»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Very Well, What is Poetry?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Very Well, What is Poetry? |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. Art, autobiography, or psychoanalysis? John . |
||
| © Copyright 2007 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
*spitball* |
||
Marge Tindal 
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
Life IS poetry~ ~*The sound of a kiss is not as strong as that of a cannon, but it's echo endures much longer*~ |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Poetry is the language when it is heightened with special attributes such as meter and rhyme, special vocabulary, et cetera. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Very well, let’s ask this another way. What poetry though more than a hundred years old would you be willing to read and why? . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Why do you ask? |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Because he wanted to know, Essy? Why did you ask? Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
To see if I approve of the reasons and ulterior motives behind the asking. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I didn't know he needed your approval. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
He doesn't. But I may give a better answer knowing the context and direction of the question(s). |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Fair enough, I'm just a little on edge with all the slights people are taking at me lately. I feel like I have to constantly defend myself; it's like living with my father again, it's annoying. Sorry dude. Peace |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Please let everyone be assured that the answers I receive are intended to be used only as a small part of a plan to rule the universe. John . |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
lol |
||
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
Well John, if that is your plan, then I myself don't wish to contribute.  Oh forgive me, back to your question ~ poetry in my opinion is whatever you want it to be. In my day at any coffee house, poetry could be just one word,  Peace. |
||
|
Angel4aKing Senior Member
since 2006-09-27
Posts 1372USA |
Poetry is expression which would be all three...(or would it??)there is actually much spirit in poetry as well which would make it none of the above if it is spiritual....hmmmmm!!! ~~~kingsangel~~~ |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Poetry is what you get when you're too lazy to write in complete sentences. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
ChristianSpeaks Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 396Iowa, USA |
Poetry is a concise narrative of the things happening around you. quote: Get used to it! This is life! Dane |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
poetry to me, are songs of heart, mind and soul... emotions with little arms and legs...hehe |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Poetry is a concise narrative of the things happening around you." At the center of which all too often the writer thinks himself the highest and brightest point. Concise? I doubt that . . . . |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
What the hell Dane? Mind your own damn business man, I wasn't even talking to you. |
||
|
Aurelian Member
since 2007-03-20
Posts 109TX, USA |
Poetry is language intensified - a sort of concentrate if you will. This sort of concentrate may be achieved bu many different means - the sound of the words, the rhythm of the words, a preordained structure, or all of the above. Words are more than mere dictionary definitions - or mere assemblages of phonemes. Poetry treats language in its' wholeness - sound, rhythm, association, and definition, to provide a fuller meaning than that which can be reached analytically. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ed Please cool down. "What the hell" and "mind your own damn business" don't inspire a healthy discussion either. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Poetry is language intensified - a sort of concentrate if you will. " I like that description. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Poetry is essentially the soul’s search for its release in language.” Joseph Brodsky . |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
He's obviously not trying to strike up a discussion, Ess. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I agree with ess, but I believe there must be a voice and meaning behind poetry as well. You know a central idea -Juju |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Very Well, Is narcissism over-compensation for deeply in-laid self-loathing?  By the way, your universe ceases to exist without YOU--and even should you have the misfortune for your words to live on, further misunderstood--the ego is presumed, and "I" is presumed by your readers, and I don't care (nor does anyone else) how many pages your black sharpie leaks through... |
||
|
minus Member
since 2007-03-24
Posts 75 |
what is NOT poetry? answer this, and ye shall find... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Chaos |
||
|
minus Member
since 2007-03-24
Posts 75 |
is that the answer or the question? |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
huh? -Juju |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Yeah I self loath, but I am not a narscisist. I don't have the time  . There is a difference between stating beliefs and talking about or obsessing about ones self. I was talking about my belief on poetry. Not talking about how wonderful my poetry is. I think I don't like myself enough todo that. Besides I don't self loath as much as I use to. that was mean. -Juju |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
aw Juju, c'mere lovie.  That wasn't directed at you honey. Even if I thought you were a Narcissist, I would find that completely understandable. Because you are, indeed, lovely.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Minus, I was answering your question. Chaos is not poetry! |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Ess, clearly you've never read my "poetry". lol Maybe that's why I don't consider my work poetry. So yeah, maybe you're right. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: An except from "Nimrod." Part V. By Anna Hempstead Branch. 1875-1937. Even chaos can be entirely poetic. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “The poetry of Dada is the art of randomness; the writings are 'absurd.' The writings were a barrage of random words melded together towards a humourous, yet shocking type of approach towards the reader. It was using coarse harsh words (including swear words) to conceive a random notion that makes the reader have to think while reading it to get across the excessive ramblings. “ http://www.geocities.com/allon_art/dadapoetry.html I once actually heard a recording of Marie Osmond reciting a Dada poem. I found It: http://www.ubu.com/sound/ball.html Marie Osmond performing Hugo Ball's "Karawane” . So where does that leave us as far as the original question; seems with anything as an answer. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
My definition: poetry: Something of worth, communicated in verse. Of course it defies technical definitions, as do many things we know instinctively are real. And BTW, dada poetry (and art) is anti-art, intended to show the absurdity of art itself. It cancels itself out by it's own motive. Stephen. |
||
|
minus Member
since 2007-03-24
Posts 75 |
thus chaos, beautiful non-concept concepts |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
lol |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “poetry: Something of worth, communicated in verse.” What do we know that matters that Aeschylus did not know? Millar Wiliams . |
||
|
minus Member
since 2007-03-24
Posts 75 |
there seems to be a lot of confusion about what poetry and chaos truly are and are not...i think each concept is valid for each individual...though your academic bias will ultimately decide for you...i just love to see such zeal and pomp in writing...throwing out references and authors like poker chips...'i raise you' |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Thank you. I like it when someone pays attention to my pretty pomp. Please, do clarify for us the truth of what poetry and chaos really are and are not. Personally, academia slaughters my favorite poets. "Tiger, tiger, (growl, claw-bearing beast!) burning bright" (like the sun at night!) after listening to that type of ad-lib reading, (complete with growl sound and hand gestures) from my professors, I no longer trusted academia for my bias. It had something to do with how I felt when my Grandmother introduced me to Blake's poetry when I was 12 years old. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Poetry is calligraphy Ultimately obsolete . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ed No, I wasn't talking about anyone's work at this site. There is no chaos I ever saw at Passions. Reg "Even chaos can be entirely poetic." I like that example. But you are displacing the adjective "poetic" here. What you are finding poetic is the poetic description of chaos, because that indeed is poetic, and an example of poetry itself, in the example you gave, not chaos. I think it is need to distinguish between a poetic description of chaos, and chaos itself, which is not even poetic, let alone poetry. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"poetry: Something of worth, communicated in verse." That works for me too, Stephanos. |
||
|
minus Member
since 2007-03-24
Posts 75 |
misspoken...supposed to relay something to mean your subjective interpretation will ultimately decide. your experience will determine wether chaos is poetry etc...i do not pretend to know. everyone thinks something different...and yes, pomp. most of you speak a completely different language than me, and it is exciting to eavesdrop on you. thanks. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Ess~ Yeah, I liked it too. Her imagery is powerful. True, yes. Description. I agree. She channeled her sense of chaos, connected, and feared it enough to imagine and convey it through poetry. and since many of us have never experienced chaos in that apocalyptic manner, thankfully, we can only write about it with the best of our ability. The degree of destruction and disorder varies, and when communicated it can be poetry, to me, as long as someone is still around to write about it. minus~ How kind. You relay as well as anyone else, and with manners. That's a plus, dear minus. Welcome. I enjoy everyone's perspective and I learn something new each time I log in. Exciting? I'm sure I teeter on the edge of annoying  Cheers. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"The degree of destruction and disorder varies, and when communicated it can be poetry, to me, as long as someone is still around to write about it." I will still urge you to acknowledge that the destruction and disorder themselves aren't the Poetry. It is the artwork itself that is the poetry. That is what poetry is, ART, not chaos or destruction. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. How long do you think real poetry needs to be sorted out from what is not; can it occur to the general in its own time? . |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Ess, I'm not saying you're talking about my stuff. You said "Chaos is not poetry!" and I simply said "well clearly you haven't read what I've written." Because 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... lol, I think poetry is all too often classified as chaotic. On certain days, I like to contribute and on others, I'd rather just not write anything. peace Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Then why don't you use traditional forms? Freeverse may not be chaos, but it often has a likeness to chaos, especially when taken to extremes. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
If you can't write both, Essorant, you're not really writing either to its full potential. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I must disagree. The success at one manner or form of poetry is not dependant on the other (especially one that tries to "free" itself from the important things that made English poetry successful to begin with). No one needs to write in Freeverse, or Haiku, in order to write a nursury rhyme or iambic verse to its full potential. [This message has been edited by Essorant (03-31-2007 08:39 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
That sounds a bit dogmatic, Essorant. How do you know? Have you ever tried? There is much more to form than the blind counting of syllables, stresses, and line breaks. That's just math, after all, beautiful in its own right but offering little enough insight. Good poetry can certainly be written within the strictures of form, but it must be poetry in spite of the form, not because of it. Poetry lies beyond form, beyond simple math. Both form poetry and free verse rely on exactly the same things. The concentrations are a little different, but the recipe otherwise remains unchanged. I'll even go you one further and submit that good prose is, again, the same recipe, only seen from a slightly different focus. None of which should be at all surprising. Writing is always about communication. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"That sounds a bit dogmatic, Essorant. How do you know? Have you ever tried?" Yes, I tried. And I regret it. Trying other forms was a weakness. My practice of Haiku and some Free Verse did nothing but distract me my studies of the more at-home and important forms to the English poetic tradition. I would've been more practiced in those if I hadn't been distracted with putzing around with other forms, partially under the influence of believing that writing more than one form makes one better at writing in either. That proved wrong. There is more than enough difficulty in one form, without burdening oneself with the difficulties of another as well, especially the kind of burden and difficulty people have with meter. And among people today that are often already so time-consumed, burnt out and distracted from other things, that seems even more true. I recommend trying to keep focused on one form, and not dividing yourself among another or many. The more you keep focused and practice the one form, the more you will find success therein. "Good poetry can certainly be written within the strictures of form, but it must be poetry in spite of the form, not because of it. Poetry lies beyond form, beyond simple math. " How? A sandcastle isn't just a sandcastle because it is sand, but is a sandcastle for having the structure or shape of castle. Without the structure or shape, the sand ceases to have any character beyond the sand itself. Likewise, Poetry, unless must need structure or it ceases to have its character as poetry beyond the linguistic "sand" it is dependant on. Therefore, I think poetry is poetry because of its structure too, even though it is poetry because of other things as well. I agree that both form poetry and freeverse and prose are dependant on language. But the other dependance is on shape or structure. Without the shapes and structures that characterize them as this or that, all they become are a less structured and less meaningful symbolic "sand", used less and less artfully, the more they begin to lack their special shape and structure. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I love all poetry... done almost all of it... But unless structure is used to enhance the beauty of poetry, it remains a tool. A hammer is only a hammer. It takes more than that to drive a nail into a wall. Writing a poem off as inferior, because of its lack of structure is either ignorant or stuck up. I used to only write my poems in Cinquain. It’s still my favorite form style. I was surprised at the number of people that didn't recognize what I was doing. I believe I have made that mistake as well years upon years ago. I guess time has humbled me. (: There are different ways to put a nail in the wall. The hammer just makes it easier. Keep that in mind. That is the only reason I pushed some people in the past to organize and structure poems. that’s all -Juju -Juju |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Past tense, Essorant? How many decades did you try before giving up? "Do or do not... there is no try." quote: Structure and shape are essential, I agree. But, Essorant, the universe isn't going to confine itself to only the structure and shape that you're currently able to see. Castles can be made from many things beyond sand, and sand can be used for many things beyond castles. If you focus on nothing but sandcastles, you'll likely find only sandcastles. Narrow views often need to be broadened. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Past tense, Essorant? How many decades did you try before giving up?" None. It didn't take long to realize I was divided / distracted by trying to practice Free Verse, and Haiku on the side of studying and practicing Metrical verse, the true success of English poetry. However, even among regulating stresses, syllables, and rhyme, I think it is important to settle in one pattern and most attentively perfect it, without flipflopping oneself much among other patterns. "Castles can be made from many things beyond sand," Yes, castles can, but I was likening poetry to a sandcastle because it is dependant on it own "sand" language, but also dependant on the structure we give the sand (castle). The importance of this is recognizing the less form and structure are retained, the less poetry retains it own special and distinct, because it is the structure and shape that distinguishes it from just being "sand" / "language" The problem with free verse is that it tries and does take much of the shape and distinctness of poetry out of poetry, but then expects to be treated as if it is just as artful and poetic as when that shape and distinctness are retained and preserved as much as possible. I just can't agree with that. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I strongly disagree ess. Structure doesn't make the poetry, it can only enhance it. Using structure is a tool and should be treated the same way. How did poetry start? Did it start on paper? No. It started with men standing around a campfire telling stories. The one with the best story won. They used rhyme, metric, stressing, word usage and imagery to captivate their audience, and most importantly to tell their story. It was done so they could be immortalized; that their story may be passed down. They started as stories of great war heroes, amazing adventures, and then even love and betrayal. -Juju -Juju |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I agree that poetry is strongly rooted with story-telling. But there is still a strong difference between just Story in the language and Poetry. They have things in common, but they are distinctly different arts. It is distinctly Poetry's unique shape and structure that distinguishes it from prose or loose conversation. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-01-2007 04:47 PM).] |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
My friend you are missing the point. -Everything starts somewhere.- Free style doesn't mean the poet didn't put forth thought on how to say the words and the imagery. I am not a well known poet, but I know enough to know that children get tired of building sand castles (I think I wrote a poem about this). Eventhough they are all grown up they may want to make a sand castle time and time again. but to be frank when the tides rise, adults know that thier sand castles wash away. No matter how well its constructed, sand remains sand. It will wash away. That's why we build our homes of brick and stone. You can structure all you want and the sand castle is just sand. You would have been better off by a pile of rocks. -Juju |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Pity. You'll never know what you're missing, I guess.  |
||
|
Aurelian Member
since 2007-03-20
Posts 109TX, USA |
I guess I'd have to disagree with you somewhat Ess. I'm not ready to say Whitman's work isn't poetry just because much of it was in free verse. I think the "concentrate" which is my definition of poetry can exist in a more unstructured form as well as that which is formed by regular meter and/or rhyme. But I'll give it to you that much that passes for "free verse" is more a result of sloppy work than the deliberate choice of a form. I like structured poetry myself - and I don't like chaos. It seems sometimes that some people think if you pull out a handful of words from Webster's at random and throw them at the screen the result is free verse. I disagree. I don't think that free verse should be an excuse for sloppiness, which it too often is. I just think that because the sound system isn't mathematical doesn't make it not poetry. Ultimately, the ear must decide. And if your ear doesn't decide that free verse is poetry - you can decide that way. Like Eliot said, you can not only choose to like whatever you want, you can like it for whatever reason you want. And I too wish that more people here would write structured poetry. If nothing else, it's a good exercise - and often I find the very limitations of a structured form can be an inspiration. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Seems to me that's just as true for poetry that does try to adhere to a form? |
||
|
Aurelian Member
since 2007-03-20
Posts 109TX, USA |
That's true for sure - I just merely meant that some may shy away from the more structured types of poetry more from laziness than anything else - not everyone, just some of them. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"Then why don't you use traditional forms?" No thanks, I don't like traditional forms. I don't like to fall into any mold or be "one of the numbers." I like to be myself and who I am is not traditional. Cheers. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Here is that poem I had wrote. Now ess, this my friend is in free style. There is no structure. Instead I used images, very powerful images. I carefully chose my words. This is a poem. Now I am not saying I am some great poet. I am not. I am just showing you, ess, what I meant. I could have added structure(and it is rare for me to not be using some form, or making up one), but honestly I liked the imagery. /pip/Forum102/HTML/000013.html So ess here you go, if this is not a poem, say it. I really wont be mad. -Juju |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Of course that is a poem, Juju. I didn't ever try to say freeverse is not poetry, because that is not what I believe at all. I feel that I was able to word my opinion clearliest in tearsoflove's thread, Pearls. I hope that clarifies a bit better where I am coming from. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Well Ess, I can't rightly dog on you for having an opinion and I'd like to try to avoid another lengthy discussion, lol (probably impossible). So I'll just offer my opinion on the subject. "I won't hide the fact that I find freeverse an inferior form of writing poetry when held up in comparison with traditional, wellwritten formverse in English." Yes that is your opinion; one I strongly disagree with. Since I make movies, I'll use movies for comparison. Your above statement is like saying: Recording a motion picture on film is better than recording a motion picture on tape. There's no way one can make that comparison. They are two separate mediums for the same activity. Some say film is too hard to work with and requires too much light whereas digital tape is easy, crisp and clear. Some say film adds an ambience to the picture that digi tape could never achieve whereas some say that digi tape adds clarity that can't be beat. That's like saying fiction writing is better than biographical writing. Or that driving a Corolla is better than driving a Camry. It's all about the talent that goes behind the medium. Sloppy freeverse is bad; sloppy traditional writing is bad, end of story. I personally don't like traditional writing; that's not to say I think freeverse is better because I enjoy GOOD traditional writing. But today I find most of the traditional pieces hackneyed and lame. Anybody can make a poem rhyme and more often than not it is lame, extremely lame. Example: Traditional Poem I went to the house, I saw a mouse, We had tea, But not coffee. We went to play, All the day, We had much fun, In the sun. That is the worst piece of writing I’ve ever read (I hate myself for writing that just now). That is how I see most traditional poems written today. See Ess, at least freeverse tries to be different, but when it's bad it's unbearable to read. And when traditional writing is bad, you get the above poem . Like I said, it's all about the talent backing the style."In my opinion it is a bit of a delusion to paint it out as if it is an "equal" tool." You're right. It's not an equal tool. Some would think it to be a better tool and some would think it an inferior tool. In my humblest of humble opinions, freeverse is strong because it doesn't have to follow any guidelines, guidelines that ultimately limit the writer. Think of writing as water. Traditional form is vase that one pours water into; yes, the vase is "pretty" but the water can only take one shape: the shape of the vase. I find freeverse to be an ocean; it can move and is vast and thrives without any limitations or restrictions. "But since freeverse basically "frees" itself from those, it also lacks the long historical support of them." Why would writing need "historical support?" I don't want another writer's history attached to my poem. I think a writing piece should be detached from another's historical support because that would mean the piece is completely original. Shouldn't all writing be original? People seem to put that on the backburner these days. "That doesn't mean it doesn't have its own more individual strength, but that individual strength is is not as strong as the traditional forms already so strongly proven thro many ages." Well back in Shakespeare's time and long before his time, the horse (traditional form) was proven to be the best mode of transportation. So should we all get rid of our cars to go to the stables because horse travel was strongly proven through the ages? Uh... I think not. Peace amigo. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Your above statement is like saying: Recording a motion picture on film is better than recording a motion picture on tape." Not true, Ed. You are suggesting that poetry is just as distinct with either. But it is not . We already have language, and that itself is a symbolic medium. We already have ideas. We already have drama, stories, originality, eloquence in language that is not poetry. 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". As long as poets wallow in this "I want originality, individuality, freedom" pit instead of fastening themselves to the foundations that made poetry strong, familiar and sucessful in the first place, they will never be able to write very strong poetry again. When you take away the form and distinctness of something it naturally becomes less formed and less distinct. And that is what freeverse is doing to poetry today. "It's all about the talent that goes behind the medium. " I don't care how much talent one has writing poetry with no poetic meter, or syllablecount or rhyme. Any and every other writer can do that. Prosewriters, scriptwriters, scientists, etc. One has the whole rest of the writing world in which not to use the things that make poetry stronglyformed, unique, distinct from other linguistic arts, familiar to people, and also traditional and special to poetry in the English language. There is no reason to do so in poetry, unless more just to get one's work the special title of "poem", but not wanting the unlaziness of learning and practicing the seasoned forms and techniques that make a poem distinctly a strongformed poem, instead of just dramatic prose with linebreaks. "That is the worst piece of writing I’ve ever read (I hate myself for writing that just now). That is how I see most traditional poems written today. " Of course it is. People can't remember how to write good form verse when they wallow so much in the flood of freeverse we see today. Sorry I didn't address all your point. Too weary right now. |
||
|
Aurelian Member
since 2007-03-20
Posts 109TX, USA |
Oh, come on, there's enough free verse floating around that should be sandbagged and sent into the deep. Not everybody can write free verse, and not everybody can write structured verse. There's a lot to be said for both of them. Free verse vs. metered verse is like saying novel vs. short story. Each has it's own place and each is a distinct form of art. Free verse isn't just any random handful of words thrown at the page - it has to be done skillfully to be done at all. Some probably do write free verse out of laziness, but then again, some probably write short stories instead of novels for the same reason. The free and the more structured each have their place - and it takes a lot of tears and sweat to make something worthwhile either way. Oh well, here I'm sticking my neck out again into someone else's fight - Josh |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: And that would be? We certainly have eloquent language that is not part of a poem, but I suspect that the distinction between prose and poetry simply breaks down at this point. This doesn't bother me, but for those still hypnotized by the linebreak, I suspect it can be a bit disconcerting. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
“We already have language, and that itself is a symbolic medium.” 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? “We already have ideas.” So we should recycle them incessantly? I’m sick and bloody tired of people idea harvesting and not trying to come up with their own ideas. Yes, we already have ideas; but let’s think up new ones shall we. I want new ideas damn it! I’m sick of re-runs in the movie theater and John Grisham novels! I’m tired of poeta that write the same crap as everyone else! Why can’t we be different? Why can’t we find our own voices?! “I tell you that is the strengthening and familiarizing with form and structure, not freeing and unfamiliarizing for "originality".” 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. “As long as poets wallow in this "I want originality, individuality, freedom" pit instead of fastening themselves to the foundations that made poetry strong, familiar and sucessful in the first place, they will never be able to write very strong poetry again.” I hate attitudes like that Ess, sorry to say, but I do. Yes, that format worked and still works (with talent) but that doesn’t mean another form is inferior to it or superior to it; it’s just another form, like film and video. I’m interested, why do you put down originality? Do you realize that without originality your work is a collection “been there, done that?” Where is the joy in reading if everyone writes the same crap? ”I don't care how much talent one has writing poetry” Right there, you’ve defeated your entire point. Talent my dear friend, is everything. Without it the writer is defunct and the words produced are a waste of ink. “Any and every other writer can do that.” I disagree. On the contrary, it is anyone who can make a poem rhyme and be traditional. Almost every single poem on this site is traditional and practices rhyming. It’s sickening. It is hard to plunge into freeverse and pull out something good. Not ‘any and every other writer can do that.’ ”Of course it is. People can't remember how to write good form verse when they wallow so much in the flood of freeverse we see today.” Well Ess, I made it bad on purpose. Lol. I was giving an example at how I see traditional poems today. Believe it or not, I’m quite familiar with Shakespearean verse. I’m actually writing a play that is reminiscent of Shakespeare’s language and time. Yes, I suppose you could say that freeverse has become a “flood”, most likely because it’s new. Freeverse is just another form of writing though; one cannot say that it is better or worse than other forms. ”Sorry I didn't address all your point.” It’s cool dude. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Brad Methinks you are making a similar point to mine. But, then, I often mistake what you mean. Eloquence doesn't strongly distinguish poetry from prose, for prose includes much eloquence as well. But it is chiefly a strong poetic FORM/STRUCTURE that distinguishes poetry from prose and gives it a special character of its own. 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. |
||
|
Aurelian Member
since 2007-03-20
Posts 109TX, USA |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Ess, quote: 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: 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 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
"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 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
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 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
“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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: 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 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
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 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"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 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “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” /pip/Forum103/HTML/001994.html . |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"...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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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 2007-03-20
Posts 109TX, USA |
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 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
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.) /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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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 2006-05-18
Posts 396Iowa, USA |
quote: 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 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
“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 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "It was not bad poetry. It was intimidating," poet Nikki Giovanni, one of his professors, told CNN." . |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Wednesday. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
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 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"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 |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Edster, my God! You have a sense of humour! Yet another fabulous dimension! I've said before that you are probably a wonderful human being. I'll expand that now to suggest you probably don't beat your wife or partner, and rarely chase after little children! As to the below, and bona fides: "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 am in fact a charter member of the Sophisticated Reader's Club, #0014. Unfortunately, the numbers only go up to 0019, so it's not a BIG club. I can offer some reasonable bona fides regarding sophistication: I survived Viet Nam, I survived Duke's Stage 3 colon cancer, I've been through three wives, and I don't like Budweiser. How many people can say all that at once? Actually, your post was insightful and to the point. I'll just go look at the work again. Jimmy |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
You know what? I like you. And I usually don't say that to new people, hehe. You have a quite a sense of humor as well Jim, or should I say #0014, hahaha. Ah, you crack me up number fourteen! "I'll expand that now to suggest you probably don't beat your wife or partner, and rarely chase after little children!" Actually Jim, my wife beats me, with a cudgel mind you, a spiked cudgel... very painful. No, I'm only recently legal to vote let alone get shackled to another human being, haha. And yes I only rarely chase children (Mostly on Easter to steal their candy). "I survived Viet Nam, I survived Duke's Stage 3 colon cancer, I've been through three wives, and I don't like Budweiser." I think we're going to be good friends Jim. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Christian Talks: "Is it my fault that I don't get what you write?" I believe so, yes. Would it be Derrida's fault if a twelve year old didn't get his Deconstruction theory? No. Is it Shakespeare’s fault if someone doesn't get why Romeo had to kill himself? No. Is it Einstein's fault if someone doesn't understand his relativity theory? No. The fact is, I say it is your fault for not understanding because my targeted audience does "get" what I write. If no one "got" what I write, then I'd reconsider my views but that is not the case. So yes, I believe it is your fault. Sorry. "Can writer's continually blame reader's for not "getting" what was written?" If the reader isn't qualified, then yes they can. Why should writers simplify their work so every Tom, Dick and Harry will understand? No sir, I will not dumb down my work so the masses can understand it. If Einstein and every other great thinker (I'm not comparing myself to them, I'm just making a point) simplified their theories then we'd live in a darker place. I'm sorry I can't accommodate your level of reasoning. "what do you owe me as a reader? Clarity, invention, modernism, antiquity, SENSE?" I owe the reader all that and more my friend! But if the reader has none of the above to start with, then what is a writer to do? "why write?" If you have none of the above, then why read? If you don't like Fritz Lang films, then why critique Fritz Lang's films? If you don't understand his movies, then don't watch his movies. If you don't like my style, then don't read it. Clearly my style eludes you and I'm sorry for that but there is really nothing I can do about it. You are a more traditional writer/reader and that is something you have to deal with, not me. I don't critique "roses are red, violets are blue" poems because I don't understand their use or the writer's message. I stay away from those poems because they don't interest me and quite frankly waste my time. Thanks for the reply! Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
