
majnu
since 2002-10-13
Posts 1088SF Bay Area |
i found the usage of cliches reasonable. the point that you wanted to make is made. i dislike the slang that you used. it seemed overdone. do people actually speak that way? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Majnu wrote: "Do people really speak that way." Yes, some do. Radrook: I like this. In spite of the monologue, I think there are two stories going on here at the same time. One about the silent delinquent and the other about the ineffectual parent. The parent goes on and on about "I been tellinya" but really says nothing of substance. Ironically, the speaker in the poem says very little with many words. I really did like this. Thanks for the read. Jim |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
I can't say that the dialect did a lot for me although it looks like you pulled it off pretty well and that can be a most difficult thing to do. The whole scene, however, did spark my memory, back to when I was much younger, trying to slip in unnoticed late at night, etc, etc. Maybe the dialect didn't work for me because my father was a very well-spoken man. Thanks, Pete |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
Thanks for the feedback everyone. God bless! |
||
|
TJDoat Junior Member
since 2002-09-29
Posts 26 |
I know several people who sound just like that..................... One suggestion, change the line "Haven't I been tellinya?" to: Ain't I been a tellinya -Jason |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
Yes, indeed! That certainly is another way it could be written. It would place the speaker in a lower social strata though. A lower one--at least that's how I see it The reason I prefer "isn't' to "ain't" is that I do not wish to make the speaker seem necessarily uneducated. Otherwise the reader might place too much blame on his lack of education and not enough on his lack of common sense. Actually, as it stands, there are people with pretty good education in the southern parts of the United States who speak this way. So it is not necessarily an indication of low educational level--but can be more of a regional linguistic nature. The use of "ain't" would indicate more of grammatical error than regional idiosyncrasy. Thanks for the feedback. God bless! [This message has been edited by Radrook (10-19-2002 03:34 AM).] |
||
|
TJDoat Junior Member
since 2002-09-29
Posts 26 |
Actually, as it stands, there are people with pretty good education in the southern parts of the United States who speak this way. So it is not necessarily an indication of low educational level--but can be more of a regional linguistic nature. The use of "ain't" would indicate more of grammatical error than regional idiosyncrasy. I'm stuck here in Oklahoma, and everyone uses the word "ain't". It is honestly a common practice(very common, yonder too). I have often wondered why it is not considered an actual word. People use it don't they? We all know what it means. I mean it just ain't right, not to call it a word .-Jason |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
I agree, it is a word. In fact, I used it very often myself once. It is a legitimate word and serves the same denotative purpose as "isn't." But it is not considered standard English. The two words only differ connotatively. |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
What I really meant to say is that both words are denotatively similar within that context. But they are not always denotatively interchangeable . Actually, the contraction "ain't" is far more versatile than the contraction "isn't". To illustrate here are some examples: I ain't goin nowhere! [am not] I aint't seen you in a long time! [have not] Ain't you his brother? [aren't] Ain't no way I am doing that. [there isn't] Ain't you got no common sense? [don't] We can't use isn't that many ways. [This message has been edited by Radrook (10-20-2002 12:24 AM).] |
||
|
SimplyGold Senior Member
since 2002-07-10
Posts 1453 |
Rad, I suspect, sadly enough, that is an excellent dipiction of a large number of people within the population. The language was very good, I got a kick out of it and it did send a shiver up my spine. This man, who is ranting, is so very fustrated. However, "dag nabit" was a little over the line or perhaps out of character. "Son of ____" would be more like it or "ya little ____".  So much for my intellectual analysis. Enjoyed it very much. Regards, Elec [This message has been edited by SimplyGold (10-22-2002 07:33 PM).] |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
Hi Simply Gold! I had reservations about that "Dagnabit!" part. I tend to agree that maybe a more modern expression is better. Something perhaps like: "Why you no good yellowed-bellied-tripple-flushin egg-suckin snake-slitherin mangy-dog vermin-infested tripe! Who da ya think yar? Huh? Just hoodayathink yar?" LOL Thanks for the feedback! [This message has been edited by Radrook (10-23-2002 12:33 AM).] |
||
|
SimplyGold Senior Member
since 2002-07-10
Posts 1453 |
Aw gee, pa you never listen you ain't never gonna listen just once I'd wish ya would can't take ya yellin at ma can't ya see she's hurtin yaalways pickin at us drinking and rantin ahwoo! don't ya be hitting me again I tell ya I'm not yalittle boy no more that't the last time dammit.. SG [This message has been edited by SimplyGold (10-23-2002 01:51 PM).] |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
We can imagine all this going on while the neighborhood dogs bark and howl, cats angrily hiss and spit and maybe chickens squawk and cackle hysterically as counterpoint while an angered neighbor hollers in the distance: "Shhhhhhuuuuuut uuuuuuuuup!" LOL [This message has been edited by Radrook (10-23-2002 03:30 PM).] |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
"I ain't goin nowhere! [am not] I aint't seen you in a long time! [have not] Ain't you his brother? [aren't] Ain't no way I am doing that. [there isn't] Ain't you got no common sense? [don't] We can't use isn't that many ways." I isn't goin nowhere! I isn't seen you in a long time! Isn't you his brother? Isn't no way I am doing that. Isn't you got no common sense? If anyone understands those five lines then I guess "isn't" does have as many uses as "ain't". Isn't ain't as nice to hear as ain't except when ain't isn't as nice to hear as isn't. |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
First, the numerically singular verb of existence "is" can be applied only to others not to oneself. The sentence: "Is my dinner ready?" is referring to the dinner, not to onself." "Is I ready?" is clearly incorrect. That is, of course, if we are to remain within the parameters of standard English. Let's rewrite those sentences and see what happens this time. I is not going nowhere! [Fairly understandable but grammatically unacceptable.] I is not seen you in a long time! [Grammatically nonsensical.] Is not you his brother? [Understandable but grammatically unacceptable.] Is not no way I am doing that. [Nonsensical Is not you got no common sense? [Nonsensical] Statement: If anyone understands those five lines then I guess "isn't" does have as many uses as "ain't." Response: Well, understanding a grammatical error doesn't mean that it is the best way to speak or write. Good Writing in any language requires clarity and a reasonable amount of respect for that language's standard usage. Imprecision or confusion or the nonsensical expression would make a reader pause to figure out why the speaker of writer has chosen to mangle the language that way. Is it due to the needs for characterization? If not--why? Of course outside the parameters of Standard English we have Ebonics, South Sea pidgin, or Caribbean Patois, the colorful Cockney English in England along with all other substandard idioms and dialects which are used by subcultures in English-speaking countries. [This message has been edited by Radrook (10-26-2002 03:35 PM).] |
||
|
SimplyGold Senior Member
since 2002-07-10
Posts 1453 |
Rad, This was a fun poem and written well. You captured the essence of the dialect and the culture. I found it interesting because we seldom think about it. You drew the picture which pushed the characterization to the forefront. Regards,  SimplyGold [This message has been edited by SimplyGold (10-27-2002 10:22 AM).] |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
Hi Simply Gold! Thanks for the feedback. I have a whole bunch of limericks I wrote about 15 years ago. I always strive to see the humorous side of life. Actually, I see most of life as humorous except for severe exceptions which cannot be seen but in a very somber way. God bless! |
||
|
SimplyGold Senior Member
since 2002-07-10
Posts 1453 |
Rad, Please post some more. I find your writing and perspective very interesting. I also enjoy the nature of the dialogue in this area, very thought provoking. SimplyGold |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
Hi Simply Gold! Thanks for your encouraging words. Will see if I can start posting again at the general poetry forum. God bless! |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
"Well, understanding a grammatical error doesn't mean that it is the best way to speak or write." By the way that you responded I'm sure you understood a lot more in my statements than just "grammatical errors". You would first have to understand what I was saying in order to rationalize that I was saying it "wrongly". "Good Writing in any language requires clarity and a reasonable amount of respect for that language's standard usage." Said the man who wrote a poem entitled "Oclock in Damornin". "Imprecision or confusion or the nonsensical expression would make a reader pause to figure out why the speaker of writer has chosen to mangle the language that way." Yes and making a reader stop and explore language and the use thereof is a really, really bad thing. But what you call imprecise, may actually be more of a bullseye than you think. Do you think that most readers stopped and looked at your use of language in this poem?...don't you think that a lot of readers have to re-read this piece to grasp all the slang? Make up yer mine'id, is it okay or isn't it? All of what you just said is probably the same thing that many used to say about the use of "ain't" and many other now commonly used words that were former slang (all of them starting out in nonsensical obscurity). Seems silly to defend the purity of a language, that in itself, is the bastardization of another "pure" language. I guess those dark tall figures, dressed in robes, mulling over words, finally caved in and allowed ain't to finally be a new "acceptable" word. Me thinks yous just caught up in the sound of it all, ain't is probably a lot more pleasing to your ear, therefore you feel that "ain't you got no...", is much more acceptable than, "Is no you got no"..both statements to word coniseurs (sp?) is complete rubbish. If find it kinda funny that you post a poem that pretty much breaks a large majority of English rules, both grammatically and in spelling, yet you seem to both defend and attack the very technique you just used. |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
Remark: "Good Writing in any language requires clarity and a reasonable amount of respect for that language's standard usage." Said the man who wrote a poem entitled "O'clock in Damornin." Response: I never said that the word "ain't" completely confuses a reader to the point of incomprehensibility. Of course we can mangle English in all sorts of creative ways and still be understood. But comprehension does not necessarily justify its usage. What does justify its usage in the literary field is its purpose of characterization. If we write a novel about the American West, for instance, we must have the protagonist and all other characters of that region speaking in a way that is characteristic of their culture. If we have a cowboy speaking like an English butler, then we better explain to the reader just why this particular cowboy is speaking that way. The same applies to any other literary genre. Speech must project character. So saying that I am disrespecting Standard English because I am using characterization in a literary genre is not at all an accurate statement. Remark: Yes, and making a reader stop and explore language and the use thereof is a really, really bad thing. But what you call imprecise, may actually be more of a bullseye than you think. Do you think that most readers stopped and looked at your use of language in this poem?...don't you think that a lot of readers have to re-read this piece to grasp all the slang? Make up yer mine'id, is it okay or isn't it? Reply: Sigh! I took all those factors into consideration BEFORE writing the poem and decided to write it anyway. Ever here of poetic license? Actually, your problem stems from taking my statements out of context. To understand what a person is saying, we have to keep in mind the context in which he or she is saying it. Since you are not doing this--you are reaching conclusions completely diametrically opposed to what I meant. Remark: All of what you just said is probably the same thing that many used to say about the use of "ain't" and many other now commonly used words that were former slang (all of them starting out in nonsensical obscurity). Response: Woah! Hold your horses there partner! I never said that the word "ain't" is invariably nonsensical. If it were, then you could not communicate with it now could you? Of course not. In fact, I made it more than clear that I myself once regularly used "ain't" as a word-which it is and which I never denied it wasn't. Remark: Seems silly to defend the purity of a language, that in itself, is the bastardization of another "pure" language. I guess those dark tall figures, dressed in robes, mulling over words, finally caved in and allowed ain't to finally be a new "acceptable" word. Response: Just a second now. I gotta put on my dark robe before I mull over this one! LOL Well, I don't really view language in that narrow-minded ignorant way. Perhaps my education prevents it. I am well aware that language is dynamic and changes over time due to cultural diffusion brought on by military invasion, immigration, emigration, trade, or merely proximity between two cultures. Actually, if we had a time machine and traveled back to the 15th century England, we would feel as if we were in a foreign country since much of what they would say we would not understand. It was English though. Neither would they completely understand us. So hey! I am not saying that English must remain static. That would be rather ignorant of me since it is quite obvious even to the casual observer that languages are dynamic and grow. Take for example the words "rodeo" "gusto" "savvy." All three are of Spanish origin and were added to the English language. The words "canoe" and "hurricane" are of American Indian origin but were added to English as well. Other sources of additions came from Greek, French, German, and many other languages. So your opinion that I am in some way saying that English is to be held static is not at all accurate. Remarks! Me thinks yous just caught up in the sound of it all, ain't is probably a lot more pleasing to your ear, therefore you feel that "ain't you got no...", is much more acceptable than, "Is no you got no"..both statements to word coniseurs (sp?) is complete rubbish. If find it kinda funny that you post a poem that pretty much breaks a large majority of English rules, both grammatically and in spelling, yet you seem to both defend and attack the very technique you just used Response: Wow! It is obvious that you either gave my explanation very little thought or else gave it thought but were unable to unravel it. Haven't you ever heard of characterization via monologue or dialogue? It is basic to fictional writing my friend. I suggest that you feed a search engine the phrase (literary characterization} and become familiar with its nuances as applicable to the different genres. You cannot have fiction without characterization and this requires character projection via the use of differences in verbal expression. [This message has been edited by Radrook (10-28-2002 03:06 PM).] |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
"I never said that the word "ain't" completely confuses a reader to the point of incomprehensibility." Nor did I, and I didn't say that you said that either. All I was trying to point out is that the use of ain't, probably started out with the majority finding that word incomprehensible and incorrect...just as you have said about my use of "isn't". Yet if I only spoke or wrote that way, then those using or exposed to it might incorperate it into everyday use...then it wouldn't be slang nor would it be considered incorrect. So basically in a nut shell, IMO there really are no incorrect words or grammatics...just preferences...currently the majority of people already speak and write incorrectly in terms of what is supposedly academically correct...and if this is true - and yet everybody seems to understand each other even though daily language is riddled with slang, then truly, how needed is a rigid set of Standard English rules. Which all in turn relates to your claim that "ain't" is more versatile than "isn't". All words, in my opinion, are as versatile as the next if you can use them in a context, tone, etc. that describes your situation, feeling, object and so forth. All words started out with a meaning completely oblivious to everyone except their maker. And if this is the birth of language then how can anyone say what can or can not be used in language and how or when it can be manipulated. If you were to ask me..."Trev, when was the last time I saw you?" and I replied, "I is not seen you in a long time"...you would obviously understand what I was communicating to you...however, you probably would scold me for such bad grammar, but nonetheless, my reply was just as successful in relating to you the length of time in which we have not seen each other as it would be if I were to say, "I have not seen you in a long time". And if this is so, how can my use of language be incorrect? J.R. Tolkien invented a language..basically bastardizing a bunch of other languages..can't remember which ones...and was applauded for his work, however if the "common" person even considers altering their language (and it is theirs...all language is and should be a personal experience) from others, then they are usually considered wrong or uneducated. Yet those who claim that "I is not seen you in a long time", is wrong, have to first understand what was being communicated (how can you refute something you don't understand), in order to disclaim it....and if they understand it, then how can that be wrong in terms of communication? Just as some readers enjoyed your characterization of a southern draaawl, some may in fact enjoy "I isn't" more than "I have not" or "ain't". Lets take another look at one of those "nonsensical" sentences. "Is not no way I am doing that. [Nonsensical] Now I know you understood that...just as you will understand these... Not no way is I doing that. That, I is not doing. Doing that, I is not. Not I, is no way doing that. That doing, I is not, no way. Now you understand all of that, why?, not because so much because of the wording, but because of the context in which it was used...just as you understand if I were to ask you, "Is not you doing that?"...now you may think its ignorant to speak or write like that, but it is the personalization of language that is the beauty of it. Otherwise what's the sense of characterization in the first place. And all of this relates back to what I was saying, in the sense that for successful expression, "incorrect words" or grammar can be used to communicate fully an idea and it seems foolish to deem something "wrong" or "lesser" if it was successful in doing so. Hence my argument against "ain't" being more versatile a word than "isn't". And all of this can be related to communication outside of story characterization...I mean story characterization is based on real life stereotypes anyways...therefor saying it is correct to use it in storytelling, but incorrect to use in real life, seems absurd unless your sole purpose of characterization is to show that this person uses what you consider to be incorrect grammar. And that is as silly as saying "ain't" has more uses than "isn't"...and of course all of this applies to all words, both current ones and those that have yet to be created. Also if its usage is acceptable for characterization...and the character is understood when they speak, then why can't it be used outside of written dialogue, for example to pen an entire book without dialogue...I mean if it is understood in dialogue form..and dialogue is a successful form of communication (if not, then why use it?), then why isn't such bastardization of the English language deemed acceptable in non-fiction work? Why isn't "Damornin come Early" an "acceptable" way of starting a journalistic piece about a baker? I guess all I was trying to get at is, who decides what is acceptable grammatics? IMO, Obviously no one...and if it is never really decided on, but only cons people into thinking it has been, then is there a right or wrong...I mean if you can communicate your ideas or thoughts using what you claim is nonsensical.....is there really a right or wrong way to speak or write something? "Speech must project character. So saying that I am disrespecting Standard English because I am using characterization in a literary genre is not at all an accurate statement." But I wasn't saying that at all...I was saying if you think your word use is acceptable, then it seems silly to say that "I is not", is not acceptable. Like I said earlier in this thread, language, though commonly used, is very personal...and if writing in a manner that characterizes someone is acceptable when used in dialogue, then how come writing in that same manner doesn't seem to be an acceptable way of communicating when writing outside of dialogue...I mean if this is the way people actually speak, then why shouldn't it be the way they actually write? When I wrote: "If find it kinda funny that you post a poem that pretty much breaks a large majority of English rules, both grammatically and in spelling, yet you seem to both defend and attack the very technique you just used." What I was actually trying to say is that its silly that you defend, outside of characterization, the use of "ain't": "Actually, the contraction "ain't" is far more versatile than the contraction "isn't". To illustrate here are some examples: I ain't goin nowhere! [am not] I aint't seen you in a long time! [have not] Ain't you his brother? [aren't] Ain't no way I am doing that. [there isn't] Ain't you got no common sense? [don't] We can't use isn't that many ways.", ...which many feel is still slang and incorrect, yet you attack something that in conception and theory, not in commmon use, is the exact same thing. If everyone was to suddenly use "I is no not doing that", then it would be exactly like "ain't" and I suspect then you would then be defending the practical and versatile use of "I is not" over "nope". "I took all those factors into consideration BEFORE writing the poem and decided to write it anyway. Ever here of poetic license?" Yes, me herd of poetic license...my question is...who marked your test and how the hell did you get one? Kidding of course."Actually, your problem stems from taking my statements out of context. To understand what a person is saying, we have to keep in mind the context in which he or she is saying it. Since you are not doing this--you are reaching conclusions completely diametrically opposed to what I meant." I disagree, there is no problem with my replies context, "ain't", and your statements thereof, I believe were implied to a larger scope than just the poem at hand. And if you consider how characterization is extrememly similar to "real life", and how "real life" is very similar to writing...and then relate that back to the versitility of words, then I think it is in context. The whole underlying point, who gave who the power to deem what words are or aren't correct or acceptable? You can't expect me to believe that "poor" grammar is only acceptable when characterizing? In my opinion, there is no right or wrong way to say something, only success and failure in the communication of ideas. "I is not" may confuse some people, but then again, it may make perfect sense to others. But if its understood by the people you are trying to communicate it to, then how can it be incorrect or nonsensical? Grammar rules...they don't exist unless you want them too. They are as imaginary as country borders. The minute everyone stops believing, they disappear. "Woah! Hold your horses there partner! I never said that the word "ain't" is invariably nonsensical." Once again, neither did I, nor did I claim that you said it....geesh, read my statement again. I said that "ain't", most likely started out being called "nonsensical", just like you did so with my phrases using "isn't"...so it seems silly to defend the use of "ain't" while condemning something so similar in nature. "Well, I don't really view language in that narrow-minded ignorant way. Perhaps my education prevents it." Really, I usually find this is the opposite. "I am well aware that language is dynamic and changes over time due to cultural diffusion brought on by military invasion, immigration, emigration, trade, or merely proximity between two cultures." Yes, but also try to think micro, rather than just macro. "Actually, if we had a time machine and traveled back to the 15th century England, we would feel as if we were in a foreign country since much of what they would say we would not understand." Actually if we had a time machine I wouldn't waste it on dallying back to the 15th century so I could be tried for witchcraft because I could time travel, nah, I would probably go back a couple years and bet on sport teams, build a financial empire from betting against the Buffalo Bills...then just before I died, I would travel back in time again...meet myself, tell my doppleganger all about the teams to bet on and how to build a time machine...then I'd be looped into eternity. But seriously, I have no comments on this because I've already said that modern English is the bastardization of olde English. "So your opinion that I am in some way saying that English is to be held static is not at all accurate." Well it is only based upon your inaccurate claim that "ain't" is more versatile than "isn't", and if you believe that than perhaps your liberal view of language isn't as liberal as you thought. But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you are very liberal with language...in a taught sense. I guess my nit-picking is that if you are really open to language, then you should be a creator, not a follower of what is acceptable in terms of language youse. Now before this gets out of hand, I'm not trying to say either of us are right or wrong, perhaps, "I is no way not", is nonsensical, but I'd rather have the reader decide this than to say right off the bat, "No, we can not use this because this is grammatically incorrect." Because what you've learned, what we all have learned, to be incorrect, or correct grammatically, is based upon someone else's preferences of how they felt language should be spoken or written....thereby being ruled by someone else's form of expression, rather than forging ahead and creating yer owne. The only reason I can see for "I isn't no way.." being called "nonsensical" by you, is because somewhere throughout the course of your life, someone has told you that it is wrong to speak like this...because I'm sure that you understood each and every one of the phrases I wrote using "isn't"...so again, if I successfully communicated what I wanted to...is it really nonsensical? "It is obvious that you either gave my explanation very little thought or else gave it thought but were unable to unravel it." Yes it was far too complex for me to digest. Truly profound and incredibly magnificant work...good thing I had a team of linguistic experts working on it day and night so I could unravel the monsterous complexities that laid within your sealed tomb of words. "Haven't you ever heard of characterization via monologue or dialogue?" I'm sorry Rad, could you stop using such big words, those damn linguistic experts are quite costly. I don't understand why you think my statement was based upon your poem when your claim that "ain't" is more versatile than "isn't", is made outside of your work...and my response, was to that claim and not your poem, though I did, briefly cite it. I have absolutely no problem what-so-ever with your use of language, inside, or outside your poem...so I don't know why you seem so hung up on defending that which I agree with. The point I'm making, is it seems silly that outside of the poem, you say "ain't", which is considered slang and grammatically incorrect, is more versatile, than "isn't" which when used the same way as I did in my examples, is slang as well and considered incorrect...basically I'm trying to say that both, though deemed incorrect by the "experts", can be used, and should be considered "correct" if the message if communicated successfully. And its silly to say that one incorrect use is better than another...because if something that is incorrect, is found to be successful, than how can it truly be incorrect? Hasn't I not mis-said somethun, but rather just said it the way I wanted to? I guess I'm just trying to dispell some of the phantom rules, that I believe are a little too strict in grammar. "It is basic to fictional writing my friend." Yes, and a good example of basic fictional writing is your poem. "I suggest that you feed a search engine the phrase (literary characterization} and become familiar with its nuances as applicable to the different genres." What...and end up as confused about language as you are...ya gotta be pulling my chain (that's slang btw, for "You must be joking", just thought I'd include this in case you weren't familiar with my region's dialect). I guess I would take your suggestion to heart if I felt compelled to stereotype a culture in a way that has been milked till the teet is black and blue. "You cannot have fiction without characterization and this requires character projection via the use of differences in verbal expression." So wise...so wise. Wow! Oppps, my mistake...you can have fiction without verbal expression. Not much of a writer if you can't create a Southern character without giving them a drawl. What about when a central character in a ficticious work is mute? What happens then? No characterization? Don't confuse your writing ability with others. I have no idea why you would think that my statements are in reference to your poem rather than your ill-thought out claim that "ain't" is more versatile than "isn't" other than basing your entire response on the brief snippet, "Do you think that most readers stopped and looked at your use of language in this poem?...don't you think that a lot of readers have to re-read this piece to grasp all the slang? Make up yer mine'id, is it okay or isn't it?"...which was meant to be nothing more than an example of how "poor grammatics" can be used successfully to communicate an idea. I have no clue, other than my belief that you have trouble following a conversation, or I have trouble conducting one, why you think that I am attacking your language use or the blatant characterizations in your work. Really, I don't give a damn how you write or what you write about fictionally, that is your own choice, but when you make claims about how words can be used and try to shovel it on to others as something true - and I so happen to disagree, then well, what can I say, I feel compelled to speak out. Truth is, no one owns language so no one has the right to tell others how it can be written or spoken. We all should be the masters of language and not its subject. The whole modern institution of teaching language is to keep it static, why else would teachers squash a student when they find a new "wrong and incorrect" way to say somthing familiar? And I for one am somewhat against it. I believe that communication is crucial in our society, but I also believe that self expression, self development, finding one's own voice are all important as well....and if you try to box people into a certain way of speaking or writing, communicating and scold them for going outside the invisible borders then you begin to narrow a being. In fact I'd say most educational institutions are set up to be static in all fields and this flows over onto society and we get persecuted or ridiculed for stepping over our ghostly boundries. Language, without rules, will always find commonality because communication seems to be a necessity for humans. For example, language was around long before "proper grammatics", and even if languages weren't taught, I'm sure you'd still see commonality. It's only through the undying need for certain people to "control" every facet of human existence that we are forced into practising the teaching of linguistic "rules". Like I said, its my belief that without all these rules, all language would still have enough common ground to successfully communicate ideas (if untrue, then there would be no language to speak of, for a ruled language would first have to be created before there could be language rules)....and if there weren't all these "rules", or the choke chain was loosened a bit, then perhaps, language would be far more diverse, interesting, and perhaps even more precise than it is today. Anyways, right or wrong, huh, I don't know...just really felt compelled to show the flip side of grammatics, that there are no real rules to language and that when we try to pass these rules off onto others we might be doing more harm than good because you could be limiting someone's ideas of new ways to express oneself rather than helping them bloom. My first little post was a brief snippet into that, you understood it completely yet you call most of it nonsensical rather than realizing that you are locked into a set of rules, live by a set of literary rules, not because they actually exist, but rather because of personal preference and in turn you try to shovel this burden onto others by telling them what is grammatically correct. Now I'm not saying I'm not ever guilty of that too, most of us are, but why not try to look at things in a new light. |
||
|
ShadowRider Senior Member
since 2001-07-14
Posts 1038USA |
Rad, had I not read your reply, I wouldn’t have known what your intent was with this, either. I get the ‘mood’ piece, but disagree strongly with two contentions: 1) that the accused’s face has something to do with being late, or has some undefined importance, and that 2) that the parent is wrong in any way for chastising their young for having drugs on their person. Perhaps this was from my personal experience of raising teenagers and having to deal with their denial that drugs were bad for them (they both let, at some time in their life, drugs dictate other illegal activities that spurred on theft and lies.) I think, for the piece to have your intended impact that the reader needs to be lead in appropriate directions. I didn’t identify with the ‘wrongness’ of the parent because their concern is correct. You yourself say the time has no significance, yet you title your poem “Two in the Morning” (so to speak *s). My suggestion, therefore, is to perhaps let the title guide the reader to an intent (this preserves the content), but bring more pathos into the situation without the contradiction of a teen coming in late with drugs somehow being wrong. Somehow I think a parent would be more concerned about the drug use, than the repeated emphasis of ‘Two O Clock’…but that is just me. The one line that really stuck to me as being inaccurate as street speech, was: Two O’clock in damoanin willya! willya, what? I didn’t get that line at all when surrounded by the others. This is a rich poem, throughout, and can be made more accessible with a bit more focus. JkF [This message has been edited by ShadowRider (11-29-2002 12:42 AM).] |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
Hi Trevor: Sorry but I cannot seem to generate the same fervor over this word issue that you can. To me it is just a matter of preference and really doesn't warrant a heated debate. If I gave you the impression that I am some sort of fanatic over grammar it was not my intention. BTW I did not intend the Wilya part to be representative of street-talk as conceived by every single reader--which is of course, an impossibility since there are so many variations of street talk that not one can be representative of the whole. Wilya what? Wilya try and come home at this time of the mornin! It is self explanatory. [This message has been edited by Radrook (11-29-2002 03:17 AM).] |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
Rad, had I not read your reply, I wouldn’t have known what your intent was with this, either. I get the ‘mood’ piece, but disagree strongly with two contentions: 1) that the accused’s face has something to do with being late, or has some undefined importance, and that Reply: Does the poem really say that the accused has a face which indicates that he has a drug problem? Actually, the father's suspicion might or might not be justified. Maybe he is simply an overly suspicious character. Or maybe he wants his son to leave and get his own place because they are crowded and he wants to remarry. Or maybe it's his girlfriend's son whom he is correcting. Whatever the cause may be, it is a late hour and it has disturbed this person. Beyond that is anybody's guess. One conclusion can be the one you reached--that it is a father justifiably correcting his son. But it can also be a father unjustly correcting a son. The son, notice does not reply. This might be out of respect--or out of fear of being physically assaulted. Or maybe he is too tired to answer. Whatever the case, the implications are that instead of hollering at the annoyance one should reason. But then again the person might have tried reasoning in the past and has had enough. There is ample room here for many scenarios or causes for this scene. The time of night, the loudness and anger of the man, and the quietness of the offender are the focal points here from which to derive any conclusions one wishes to. You seem to say that I am claiming that the scene has some undefined importance? But poetry does not tell, it shows. So if I were to define the importance within the poem then I would sink into pedantry and would violate one of the prime directives of good fiction writing--to show and not tell. Furthermore, some readers will find some poems nonsensical, peevish, shallow, stupid while others will find the very same ones interesting and thought provoking. I for example find many of Frost's poems rather dull and boring. Yet there are critics who wax melodiously for hours on end concerning these. BTW I did say that the time had no SPECIAL FIGURATIVE significance when someone asked me if it did. I did not intend to be understood as saying tat it has no significance to the poem. It OBVIOUSLY does have significance to the speaker since it is precisely the time of night that ticks him off. Neither did I say that the elderly gentleman was talking modern-day streetwise. How could he? He is of another generation and perhaps of another immigrant culture as well. Neither did I anywhere say that the parent is wrong in his INTENT. My parents always corrected me and were NEVER wrong in their INTENT. It is their METHOD of correcting me that sucks. [This message has been edited by Radrook (11-29-2002 03:50 AM).] |
||
Local Parasite
since 2001-11-05
Posts 2527Transylconia, Winnipeg |
Personally, I like it. It's different than most of the stuff I read in passions, which is refreshing. I also like how it was made to be a monologue. Your use of "ain't" is fine. I don't think "ain't" has any specific application, I've seen it used every way in which you used it in this poem... people use it pretty indiscriminately, if they are so crude as to use such a word...  One thing I have to comment on - Words like "yer" suggest the man's speech lands heavily on the "r" sound. But then you have words like "ova" and "hea," where he seems to omit the "r" sound altogether. quote: That's awkward to read. It seems to attribute two different styles of speech to the person. I think you should just go with one or the other, remember to make it consistent if you start with something. A man who says "ova" instead of "over" would probably have more reason to say "ya" then "yer." That's the only thing that gave me trouble though. Great poem. Parasite Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. |
||
|
ShadowRider Senior Member
since 2001-07-14
Posts 1038USA |
Again, I will stick to my guns: if the purpose of you writing this was to give the impresssion that parents are tough on young folks, i didn't see too much that was that abusive, or even questionable on their part. If you had said, however, "You p'obably got drugs in yer pockets!" that would have put an assumption in the voice of the accuser, which puts the reader on the side of the accused more. Being late is one thing, but actually having drugs in their pockets is quite another serious item that parents have to confront. Since I went through it myself, i can say i honestly didn't see it that way when i was younger, but do now when i see the results of 'excused' behavior without someone calling them on it. One more thing: the drug issue takes a seemingly unintended weight to the poem and overshadows the rest. This is the item that most parents, when reading this, will seize mentally on and project the 'what if this happened in our household' mental battles. I still think you are trying to represent the baseless accusations and typical dialogues that accompany parental restrictions, which is good! Parents always suspect the worst and oftentimes call their children names that they don't mean. This is what i mean by focus, Rad. I read this poem 5 times, and each time tried a different listening voice, and yet came up with the same conclusions regarding the direction of your poem. [This message has been edited by ShadowRider (11-29-2002 02:10 PM).] |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
Statement Again, I will stick to my guns: if the purpose of you writing this was to give the impresssion that parents are tough on young folks, i didn't see too much that was that abusive, or even questionable on their part. Answer: That is NOT the purpose of this poem because I do not believe that modern-day parents are too tough on their kids. In fact, they are too lenient and that is one of the problems which contributes to juvenile delinquency. If a generalization is to be reached on the poem it has to be confined to the WAY of responding to provocation. But to conclude that the scene is depicting how MOST parents treat their kids is rather extreme--don't you agree? In fact, to do so is to violate the principles of cogent reasoning by commiting the fallacy of hasty conclusion based on too small or untypical a sample. Actually, as I explained before, the poem is open to interpretation. That's why I purposefully left it without focus. The reader is free to take sides with either the shouting man or the supposedly cringing boy. That too would be an assumpton since the boy could very well have a smirk on his face. Also, the kid, if indeed he is a kid in the full sense of the word, after all, he could very well be a tenant, is coming home late and is confronted by this particular response. I personally would NOT respond that way. But I have met plenty of people who do. If indeed this is a parent child situation I did not mean to imply that the kid or young man is definitely guilty of having drugs. He could have a gift for his father in his pockets. Who knows? It might also be a gun? That's why I purposefully left things up in the air. The only thing I describe him of being guilty of is coming home late and possibly disturbing this man's sleep. The man's accusation of drugs could be simply a way to irritate the young man in order to get even for waking him up. BTW But there are others who read the very selfsame poem and walked away with a completely different evaluation and impression than you did. If I do not recall incorrectly, I did give you some advice about a poem you wrote and you decided to reject some of my suggestions. Suggestions that in my opinion if not applied would totally ruin it. But since you are the author I respected the reasons you gave for not changing it and your right to reject that advice. [This message has been edited by Radrook (11-30-2002 05:52 AM).] |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
Hi Local Parasite! Thanks for your advice. I agree. If indeed the man tends to have verbal idiosyncracies then the author should be consistent. Will be more careful next time/ God bless! |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
