How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Very Well, What is Poetry?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Very Well, What is Poetry?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Aurelian
Member
since 03-20-2007
Posts 109
TX, USA


75 posted 04-06-2007 08:43 PM       View Profile for Aurelian   Email Aurelian   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aurelian

I don't think there is a hard-and-fast distinction between poetry and prose. There's poetic prose and prosy poetry - the distinction between the two is as much a matter of personal taste as anything.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


76 posted 04-06-2007 09:40 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I don't think it's a matter of taste, it's a matter of convention.

Ess,

Perhaps. The only difference between us is that    
I accept the 20th century, you want to roll it back.

Okay, that's not quite true. It's I hope a given that metrics is an issue in prose as it is in poetry (and just about any other tool you can think of -- except for one). What I keep seeing is simply that people's expectations change depending on what they see just before they start reading. They look at a page, if there are linebreaks, they expect something different than if there weren't.

That's not a bad thing, it simply is. Everything else, again as far as I can tell, then becomes a matter of what constitutes good poetry, not poetry itself.

rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


77 posted 04-07-2007 02:29 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Ess,

quote:
So what strongly distinguishes poetry from any linguistic thing?  I tell you that is the strengthening and familiarizing with form and structure, not freeing and unfamiliarizing for "originality".


I’d like to know how you feel about what goes inside the box. I believe that your staunch support of structure is missing a few things which weaken your point. There are thousands of other elements used in poetry besides meter and rhyme, and I’ve not seen you touch on those things, yet. Maybe it would help clarify your stance, not sure?

You don’t really believe that all great poetry has a “set-in-stone” structure, from within to without, do you?

I’d have to argue that the various tools of culture and language require freedom and fluidity to creatively separate poetry from typical vocabulary. Or else, our late great poets wouldn’t have used such tools as: kennings, epithetical/ elision metaphors, intonations, allusion, slant rhyme, assonance, alliteration, and varied lyrical/metrical compounds that are free to be bent, invented and accepted into the fold of form. These things cannot ever be creatively static.

If the voice of a poem, alone, cannot be heard above and beyond the form, then the poet has failed to reach me, and thus gets buried among all the thousands of others that mistook form for the heart of their art. I wouldn’t put that much support into form without addressing what’s inherent inside the work. Things that are more responsible than form for making me see hear feel smell and taste everything or anything the poet is conveying.

Forgetting form but remembering great poets who established them, in my opinion, helps to create your point as well as destroy it if you think of poetry as being only a two-dimensional array of words.

Chaucer’s works are major examples of satirical undertones that freely moved in and out of his poetry with an ease among those that would have his head if he were any more direct. He used dapper form as a clever cloaking device for rebellion, testing the fibers of morality and politics and never seemed static on any account.

Wordplay is a word: And without the acceptance of linguistic repartee, strong amounts of irony, as well as sarcasm, poor Shakespeare would have given up writing.

Homer: The heroics would have been ripped right out of his epics if he wasn’t free to create characters that weren’t so much believable as heroes as they were interesting and memorable. The form is forgettable, but Odysseus will always be “the man of twists and turns,” who’s sure to awake to another “rosy-fingered dawn.”

Beowulf: This work drives me insane. I’m drawn to the Old English version aloud as if I’m under a spell. I not only adore the story but I adore the mistakes, which happens when Christians try to relate a Pagan character. That just adds to the mystery of the work. But yes, I’d have to state that Beowulf is the cream of the crop for me. The ultimate Wow in writing: The Heorot of poetry by which all other poetry dares to dance and celebrate without any fear, because Grendel and his mother are dead! Hey, I can be symbolic in my thinking, but my mind reels when I look closely at the arrangement of the words in Beowulf. The alliteration is like a serpentine chain, perfectly winding and unwinding the voice, theme, mood, and setting, everything inside the epic. The author had a choice of epithets or formulae to meet the alliteration and it had to work with the meter/rhythm to tell the story. How many people in this life could or would go through the trouble to try to master what’s already been mastered? They can only “simplify it” for comprehension, but can they possibly ever, in a million years, create anything but a shoddy imitation in regards to that particular work? I don’t know, but I’d be willing to bet the finished product would collect dust and rot without a single dog-eared page.

So there you have it. I’m in support of your structure, and the structure can be as varying in degrees as a hovel is to the Taj Mahal, but the structure itself can never be a fortress that closes off or presents a barrier to what has to move and breathe within. Such a structure is as good as an empty Cathedral, boasting superiority, yet begging for any kind of life to worship and believe.

My conclusion on form: What’s inside the box must reach out for me to appreciate it.

quote:
When you take away the importances of regulated and traditional/familiar poetic form and structure, as Free Verse, then all you have is wide and variable language again, without any strong poetic form or distinction.


Again, I think you’re viewing poetry as a two-dimensional thing. I urge you to look deeper.

When I look beyond the lack of form I still see free verse as having underlying structure, subtle and hidden, yes, especially when the author is exceptionally talented, but it’s there.

So free verse might as well be an oxymoron to me—another one of those fun things in poetry. Free to be any Verse. Verse is congruent to any method belonging to poetry, composition, lyrics, etc. Many may disagree, but this is what gives free verse a solid stronghold in my collection of poetry.

Ed’s point is supported by the authors of free verse. They stray from conformity without any “limitations or restrictions,” though the reader has their own. But free verse authors destroy this notion: “freeverse is strong because it doesn't have to follow any guidelines.” This is what I feel tears down the efforts of Freeversians. You can’t make something out of nothing.

Free verse must employ a method, even if it’s madness. There must be an underlying backbone or something that helps shape the verse, give it substance and meaning. The author is free to use any of the tools of verse and more, anyway they want, but to sling words out without even the slightest hint of an element-elementary to poetry is just fatal to the piece. We can argue all day long about what those elements are, but pick anything that strengthens the validity of poetry and create a work of art, not voiceless meaningless drivel on a page. I want to be able to picture something, observe any kind of a strategy, but mostly I want to be spoken to or hear the voice of the author from the beginning to the middle and the end, which is what yall are probably hoping for, yeah? Well too bad, I’m almost finished

The paper is not the only foundation upholding a free verse poem. If so, a sneeze could be a poem. Lint? Etc, and there’s too many great examples out there to reduce them to lint.

“Gustave Kahn claims to have invented the term vers libre” Wiki
Being that he was a symbolist, suggests that his very tools were symbolism.

Walt Whitman free styled his way into the books with lists, cataloging, rhythmic verse, contrasts, objects and settings that spoke, colors, scent, sound, and tastes that spoke volumes beyond what a lengthy novel would.

Emily Dickinson alternated between rhyme/slant rhyme and free verse, and I don’t feel that this ending stanza taken from “I Died for Beauty but was Scarce,” hurt for anything unrhymed. Such is life, and in the end we’re all silenced, but what an image of silence.

“And so, as kinsmen met a night,
We talked between the rooms,
Until the moss had reached our lips,
And covered up our names.”

I do feel that free verse relies more heavily on capturing the reader within the first two lines than traditional verse. Compact talent compared to the epic? Yall decide. I know what I like.

My conclusion on free verse: It must capture me and pull me into the author’s world.


I wish for peace between thee and those that know no bounds for what goes up doesn't always have wings
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


78 posted 04-07-2007 03:19 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

"you will what you will". but write one sentence a line.  ignore the period, most the grammar and all common sense.

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (04-08-2007 12:09 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


79 posted 04-07-2007 08:16 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Hi Ed,


"I’d like to see you write poetry or anything else without language. It’s not a symbolic medium, it’s a necessary medium. Without it, there wouldn’t be poetry or writing at all, let’s not forget that. But can we not write in different languages? Or different forms of the same languages?"

I agree mostly, as I mentioned to Ron earlier.  But I think you must bow to the truth that language itself is forms as well.  Things we use everyday are forms and combinations of forms of sounds, letters, words, sentences, grammar, etc, these are all linguistic forms and structures that we need for language to work well.  Form and structure, and tradition so we are familiar and recognize and understand each other are exceedingly important to language.  This same principle and this dependance on form is involved in the things that make poetry as well, it is just taken much further to give musical convention and regulation.  Things like a traditional and special vocabulary, including archaic forms, distinguish it a bit from prose sometimes, but very little, UNLESS it is in conjunction with the most important aspect: the musical regulation thro poetic meter, syllablecount, and rhyme.  The different combinations of these created and still create many and diverse and amazing patterns.

The linebreaks used in freeverse are very superficial compared to the impact of such strong meters and rhymes as a nursury rhyme we grow up with, an epic and heroic poem such as Beowulf, or even just a simple iambic couplet that rings in the memory, not just because it has great literary value (as I certainly grant that Free Verse does), but because it has the impact of regulated metrical rhythm and a traditional "musical" familiarity that we recognize and recognize with with some common continuity as well, that is as based on the past and can be trusted to be shared and preserved in traditions of the future.


"Why can’t we be different? Why can’t we find our own voices?!"

We already are different.  We already have our own voice.  It is a lie that we won't have such things just because we share and cultivate and preserve and get help and sometimes even depend on the ideas of others, especially the ones that were most successful in the art.

"Writing is bull without originality. What the hell are we writing for if not to encompass our work in something that we can call our own? Otherwise, writing would be stale, no matter format it’s in."

It sounds like mean one's own, not really (plurally) our own

If you mean only one's own,, then you are being selfish.  There's no reason that you can't be yourself and still share the traditions that others used/use as well that make the art work most successfully.  You think you can pull something better to share and inspire others, out of your own individual hat, than ages and ages of many great poets that were dedicated and reared poetry out of very hard work?  By all means it is not impossible, but if you are finding freeverse that in which skills and poetry work better, why then this:

"...people constantly say what I write is chaotic and that they can't understand it. 50% of the time, people ask me if I'm on drugs, so..."                


"I’m interested, why do you put down originality? "

Because of the context and the way modernism make it out.  Today it seems more and more to suggest or mean that people must detach themselves from the past in order to have anything worth while in the present.  In other words, it suggests we should try to pull it all out of our own individual "hat", and forget about the traditions that are already proven to make poetry work very well.  I don't agree with that at all.  

"Right there, you’ve defeated your entire point. Talent my dear friend, is everything. "

You missed my context.  I don't care about the talent it takes to write poetry without meter, syllablecount, or rhyme, because not using those things is an absence of poetic form and distinction, not a presence..  What is poetic about not using any poetic meter, syllablecount or rhyme? Nothing.  In a general literary sense, sure it includes talent.  Freeverse has much general literary talent.  But it has very little that distinguishes it from prose and other linguistic things that include the same or very similar literary talent.  Except the very extreme versions of freeverse that have so little structure that they don't even meet the basic needs of grammar, let alone good poetry.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-07-2007 09:25 PM).]

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


80 posted 04-07-2007 11:19 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

“There's no reason that you can't be yourself and still share the traditions that others used/use as well that make the art work most successfully.”

I agree. But I’m saying that just because you steer away from the traditional “proven” and readily accepted, popular format doesn’t mean the new way is inferior. That’s all.

“By all means it is not impossible, but if you are finding freeverse that in which skills and poetry work better, why then this:”

Ha ha ha, touché my man! Very good Ess. Allow me to rephrase, if you will.

“…people [[on this site]] constantly say what I write is chaotic and that they can't understand it. 50% of the time, people ask me if I'm on drugs…”

I should’ve stated that earlier. I belong to another poetry site where I only post poetry and the majority of that site understands and actually enjoys my work, believe it or not. I mostly use this site now for the Discussion forums, because I truly do love what we do here. . The poets on this site are, in my opinion, too flowery and puerile (that isn’t necessarily an insult by the way). This probably sounds terribly egotistical but I feel that my work is "above" most of the poets on here. And when I say “above” I don’t mean “better” because it is certainly not (I wish I could write like most of the poets on here). I mean that most of my meaning and words fly way over their heads; comprehension is a rare thing in reading my poetry, because I don’t easily offer it. Sometimes my work can be too different for anyone not accustomed to reading such supposed "nonsense." I don't try to hide the fact that I'm an absurdist. We're just different there.

I’m going to dive into the rest of your post later. This little part just really caught my attention. I have to say; you’re getting pretty good at this.

Cheers mate.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


81 posted 04-10-2007 11:08 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

I think what Essorant is saying is that the "Beat" poets (and their progeny) don't have it.


I'd actually have to agree somewhat.  It's what dada did for art.  


Stephen
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


82 posted 04-12-2007 07:48 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
This probably sounds terribly egotistical but I feel that my work is "above" most of the poets on here. And when I say “above” I don’t mean “better” because it is certainly not (I wish I could write like most of the poets on here). I mean that most of my meaning and words fly way over their heads; comprehension is a rare thing in reading my poetry, because I don’t easily offer it. Sometimes my work can be too different for anyone not accustomed to reading such supposed "nonsense." I don't try to hide the fact that I'm an absurdist. We're just different there.


Does it sound egotistical? Sure, but that doesn't bother me. No, my only concern is that when someone writes this or something like this, nine times out of ten, they simply disappoint me. The idea that a poem should be 'understood' is just another way to say that it should be paraphrased. If it can be paraphrased, one wonders why the poem was written in the first place. This quote still buys into the idea of paraphrasability discourse.
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


83 posted 04-12-2007 09:30 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

I think most real poetry can be sorted out on first read, if you can even get past the first line.  Of the thousands of poems on PIP, all but a maybe half dozen will be placed in the "out" box in a couple of days.

At the same time, Gerard Manley Hopkins was dismissed by most at the time of his first (posthumous) publication.  It took almost thirty years, I think, for his brilliance to be recognized.

If there is an essence to poetry, regardless of form, it seems to be that it moves people.  

Alas, pathos, bathos, and soap operas also move people.  

Maybe poetry is like pornography, you can't quite define it, but you know it when you see it.

Since poetry is an interactive process, written with an intent of consequence to the reader, then maybe the good stuff, in any form, requires a reader's ability to seperate the wheat from the chaff.  

Chaff is as ubiquitous and artery clogging as fast food.  The trick is not to get caught up in it.

Jim  
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


84 posted 04-13-2007 11:25 AM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim


"Does it sound egotistical? Sure..."

I know, haha.

"No, my only concern is that when someone writes this or something like this, nine times out of ten, they simply disappoint me."

Well, it's safe to consider this the "one out of ten." I've always said that I will offer no commentary on the meaning of my work nor apologize for it being so cryptic. I don't try to make it "confusing," I guess it just is. I frankly don't care if people understand what I write or not and I think it's their fault for not "getting it." It's like the intro for that Steven Soderbergh film, Schizopolis: "This is the most important film ever made and if you don't understand it then that is not our fault; it's yours. Thank you." People need to expand their minds.

"The idea that a poem should be 'understood' is just another way to say that it should be paraphrased. If it can be paraphrased, one wonders why the poem was written in the first place."

My thoughts exactly. I'm simply telling Ess that not many people on this site understand my work; I'm not saying that I care. My thinking is what's the point of reading something if it's meaning is blatantly obvious? Where's the fun? Sometimes I'd rather read the jargon on bathroom stalls than most of the poetry I see today. It's a sad fact.


Head Cheese & Chicken Feet
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


85 posted 04-14-2007 09:47 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Aw, c'mon Brad!  You're an absurdist in the same way that Lao Tse was a photographer. I try to be as open minded as I can, but I don't get Grim's work at all.  The word "drivel" comes to mind, which is only a remark on the poetry, not an attack on the man, who may very well be a delightful human being, despite his preposterous posts.

Jim
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


86 posted 04-15-2007 05:37 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“Who can tell me who I am?
A god?  A book?  A guru?
A teacher?  A boss?  A shrink?
Someone in authority?”


“Self-empowerment– that’s what its about –“

“And this brings up the subject of names:
do I continue to pass myself off
under the pseudonym forced on me
when I had no choice?”


“I’m not a pair of jeans or toothpaste”

http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum103/HTML/001994.html


.
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


87 posted 04-15-2007 08:00 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

"...but I don't get Grim's work at all"

As I said: That's your fault, not mine.

"who may very well be a delightful human being, despite his preposterous posts"

My preposterous posts? Hmm...

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


88 posted 04-15-2007 08:14 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Well, no, I'm not an absurdist -- I've always considered myself a bit of a traditionalist -- but that's another story.  It does seem that Ed essentially misunderstood what I was trying to get at. When someone says, 'my work goes over your heads' you are saying that I, the reader, am missing something. Not a particulary good thing to say if the point is to be appreciated by the reader.

Now Ed posted something similar to that under one of his poems. Not a good start if you ask me. If the intention of a poet is to be misunderstood or not understood then that is what is going to happen.

That's easy.

Looking at Ed's work, it strikes me that meaning is not what he's after, he's after acceptance. He's been accepted at another place and that's fine. If other people like the work, great.

I'm glad they got something out of it.

It just doesn't mean that I'm wrong or that I'm missing something (That's possible, but in this case I doubt it. Joyce was apparently very frustrated that nobody was 'getting' the trick to Ulysses so he published that chart explaining everything.)

When it comes to meaning, it's my contentention (pompous sounding, aren't I? ) that if you get the words right, the story right, the allusions right, the metaphors right, meaning will come the moment people start talking about the damn thing.

So Ed, can we talk about your stuff?
Aurelian
Member
since 03-20-2007
Posts 109
TX, USA


89 posted 04-15-2007 08:28 PM       View Profile for Aurelian   Email Aurelian   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aurelian

Ed, I think I'll have to say about your postings on the discussion board what someone once said about Carlyle: One of my favorite writers, but he needs to be knocked upside the head every half hour or so. lol!
Keep it up you nut!
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


90 posted 04-15-2007 11:07 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim


I'd like to add another little note for Jimmy.

See I expect a writer such as yourself to not "get" what I write because our styles are very different. I've read some of your work and it's clear that our styles are night and day. I wouldn't expect George A. Romero (a zombie film director) to offer a good review on, let's say a French surrealist film; because he doesn't make French surrealist films. That's all.


B-Rad

"It does seem that Ed essentially misunderstood what I was trying to get at"

I suppose I did. Let's get down to the pants of what you're saying and pull 'em down; now that I understand of course. Let's take a looky look.

"When someone says, 'my work goes over your heads' you are saying that I, the reader, am missing something. Not a particulary good thing to say if the point is to be appreciated by the reader."

Yes I suppose but I think you misunderstood me as well. See, I'm saying that the "readers" at PiP misunderstands my poetry because what I write is not typical to what is usually posted on the site. Like my above side note to Jimbo; you can't expect Romero to be an expert on French surrealist films. This site is (almost) strictly traditional and typical (for lack of a better term) style of poetry. My style isn't obvious, isn't traditional and is not typical on this site. That's all I was getting at.

"If the intention of a poet is to be misunderstood or not understood then that is what is going to happen."

Like I've said before, I don't try to write my poems so no one will understand them; that'd be strange. The thoughts on paper are my thoughts. I'm not sitting down saying "Ok, how can I write in the oddest way possible." No, I just sit down and write my thoughts. I never really thought my poems were that strange until people kept saying so.

"Looking at Ed's work, it strikes me that meaning is not what he's after, he's after acceptance. He's been accepted at another place and that's fine. If other people like the work, great."

Hmm... Good thing I'm in a good mood right now. I do find this statement a tad bothersome. My poetry does have meaning and acceptance is something I don't really give a witch's stick about. (And that's not all true that I'm totally "accepted" on my other petry website, just to let you know). I accept myself; that's all I need man. I don't have the patience to wait around for people to "accept" me; I have a short attention span. And I don't really like you trying ("trying" being the key word) to analyze what I do and how I am. Maybe if we were talking in person, I'd understand; but not over a bloody computer, lol, seriously dude.

I'm curious... What do you think of Dali's paintings?

"It just doesn't mean that I'm wrong or that I'm missing something (That's possible, but in this case I doubt it."

Yeah well, I don't doubt that you have no doubt that you think you're right. (Funny sounding, isn't it?) hahaha

"So Ed, can we talk about your stuff?"

I suppose since my style is under mild scrutiny; I should offer an example. I shall go against my "offer no commentary" rule and explain a poem, ok? You have reduced me to explain myself; how shall I ever recovery? lol. Well, let's get this over with:

(I was gonna post a fresh poem but I thought it'd be better to explain an already posted one.)
http://piptalk.com/main/forumdisplay.cgi?action=displayarchive&number=96&topic=002094


“The Academician”

A lunate mouth ajar
in simplified stupor
awaiting a fly to enter
on mission to liven up the brain.
A fly will go into the deep,
into’s the deep,
make brain look to dance;
make man look to earth
rather than to bleak firmament
where his eyes are wedged.

Suck out the intellect,
syphon out the yearling
from brightening insect.
They’ve got pandemonium in spades
and refuse to relinquish it.
A type-one nutcase with dyspepsia
forgets the feeling of euphoria
and the mind found bleeding,
bled by Pushkin
and thus falls indicted in merriment.

A finger bone set into motion,
brought to life by power tool
decided to stick a human up its
fictitious nose
because it was tired
of being shoved into the nasal closet.

_____________________________

(You might get a kick out of this Brad)

What it basically means: Ultimately, it is about how simplicity is superior to the excessive pursuit of knowledge. That's not to say the pursuit of higher levels of knowledge is bad; but unfulfilling in my mind. It is about living outside of normalcy and not being trapped in everyone else's studies. I think one needs balance with studying and living simply; too much of either can't be too good.

I'll break it down like a fraction (the fly represents simplicity for obvious reasons).

S1:

A lunate mouth ajar
in simplified stupor
awaiting a fly to enter
on mission to liven up the brain.
  [The first bit of S1 is pretty obvious]

A fly will go into the deep,
into’s the deep,
make brain look to dance;
  [Meaning happiness is achieved through simplicity.]

make man look to earth
rather than to bleak firmament
where his eyes are wedged.
  [Meaning the man is too consumed with the higher reaches of knowledge; he isn't living "on earth," he's living under a book ]

S2:

Suck out the intellect,
syphon out the yearling
from brightening insect.
  [Instructions instructing to simplify your life. I used the uncommon def. of "Yearling" as in young child. "Syphon out the yearling from brightening insect" means to learn from simplicity and be more childlike. Meaning to basically be easier going.]

They’ve got pandemonium in spades
and refuse to relinquish it.
  [Obvious]
A type-one nutcase with dyspepsia
forgets the feeling of euphoria
and the mind found bleeding,
bled by Pushkin
and thus falls indicted in merriment.
[The last sentence means that once the head bleeds from overload, it releases all the pressure and is then happy, a forgotten happiness.]

S3:

(And finally the infamous third stanza... I got a few emails about this last bit.)

A finger bone set into motion,
brought to life by power tool
decided to stick a human up its
fictitious nose
because it was tired
of being shoved into the nasal closet.
  [The literal meaning: a finger was tired of being used to pick a human's nose. The whole stanza represents freedom from "an overloaded head" and the fact that the man no longer wants to be trapped in a life entirely composed of studying.]


___________________________

There it is, a poor explanation because I hated doing it. Does it make sense now or am I still just a cryptic purveyor of poetic nonsense? Is my worky work a waste of ink? Tell me doctor... Can you save the leg or do you have to amputate? Tell me doc, I can take the truth. lol

I think my explanation ruins it though, thanks.

Go ahead and look through my old posts. I'll "explain" any one you want. If you notice my firsts posts a.k.a. the trash poetry; you'll see that they were very bland and ordinary and traditional. My style of writing shifted drastically not too too long ago.

_________

Thanks Aurelian...

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


91 posted 04-16-2007 03:17 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Well, you missed my point again. The idea was not to tell us what it says, but that through discussion something can be arrived at. If the words of the poem are right, it will be what you wanted portrayed to your target audience.

Not a big deal, I guess. I'll try to spend some time on this tomorrow.
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


92 posted 04-16-2007 03:03 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

I missed the boat again? Damn... Well, if I keep missing your "point" then it must be hiding somewhere because I pretty much responded to everything you said. I can't believe I have to go through this again. (Try to listen this time. )

[When someone says, 'my work goes over your heads' you are saying that I, the reader, am missing something. Not a particulary good thing to say if the point is to be appreciated by the reader.]

I responded to this statement by correcting you. I am saying that the bulk of my work is misunderstood by the "readers" on PiP's. Most of the time, my stuff goes over their heads, not so much anybody else. I find that it is the PiP readers that all too often "miss something." When reading my stuff, you have to put a little effort into it. If you want to read something with a blatantly obvious meaning, then my poetry isn't for you. (Not for the lazy readers, lol).


[If the intention of a poet is to be misunderstood or not understood then that is what is going to happen.]

To this I said:

"Like I've said before, I don't try to write my poems so no one will understand them; that'd be strange. The thoughts on paper are my thoughts." It is not my intention to be misunderstood.


[Looking at Ed's work, it strikes me that meaning is not what he's after, he's after acceptance. He's been accepted at another place and that's fine. If other people like the work, great.]

To this snarky remark, I said:

"Hmm... Good thing I'm in a good mood right now.  I do find this statement a tad bothersome. My poetry does have meaning and acceptance is something I don't really give a witch's stick about. (And that's not all true that I'm totally "accepted" on my other petry website, just to let you know). I accept myself; that's all I need man. I don't have the patience to wait around for people to "accept" me; I have a short attention span.  And I don't really like you trying ("trying" being the key word) to analyze what I do and how I am. Maybe if we were talking in person, I'd understand; but not over a bloody computer, lol, seriously dude."


"When it comes to meaning, it's my contentention (pompous sounding, aren't I? ) that if you get the words right, the story right, the allusions right, the metaphors right, meaning will come the moment people start talking about the damn thing."

This is really the only thing I didn't specifically respond to. And the reason being is that I thought my whole post covered this. See Brad, I do get the words right because they are the words I mean to use and I choose them very carefully. And I know I get the story right because it is my story and only I can properly tell it. I can't help if certain people don't "get" the allusions and metaphors. I don't write in Greek you know; my writing isn't that cryptic. And I think my metaphors are solid; you just have to think and pay attention. It seems that anybody who doesn't immediately understand it automatically writes it off as nonsense; and I feel bad for them.
"meaning will come the moment people start talking about the damn thing" It depends who's talking about it, Brad. If the people it's not directed towards are the only ones talking about it, then we have a real problem. Good thing my ego doesn't bruise very easily. hehe

"So Ed, can we talk about your stuff?"

Hmm, let's see, talk about my stuff? (I'm assuming that "stuff" roughly translates into poetry). Well, I posted a poem and I talked about it and even gave a rough explanation of it to prove it has meaning. (Not that I need to prove it, I'm just offering examples so to better explain my way of thinking.) I'm talking... Am I talking to myself?

So I don't know where your elusive "point" is or how I can sneak a peek at it so to respond to it. But if I keep missing your point, then just come out and say it.

"The idea was not to tell us what it says, but that through discussion something can be arrived at."

What do we need to arrive at Brad? You said I'm not concerned with meaning so I told you the meaning of the poem; it's pretty straightforward. And I'm all for discussion.

"If the words of the poem are right, it will be what you wanted portrayed to your target audience."

The words of my poem were right because I chose them. And I do correctly portray my thoughts through my poetry. The problem is, the majority of Pipsters (maybe even including you) are not the "target audience" hence why I no longer post poetry on here. Different (a.k.a. strange) poems aren't received well here.

Did I mention how much I loathe long posts?

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


93 posted 04-16-2007 04:11 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I have two quick points before I begin.

I don't think looking for acceptance is a bad thing. It was not intended to be insulting though if you associate it with affirmation or confirmation I suppose it could be. If you took it that way, my apologies.

The other point is simply that your poem is your poem. But anything in a language is social by definition. You don't own words.

I'm going to start a new post with this, I hope that's okay.
ChristianSpeaks
Member
since 05-18-2006
Posts 387
Iowa, USA


94 posted 04-17-2007 06:18 PM       View Profile for ChristianSpeaks   Email ChristianSpeaks   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ChristianSpeaks

quote:
"...but I don't get Grim's work at all"

As I said: That's your fault, not mine.  

"who may very well be a delightful human being, despite his preposterous posts"

My preposterous posts? Hmm...


This is something I can speak to -

Is it my fault that I don't get what you write?

Can writer's continually blame reader's for not "getting" what was written?

Bottom line: what do you owe me as a reader? Clarity, invention, modernism, antiquity, SENSE?
- if you answer is nothing: why write?
Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


95 posted 04-18-2007 05:17 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

“Tis  the good reader
that makes the good book;
which seem confidences or
asides hidden from all else and
unmistakenly meant for his ear;
The profit of books is according
to the sensibility of the reader;
the profoundest thought
or passion sleeps as in a mine,
until it is discovered by
an equal mind and heart.”

---Ralph Waldo Emerson


shout and wait for the echo. if there is none, then you probably stand above all. or not enough to agitate a vibration. keep writing still.

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (04-20-2007 01:59 AM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


96 posted 04-19-2007 08:08 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"It was not bad poetry. It was intimidating," poet Nikki Giovanni, one of his professors, told CNN."


.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 03-16-2007
Posts 2907
Los Angeles California


97 posted 04-19-2007 08:28 PM       View Profile for Drauntz   Email Drauntz   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Drauntz

Wednesday.
oceanvu2
Senior Member
since 02-24-2007
Posts 1007
Santa Monica, California, USA


98 posted 04-20-2007 06:21 PM       View Profile for oceanvu2   Email oceanvu2   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for oceanvu2

Hi Edster.  I think I can say this because you call me Jimmy, which is fine.

The fact that I don't "get" your poetry may well indeed be my problem, not yours.  On the other hand, I'm a pretty sophisticated reader, the type, I think, you want to reach.  Either way, it's not worth worrying about unless a voice becomes a chorus, and I don't see that happening.

We do write in entirely different styles, but that doesn't mean a cynical jester such as myself can't appreciate other forms.  Oh, and I think George Romero probably could write a decent commentary on French cinema.  Personally, I used to make a living writing scripts for Saturday Morning television cartoons.  Nevertheless, I can do a credible riff on Italian neo-Realism.
Nobody lives in a vacuum.

As to "preposterous posts" I use the adjective's most common definition: "completely contrary to nature, reason, or common sense".  Given the context, I don't see how this can be objectionable.

Jim
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 12-18-2005
Posts 1112
Greenville, South Carolina


99 posted 04-20-2007 07:26 PM       View Profile for Edward Grim   Email Edward Grim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Edward Grim's Home Page   View IP for Edward Grim

"Hi Edster.  I think I can say this because you call me Jimmy, which is fine."

Hmm "Edster"... I like it. I think I'll have the people at the DMV put it my driver's license, haha. It's better than calling me Mr. Ed, as in the horse. Though that might be a more appropriate name because a horse is closely related to a donkey. And I frequently am a jackass. hehe

"The fact that I don't "get" your poetry may well indeed be my problem, not yours."

At least you recognize it.

"On the other hand, I'm a pretty sophisticated reader, the type, I think, you want to reach."

Can I take your word for that? Do you have the Sophisticated Reader's Club Member card? I'm just messin' with ya pal. I'm not quite sure I'm meaning to reach people who consider themselves sophisticated. Believe it or not, there's (in my mind at least) a difference between people who are sophisticated and people who consider themselves sophisticated. And I really hate that word, "sophisticated" it sounds like such a demeaning word. To be completely honest, I don't know what "brand" of person I'm trying to reach. I don't really think about that sort of thing.

"We do write in entirely different styles, but that doesn't mean a cynical jester such as myself can't appreciate other forms."

Very true, very true.

"Oh, and I think George Romero probably could write a decent commentary on French cinema."

I'm sure he could too, I was trying to make a point (a rather poor attempt on my part).

"Nobody lives in a vacuum."

Yes, that too is very true. (Didn't mean to rhyme there).

"As to "preposterous posts" I use the adjective's most common definition: "completely contrary to nature, reason, or common sense".  Given the context, I don't see how this can be objectionable."

"Contrary to common sense"... Compared to the many things my posts have been called, I consider that a compliment and accurate mostly.

Cheers Jimmy.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Huan Yi will be notified of replies
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Very Well, What is Poetry?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

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



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors