»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #2
»
The Concealed (Concrete? LOL)
| Critical Analysis #2 |
|
The Concealed (Concrete? LOL) |
|
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration 
|
This is a repost from Open #22 - Mostly because I'm curious as to Rob's take on this style as he seems to be focused on concrete words vs. abstract. For those not aware, this was my first (and to date, only) attempt at Surrealistic Poetry. Chris The Concealed ©2002 C.G. Ward could she speak less for moths pinned to the grace of her lips, or even breathe as thorns press her throat with seven flights of scars? braided, great ears brim outward to catch a dove by its little toes. and again, they have no toes? ah, yet these do - white and green and freckled like a sun burnt pig. they dance; flutter excrement into the waves of ebon (fine, black) hair, chuckling at her expense. let us forget about toes then, and look to her eyes: - couvert dans les papillons - unclothed from the neck up, bears wisps of consequence on the tilt of an eyebrow. (the cat took the other, I hear, smoked it off with a pair of pliers and duct tape) so, one tilt only. still, I say, let children beware a woman who's cancelled debts through skin tinted blue, and poetry tendered in blindness. [This message has been edited by Christopher (10-14-2002 12:22 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2002 C.G. Ward - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Good choice hon... It'll be interesting to see the response to the 'great unveiling' if ya get what I mean...  |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Christoper Well, I can't say that it's my favorite type of writing, but for me, this has just enough "sense" about it to make it more than just a nice sound - which it is! I think you've overdone the sibilance in S1. Have you read it aloud, it's really quite difficult. In S2 the hair image set up by "braided" is rather dashed by "great ears" which sounds a little clumsy, but then if this is meant to be surreal in nature I guess you succeed - deliberate shocking contrast. (Incidentally great ears brimming outward maybe unintentionally picks up "papillon" later on - breed of toy spaniel with large erect heavily fringed ears, as well as butterflies of course). I stumbled over "flutter excrement" - but it's a fine image! "and look to her eyes: - couvert dans les papillons - unclothed from the neck up, bears wisps of consequence on the tilt of an eyebrow" Loved this. (the cat took the other, I hear, smoked it off with a pair of pliers and duct tape) Amusingly zany! so, one tilt only. Seemed unecessary. still, I say, Seemed redundant - in fact I wondered whether any of the "commentary" lines were really necessary? let children beware a woman who's cancelled debts through skin tinted blue, and poetry tendered in blindness. Great closure. I liked it mainly for the fact that you didn't rely on the morbid or macabre, for the fact that you didn't major on your own twisted feelings and pain, for the fact that it wasn't charged with gruesome quasi religious imagery, or for that matter any other hackneyed appeals to Christian other theology. There is humour here and also sufficient for the reader to draw some sort of sense from the piece. It reads well aloud and most of all you have some very seeable and yes - yay! .. "concrete" images. Regards Rob |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Ok now I've just read the blurb on the Open 22 post. The most disturbing part is where you say: "... it does actually mean something." |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
does it matter? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Rob: Sure it matters. Christopher: I picked up on (or was misled by) several clues. quote: Seems to me you are describing suicide by hanging. "Thorns pressing her throat/braided" describes the rope, I think. The seven flights of scars is a bit obscure to me, but may either describe marks left by the rope or the woman's surroundings. "Skin tinted blue" rings of death, as does "cancelled debts" in this context. I'd love to spend more time on this one tonight, but I doubt I'll get the chance. Jim |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
I have to say this worked exceptionally well on a descriptive level, so much so that I had a picture in my mind after reading the poem which was amazing close to subject when I unearthed it. Is it worth reading Chris? |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I'm in the middle on this one. I think that it doesn't necessarily matter if it means something to the reader, but i firmly believe that to write something without meaning (at least to the author) is the equivalent of two-year-old dropping a dot of paint on a canvas and calling it art.  Pete - dang you're good sometimes! Eddie - I don't get the question? Is this like Jeopardy? "Is it worth reading Chris?" Help me and my slow mind. I will be back to this soon, thanks for your replies. Chris [This message has been edited by Christopher (10-15-2002 10:40 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Christopher: I think meaning can be just as important as sound in a poem. Sometimes it is more important, and sometimes less, depending on the poem and, quite frankly, on the reader. If meaning is important to just one reader, than the meaning matters. One nonsense poem I've enjoyed since my teenage days is Lewis Carroll's "The Jabberwocky". In it, even though many of the words in isolation have no meaning, the context in which they are used gives the reader just enough to be able to make an educated guess. This kind of exercise is fun for me. And didn't you mean, "Jim - dang you're good sometimes!"? Merely a splinter skill, Chris, I assure you. I more than make up for it with my lack of humility.  But I do agree with you that Pete is quite the good poet.Jim Jim P.S. I definitely think this was worth reading. |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Says Christopher: "I think that it doesn't necessarily matter if it means something to the reader, but i firmly believe that to write something without meaning (at least to the author) is the equivalent of two-year-old dropping a dot of paint on a canvas and calling it art." I agree with that, but would add that it's going to be pretty bland writing that means NOTHING to a reader; probably not worth reading in fact. Rob |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
doh! Jim, i apologize. I did of course mean you. And yes, Pete's pretty darn good himself. Rob - Thanks for your [concrete] reply. Sibilance - yeah. I'm a really visual person, so truthfully - i rarely read my poems out loud unless someone asks me to. probably not a bad idea to do it more often though, to catch things like that - will definitely look into it, see what i can do without marring the intention. Deliberate shocking contrast - is it in a nutshell. As i said, this has been my only attempt at surrealism so far, so it's still a bit off. still, i think i managed fairly well to maintain the sharp contrasts (deconstructively of course, lol) throughout. i didn't think about the spaniels (didn't even know about them, truthfully) - the intent was toward furthering the image of butterflies. as to the commentary lines - hmmm... i don't know. i look at what would happen by removing them and i get some jarring from the lack of segues... i think i may remove the "so, one tilt only" but will have to look at the others more. as to the final... well, kinda ouch. LOL. this actually has a layer directed toward a transposed version of the crucifixion. it's more focused toward the "quasi-religious imagery" rather than any hackneyed appeals (liked that, btw). but - that was merely one layer of four main intentions, so that you missed it is not only ok, but probably good in this context. thanks a lot Rob. Pete - (ok, just kidding... Jim ) - You are awesome here. This was the tertiary intend when written, so that it stuck out in your mind was well done! seven flights of scars is obscure... uhm... so much so that i forget exactly what i meant when i put it in. is taht a bad thing? to the rest though, you've got it well done - in my mind was a teacher figure who'd developed some serious problems (in my mind i conceived of alcoholism, but it could really be anything) that plunged her into a dark and strange world from which she found the only escape to be suicide. the closing statement was meant, of course, to be the "moral," (in all intends actually) telling us basically not to take candy from a stranger - or advice from a madwoman. again, thank you JIMJIMJIMJIMJIMJIMJIM. Eddie - still wondering what you mean by that question! And cool, the first intention was to recreate that image in the language of surrealism. Glad to hear it succeded with someone! ---- And yeah, i agree with you. it would "probably" not be worth reading. even true of the poem Jim mentions above. a) the poem does mean something - well, most of it, lol. b) Carrol did have meaning in the poem - for Alice to read it. Whether there should be inherent meaning in a poem, well... |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Chris, Sorry for the confusion, I wasn’t asking if your poem was worth reading – ALL poetry is worth reading in my view (even if only to find out if it’s worth reading). I’ll rephrase the question. Was the book ‘Surrealist Poetry in English’ worth reading? |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
"- i rarely read my poems out loud unless someone asks me to. probably not a bad idea to do it more often though" Christopher I am truly horrified! Poetry IS aural first and foremost. You should always always ALWAYS read your poems out loud! On meaning all I'll say is that Elizabeth Bishop teaching at Harvard insisted that poems should never be interpreted, the images and (note Christopher) sounds were primary. Regards Rob |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Elizabeth Bishop, who I quite like by the way, is wrong. Poems have to be interpreted in order to be poems. |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Brad (A sighting!) I believe she did go on to say that if sound was comprehended then sense would follow. And I didn't say that she was right. Rob |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
I’m afraid I’m piggy in the middle again. Elizabeth Bishop was right in a way although I can only presume that she must have been talking about another poet’s work, her poems seem so precise in explanation that they need little interpretation (at least the poems I’ve read). Some poetry is almost all sound and flow, meaning is present but comes a very poor second, interpretation is possible but the results are often littered with personal preference and usually highly debatable. I think Bishop was trying to separate sound from sense intimating that one was the slave of the other a fact underlined by the statement that sense follows sound. This subservience does not in my opinion exist as a concrete rule, in some poems sense is at a premium and in others sound is king. Do all poems need to be interpreted? I think they do but it isn’t necessary for the interpretation to be correct or even complete, in some poems the art is in the roundness of the words and the sound they create. The fact that there is a meaning in there to be teased out later is a bonus. Take this for example: Alterwise by owl-light in the halfway-house The gentleman lay graveward with his furies; Abaddon in the hang-nail cracked from Adam, And from his fork, a dog among the faires, The Atlas-eater with a jaw for news, Bit out the mandrake with tomorrows scream. Here sense is preceded by sound, interpretation is difficult but expected and indeed possible, it may be of interest to read what the author had to say on the subject in answer to a critic Richard Church who questioned the style and intent of this poem: “Every line IS meant to be understood: the reader IS meant to understand every poem by thinking and feeling about it, not by sucking it through his pores, or whatever he is meant to do with surrealist writing.” The fact that I can enjoy reading the above poem solely based on the sound and rhythm produced doesn’t mean that that it should not be understood but not understanding it should not stand in the way of me liking it either. So back to my role as piggy in the middle, yes sound is important and yes interpretation is necessary but neither is more or less important than the other. (Excerpt from ‘Altarwise by owl-light’ Dylan Thomas.) [This message has been edited by Crazy Eddie (10-20-2002 06:18 AM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Tried to post this last night, but the computer died on me. 'could she speak less for moths pinned to the grace of her lips, or even breathe as thorns press her throat with seven flights of scars?' This is really really wonderful writing, perfect assembly of image and coherence. 'braided, great ears brim outward' great ears here originally had me imagining a woman with elephant ears, but the braided bit made me think of princess Leighah (SP?) Either way, I think it can be seen as symbolism to be used as character development. 'to catch a dove by its little toes. and again, they have no toes? ah, yet these do - white and green and freckled like a sun burnt pig. they dance; flutter excrement into the waves of ebon (fine, black) hair, chuckling at her expense.' I have to admit the sheer bizarre quality of these images put me off at first. But... thinking outside the box is something I'm working on, so... basically, I saw this as a spoof on peace- I mean, here peace is, represented by these stupid bird that crap all over stuff. The toes/no toes bit I saw as basically whether the idea can even support itself (does it have ground to stand on, to use a cliche). The significance of them crapping all over this girl is that she's pretty much a statue- suicides often have that idol quality about them- people find out someone killed themself and they're all of a sudden like "yeah, she was always so sad" or "I used to see her walking alone- I wish I had known" or some of the same old tripe that people pull out for tragic deaths- but it seems like people gravitate towards the intensely macabre idea of self-destruction- I know I'm going off on a tangent but it's something I've seen in my own life and in media portrayals of self-destructive behavior and I'll tell ya, it pisses me off. Anyway... so that's what I saw in this section. 'let us forget about toes then, and look to her eyes: - couvert dans les papillons - unclothed from the neck up, bears wisps of consequence on the tilt of an eyebrow. (the cat took the other, I hear, smoked it off with a pair of pliers and duct tape) so, one tilt only.' If the subject is 'eyes', shouldn't 'bears' be 'bear'? That jarred me. I don't have the energy to look up what the French means. I do find myself wondering who the 'cat' is- yeah, there's the literal, which you maybe meant, but I'm thinking cat in Beatnik rhetoric- a too-cool guy thought maybe he could abuse a girl? Could have something to do with her rash actions? 'still, I say, let children beware a woman who's cancelled debts through skin tinted blue, and poetry tendered in blindness.' I like this. Succinct, and it rounds back to the style youstarted with, provided a nice sense of closure. The more I go over this, the more I like it- just took some getting used to. |
||
|
SimplyGold Senior Member
since 2002-07-10
Posts 1453 |
Hello Christopher, I read your poem several times and the comments you recieved. Here are my very initial reactions: What I liked: The images that you put forth. I liked the flow of the words. I was challenged as to the sense of it. I enjoyed your after thought commentary as you ramble on. What I had trouble with: It was uncomfortable to me to struggle with the meaning. I could only get a sense of it. Some of the writing for me appeared disjointed. In general I must admit that I have a problem with poems that are somewhat convoluted and where images are scattered, not that yours was in this case. I wish I could be of more help. I have read some of your other poetry and I find that you do stretch my thinking..and that is a good thing! As I progress in my own quest for further knowledge and understanding I will, hopefully, be better at analyzing your work. Respectfully, SG [This message has been edited by SimplyGold (10-20-2002 11:30 AM).] |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
SG ~loud applause~ Rob |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Christopher, I thought this was a great poem, I had a smile all the way down. I can nitpick -- 'braided' is too blunt, 'to the grace of her lips' seems needlessly abstract and clumsy with the two prepositional phrases(maybe expand on that if you want to keep 'grace'), I think 'press' should probably be pressed etc. I picture a bizarre pinball machine (anybody remember those?). ----------------------- As far as the question of interpretation goes: I don't think we're all that far apart, but my point was actually far simpler than I guess my statement suggests. I meant that in order to read a poem as a poem you must first interpret it as a poem and not a grocery list or a physics paper. This isn't to say that a grocery list or a physics paper can't be a poem, it just means that, at some point (before, in the middle, or after a reading etc.), you switch gears so to speak and start thinking of it as a poem, your assumptions and expectations that determine the reading change. While interpretation is necessary, translation is not. That is, you don't have to explain to yourself or to someone else (unless you're writing a dissertation) on what a poem means in your own words, you simply have to read it and feel meaning. Of course, translation isn't a bad thing either (it can be helpful at times), it's just not a necessary part of reading a poem. So, in this sense, I do not think the primary question when reading a poem is, "What does it mean?" but "What does it do?" By changing the verb in this simple question, the false opposition between sound and sense disappears, they collapse into each other and we see the poem (sorry for being so repetitive) as a poem. That is, a poem is judged, not on a spectrum, but as a unity between the two abstractions. Actually, though, that's not quite what I want to say, it sounds like a poem is a jigsaw puzzle that we put together from abstract parts. Rather, the poem is a whole from which we use abstractions to emphasize certain aspects over others. We use abstractions to point to what we think is significant in the poem as a whole. |
||
|
Radrook Senior Member
since 2002-08-09
Posts 648 |
The Concealed ©2002 C.G. Ward Hi! Here is my take on this poem: could she speak less for moths pinned to the grace of her lips, or even breathe as thorns press her throat with seven flights of scars? braided, great ears brim outward to catch a dove by its little toes. and again, they have no toes? ah, yet these do - white and green and freckled like a sun burnt pig. they dance; flutter excrement into the waves of ebon (fine, black) hair, chuckling at her expense. [Several religious symbols have been introduced here. The dove, pig, thorns braided, ears seeking to capture. Obviously and in accord with the poem's title, this woman is a captive. She is assailed by things she sees as liberating [doves] but finds her trust to have been a mirage since the things she feels will liberate her keep her in captivity and mock her. Instead of doves, a symbol of peace and God's blessing, she is confronted with piglike things, or distasteful unclean things. Jesus too seemingly spoke in astonishment when he cried out to God "Why have you abandoned me? While those who claimed to be God's dovelike people had him crucified--and a braided crown of thorns cruelly placed on his head.] let us forget about toes then, and look to her eyes: - couvert dans les papillons - unclothed from the neck up, bears wisps of consequence on the tilt of an eyebrow. (the cat took the other, I hear, smoked it off with a pair of pliers and duct tape) so, one tilt only. [The above description seems to speak of a dissection -- of a divesting--of an intense observation of the victim as he suffered. This too is reminiscent of those gathered at Calvary including the Roman guards who apportioned Jesus clothes among themselves. The cat, especially a black one, is a literary traditional symbol of evil. So the forces, [pigs] [cats] cannot be inflicting deserved punishment. This was hinted at in the first stanza with the reference to "thorns" add "braids" which allude to the unjust trial that Jesus underwent at the hands of evil forces.] still, I say, let children beware a woman who's canceled debts through skin tinted blue, and poetry tendered in blindness. [Here again we have religious symbols surfacing into prominence. Paul repeatedly spoke of the Church as a woman. Also, the cancellation of debt of sin is a central theme of Christianity. The Bible speaks of children of God and of Satan. Reference to blindness? Spiritual blindness! To the others Jesus and his followers were blind. Skin tinted blue? Those crucified died of oxygen deprivation when their legs were broken and they were no longer able to support themselves properly so as to breathe surely turning their skin blue in the process. Even the accusation against the victim that she spoke poetry harmonizes with what was said about how Jesus spoke--as no one else had spoken before. Yet, to his enemies--in blindness. Also, the speaker expresses no compassion for the woman's captive situation and systematic humiliation. This in itself hints at his flawed moral character. Neither does the sinister speaker's reference to children convince me that the children themselves are of a benevolent innocent kind since they might very well be children of Satan. In view of the preponderance of evidence provided above I would have to include the speaker introduced in this last stanza as being in league with the forces of evil against this innocent person. So in harmony with the context, this is the only logical conclusion I can reach.] This is my personal interpretation of your poem. BTW The "speaking less" mentioned in the introduction too conjures up images of Jesus being silent before his accusers. There is much more but think that this should suffice. [This message has been edited by Radrook (10-23-2002 12:38 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
