»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Ed's poem "The Academician" and discussion
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Ed's poem "The Academician" and discussion |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
“The Academician?br> 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.] |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
Marge Tindal 
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
Just inquiring ... Ed who ? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Let's look at the title: The Academician I understand the meaning, but what's wrong with "The Academic" or even better "Academic"? The latter title lets you play with a double meaning: 'academic' meaning someone who works or is associated with the academy and 'academic' meaning divorced from real life, practical considerations. "A lunate mouth ajar" On a first reading, I liked this first line. A moon shaped mouth that is stuck (The Scream). The problem is that on that first reading I didn't really read it very well. A crescent shaped mouth that is stuck leaves me with the Cheshire Cat or Jack, the Joker, in the first Batman movie. If that is the image you want, I don't think you've exhausted the potential of 'lunate'. Be that as it may, we have a picture that I hope we can agree is already unattractive. "in simplified stupor" The use of alliteration here emphasizes 'stupor' but what would a simplified stupor be? What would a complex stupor be? Jack as the joker drawn by a political cartoonist? Why drop the indefinite article? "awaiting a fly to enter" The mouth is awaiting a fly to enter? A synecdoche of course. But doesn't this imply anticipation, even the wanting, of a fly to enter the mouth. A Spanish fly? So, from the first three lines I have a picture in my head, not of an academic (tweed jacket, beard, pipe, volvo), but of a drunk or drug addict awaiting, anticipating his next 'fix'. "on mission to liven up the brain." To some extent, my picture is confirmed by the next line. The dropping of an indefinite article (Why does the speaker remind me of the Hulk?) yet again would seem to indicate that the speaker and the character are both in the same boat. Next sentence: "A fly will go into the deep," Okay, following the first sentence, we get a confirmation that the fly will, at some time in the future, enter the mouth, and presumably fly down the esophagus. "into’s the deep," And you lose me here. A Cummings-like exercise in concrete poetry, a bizarre use of the possessive, a contraction of God knows what? Here, I plead guily, I sometimes get confused with the apostrophe -- an idiosyncrasy of mine. Others don't seem to have this problem so it seems a weakness that I'll just have to live with. I don't get it. So, as far as I can tell, you double your line for emphasis. What I here is a kind of dialect, 'Intooz da deep'. At the very least, not the voice traditionally associated with an academic. (Interesting point: to my ear, this would be a good place to drop the article, 'Intooz deep.' This, perhaps, creates an added dimension to the speaker. I say perhaps because this creates more problems than it solves.) I have to stop here for now. If you recognize the kind or reading I'm doing, I am sure you know that you have to wait for me to finish before I can give you my assessment of the poem as a whole. Feel free to challenge anything here (or anybody else can jump in), but I'll try to complete the reading before I comment on comments.  Thanks |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ed Grim. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of this thread is. This feels a bit like Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter and I'm on some sort of scaffold (never mind the fact that I'm comparing myself to an adulterous woman and I very much doubt you're a Puritan) hehe. I am also unsure as to how you want me to respond to this. Am I to defend or justify how I write a.k.a. think? Hmm, I don't know Brad. I offered you an explanation of the piece but I suppose that wasn't enough. Oh well, I guess this is what you meant by talking about it. I haven't decided whether I feel like responding to your critiques yet. Perhaps tomorrow I shall, maybe. I'm also unsure why this couldn't be confined to the other forum; but now that it's out let's keep it out and greet it with a happy hello. (Now I wish I gave you a better poem to tear apart, haha). [This message has been edited by Ron (04-16-2007 10:45 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Shouldn't this be in "Critical Analysis"?? Of what interest is it to philosophy, unless you want us to discuss the virtue of an intellectual life? If that's the case then an excerpt from a book like "Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson would be a much better launching board. Or is this somehow related to the quite boring "What is poetry" thread? Someone clue me in. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It's a continuation of that boring thread, Stephen. Instead of boring everybody even more, my basic point is that the poem lends itself to a very different message than the one stated by the author. In my reading, it involves an anti-drug message (alcohol, coke, and pill popping), the result being death. That the main character is an academic seems completely irrelevant to the actual words of the piece (with one exception). There are problems with voice, diction, and syntax -- perhaps indicating that the speaker is also on drugs? So, Ed, what do you do with that? You don't have to do anything of course. What struck me is how well most of your poem comes together with this idea in my head (There are still some problems with my reading: the Pushkin line and the brightening insect, but given a little time and some effort I'm sure I could have done something with those. And just as I wrote that last sentence, I see how it all works. The philosophical point, such as it is, is that a writer deals with words and those words are tools. It simply does you no good to claim that this means this or that if in fact it can't be demonstrated from the words of the text. It does you no more good to make that claim than a carpenter can make the claim that he has built a palace when it looks like a shack about to fall apart. The claims of creation begin to sound hollow. But, Ed, to be fair, I like it much more now than I did before and do hope you decide to work with it. I don't want to end this thread, but if possible open it up to other points of interest either in this one or perhaps another one that show some of the ways we can use our tools or some of the problems that you come up with when writing. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Are we all tucked in now?  Seriously Brad, I had no idea we were allowed to pull a poem into philosophy for a philosophical critiquie, and if Ed's response is any indication, um, neither did he. I also happen to resent having my comments removed and edited without notification. Not that it matters, apparently. And I'm not mad, just annoyed.  This just seemed like something new--if it has happened before that a Pip poet's poem was offered up for discussion in philosophy, I honestly don't recall ever seeing this. And thanks for answering my edited question. This thread substraction can happen because yer a moderator and a guy? *laughing* lighten up, will ya? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think Brad gave due philosophical context. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Where is the original thread? I dunno. Was it Ed's intent to post poetry as basis for philosophical discussion? I dunno. Why are replies disappearing to the discretion of the moderator? I dunno. (I don't believe mine crossed guidelines, Brad, I truly don't. And when things start disappearing, it's like tapes being erased or something--it kinda ticks people off--learn from Nixon--make it ALL disappear. So much cleaner.) And if I might re-iterate, I don't recall ever seeing a moderator pull a poem from another forum into a public discussion forum (if this is what happened) without the author's permission. Can anyone do that, or just Brad? And congratulations to both Ed Grimm and Brad, because the poem has been deemed by Essorant as having philosophical context, I'm just not sure if the author is the philosopher or the critque-r? (Critque-r? Hmmm. What do you call us anyway?) I mean, besides, raging itch? *laughing* Philosophical Context. smile I can pull a triple Goddess out of Mary Had A Little Lamb. sigh I'll go watch CNN and count the dead some more I guess. Ya'll have fun. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Jeez Karen, lol, you're really having a hard time with this thread, yeah me too. "Was it Ed's intent to post poetry as basis for philosophical discussion?" Umm, I didn't post this; Brad did. I was just as surprised as anyone else. I don't even like having it up here, I dislike it greatly as a matter of fact. I feel like my damn writing skills are on the witness stand and I don't like it. (But I'm dealing with it, who knows it might help me a lot - Thanks Brad). "And congratulations to both Ed Grimm and Brad, because the poem has been deemed by Essorant as having philosophical context, I'm just not sure if the author is the philosopher or the critque-r?" Huh? (And it's one "m" not two) Peace Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
sorry doublt vision  seriously It gets me in all kinds of trouble. I'm constantly having to explain which person I'm cussing out.  And thank you Ed Grim of One Em, for clearing up some of my confusion. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
But I did ask. Honestly, I'm just curious, but what did you think I meant when I said, quote: Then, you posted a poem. The only thing I did was move it to a new thread. What's the big deal? C'mon, guys, it's my birthday today. Cut me some slack. I deleted John's original post (I asked, I asked) but only because I didn't think it was productive to the discussion. And seriously, this has always been one of the main goals of philosophy. It's just that threads that go after the philosophical aspects of writing have always been among the least popular of threads in a not very popular forum. But, hey, at least people jumped out of the woodworks to go after this one. That surprised me.  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
aw man... It's your birthday?  I am very sorry Brad. Since it's your birthday, you can poof me twice if you want.  Have a Happy! |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
WOW... WOW... WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
You'll have to excuse my absence; I've had the flu. Perhaps now I shall "try" to respond to your (Brad's) essay or whatever on my poem. (Don't expect it to be in depth though, I'm still a bit sick and don't wish to invest too much time into it.) _______________________________ [Let's look at the title: The Academician I understand the meaning, but what's wrong with "The Academic" or even better "Academic"? The latter title lets you play with a double meaning: 'academic' meaning someone who works or is associated with the academy and 'academic' meaning divorced from real life, practical considerations.] Not a bad point, I’ll think about it. ["A lunate mouth ajar" On a first reading, I liked this first line. A moon shaped mouth that is stuck (The Scream). The problem is that on that first reading I didn't really read it very well. A crescent shaped mouth that is stuck leaves me with the Cheshire Cat or Jack, the Joker, in the first Batman movie. If that is the image you want, I don't think you've exhausted the potential of 'lunate'.] Well first off, I never said it was 'stuck'. I said it was “ajar” (as in open). “Be that as it may, we have a picture that I hope we can agree is already unattractive.” Yes Brad, that is correct. My poetry is the same as my films and my plays: unattractive. Because life is unattractive and the majority of people are unattractive (or at least human behavior tends to be ugly). I like making my readers and viewers uncomfortable by showing the more unattractive things in life. That’s just a “me” thing I guess. ["in simplified stupor" The use of alliteration here emphasizes 'stupor' but what would a simplified stupor be? What would a complex stupor be?] Hmm, good point. “Jack as the joker drawn by a political cartoonist?” haha, good one. [Why drop the indefinite article? "awaiting a fly to enter"] I didn’t drop the indefinite article in that line. ”But doesn't this imply anticipation, even the wanting, of a fly to enter the mouth.” Perhaps. I never said the mouth didn’t want the fly’s company. “A Spanish fly?” I’m not sure what ethnicity the fly was. Russian maybe? ”So, from the first three lines I have a picture in my head, not of an academic (tweed jacket, beard, pipe, volvo), but of a drunk or drug addict awaiting, anticipating his next 'fix'.” Yes, I suppose you could say that. But what is an academic? A person addicted to knowledge maybe? Don’t academics need a certain “fix” as well? Their “fix” being knowledge maybe? “yet again would seem to indicate that the speaker and the character are both in the same boat.” That is a high possibility. Many poets write about others while referring to themselves. I admit to being a tad narcissistic. “(Why does the speaker remind me of the Hulk?) “ Because I have green skin and only wear ripped jean shorts? Haha. No I purposely wrote this piece with a “primitive” diction to differentiate the speaker and the subject of the poem, the latter being the academician. ”Okay, following the first sentence, we get a confirmation that the fly will, at some time in the future, enter the mouth, and presumably fly down the esophagus.” Ok, here is where we’re having problems. This poem is a metaphor Brad. Don’t think of it like “the fly will enter the mouth, down the esophagus, through the stomach and intestines.” No no. The fly enters the head. The fly like an idea, enters the head. Don't think of it so literally. ["into’s the deep," And you lose me here. A Cummings-like exercise in concrete poetry, a bizarre use of the possessive, a contraction of God knows what? Here, I plead guily, I sometimes get confused with the apostrophe -- an idiosyncrasy of mine. Others don't seem to have this problem so it seems a weakness that I'll just have to live with.] Yes, I like adding the unneeded apostrophe sometimes to add a sense of sinisterness to the piece. It’s just a little thing I do from time to time. I actually wrote a whole piece using that “technique.” /main/forumdisplay.cgi?action=displayarchive&number=96&topic=000857 I’m sure you’ll all hate this one too. ”I don't get it. So, as far as I can tell, you double your line for emphasis. What I here is a kind of dialect, 'Intooz da deep'.” Yes it sounds like that. But not “da.” It’s “intooz the deep.” ”At the very least, not the voice traditionally associated with an academic.” I know, the academic isn’t the speaker. _________________________ Oh and happy belated birthday Brad. Cheers mate. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Ah, Grimmy: I think this is a quote from Henry Ford: "Never apologize. Never explain." If you have to tell somebody what you are doing rather than just doing what you are doing, where is that? Brad, I can't quite tell whether you go into this poem at length because you think there is something there, or because it touches a nerve... I end with a few lines of irrefutible logic: "I'm Alabamy bound, I'm Alabamy bound. And if this train don't turn around, I'm Alabamy bound." Tough to pick it apart. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Neither really. It's just that, for better or worse, we have people who feel that a poem should be about something 'deep' -- I guess that means important or serious. Conversely, we have people who put words on paper and claim that it is so. My point is that if it is worth its salt, a sustained reading will move the reader to that point, the same point as the writer. If it's any good. Chalk this up to the high school education system. They seem to think that every poem is an invisible puzzle to be deciphered. Now, this is really an attempt to teach formalism or, if you want, "The New Criticism" (it's been around for over 75 years). But what many seem to get out of it is not an appreciation of close readings nor of language itself, but simply the idea that the author has a secret and that if you obscure it, it becomes a poem. By the way, Ed, great response. I'll try to get back to in the next couple of days. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Well Jim, if you read my past replies on the topic of my poetry, you'll see that I've frequently said that I'll offer no commentary on my work. But since Brad "dedicated" an entire thread to this little monster, I have too much respect for him to just ignore it. And I'm not apologizing, I'll never do that my man, haha. I don't mind having an old poem picked apart. I think every writer should have someone dissect their poem to keep up with their skills. And besides, Brad is a smart lad. "Brad, I can't quite tell whether you go into this poem at length because you think there is something there, or because it touches a nerve..." It's cool with me either way. Thanks JimHead Cheese & Chicken Feet [This message has been edited by Edward Grim (04-21-2007 05:43 PM).] |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"perhaps indicating that the speaker is also on drugs?" I just noticed this. Let me be very clear; I do not do drugs. I suppose I can see why you would think that though. But I don't believe in using drugs or any stimulants to improve one's writing. I'm fascinated with drugs and drug addicts but not enough to experiment myself; I'm not brave enough. Just to clear things up. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I'm fascinated with drugs and drug addicts" Why? I would urge you to become fascinated with healthier things, and without a doubt your poetry shall become healthier as well. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I don't think I should answer why. Just because I'm explaing my poem doesn't mean I will explain myself or what I like. "without a doubt your poetry shall become healthier as well." I didn't know my poetry was "unhealthy." Could you possibly elaborate? Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ed, I was talking about the speaker, not you personally. I never thought you were on drugs, only that the speaker, not the author, may also be on drugs. Admittedly, this is a tricky thing at times, but if you'll indulge me here: author: the writer of the poem speaker: the voice the author uses in the poem character: the agents in the poem. Sometimes, of course, the distinction is moot, they are all the same. Sometimes they are not. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I see what you're saying Brad. I just wanted to make that totally clear, you can understand that. I do admit, I am not always privy to the poetic lingo. I try not to get too into the poetic terminologies. That's probably not a good thing on my part, heh. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thanks Brad! I never actually thought about the finer distinctionss m'self. Shame on me. And Ed? I'd love to see you do some form poetry--not that I dislike what you are doing-it just makes you "privy" to tools you might like to utilize and honestly, it doesn't undermine your individuality. It's just great exercize. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I don't think I should answer why. " That is up to you, of course. "I didn't know my poetry was "unhealthy." Could you possibly elaborate?" I already explained in the "What is Poetry" thread, I feel a poem needs a form of musical regulation to be strongly poetic. Therefore, on the poetic level, your poetry is just weak to my ear. I don't hear any special musical regulation whatsoever. It is basically just dramatic prose with line breaks. (which is only a criticism on the poetic virtue, not the general literary virtue) The other is a general point toward artfulness It looks to me like you are more pursuing a reversal, turning away from grace and clarity, and pursuing cloudiness and uncertainty instead. Isn't there enough obscurity and uncertainty in "real" life? Do we need it in art too? I don't think so. It just ruins art, and makes it more like the coarsness of life "out there". [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-29-2007 02:05 PM).] |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
You have your views and I have mine. Although I do think your views are a little old-fashioned, and I mean that in the best possible way. Personally, I found the "What is Poetry" forum to be pretty useless and silly. "I feel a poem needs a form of musical regulation to be strongly poetic." See Ess, that is your problem. Anything that doesn't match your set definition is considered "unhealthy" and "inferior" in your mind. I don't agree with that. I don't like traditional poetry, but I don't say it's unhealthy. I feel you have no openness, and again, I say that in the best possible way. I'm merely speculating. "Therefore, on the poetic level, your poetry is just weak to my ear." I respect your opinion. My poetry has been called many things, but never weak. So you'll have to forgive me if I don't agree. It's not ego, I'm just comparing it to the usual feedback I get and I've never gotten "weak." You are not the type of person who would enjoy my work, so I don't blame you. We are very different, which is groovy, but not so cool when discussing which form is better. I beleive no form is superior. It all depends on the writer, and I don't see how one could possibly even begin to disagree with that. "I don't hear any special musical regulation whatsoever." Hmm, well are you listening? People who aren't open-minded to anything contrary to their own style tend to have deaf ears. My poetry has rhythm. Of course, my rhythm is not the obvious (and hackneyed, in my opinion) rhyming patterns that poets pin to their pieces carelessly. Yes, I find excessive rhyming careless and agitating. "It looks to me like you are more pursuing a reversal, turning away from grace and clarity, and pursuing cloudiness and uncertainty instead." Again, I respect your opinion, no matter how far off it is from the truth. You don't really know my writing style because you've never really read my work. I'm sure you've read the actual words of my poetry, but probably couldn't read the message. It goes back to open-mindedness, something I feel you lack in this field. You are strictly traditional, you only appreciate traditional; so why bother with anything else? I write the way I write. I don't "try" to be cloudy or give off a sense of uncertainty; that is your perception. I don't try to do anything except write. And how I write is how I think, I've said this before. I'm not sitting around thinking up ways to make my work obscure; I've said this before as well. Just for the hell of it and the sake of the argument. I looked up "poem" on dictionary.com. Here are the first two definitions: 1. a composition in verse, esp. one that is characterized by a highly developed artistic form and by the use of heightened language and rhythm to express an intensely imaginative interpretation of the subject. 2. composition that, though not in verse, is characterized by great beauty of language or expression. Let's see, #1. I have a highly developed artistic form, different from many other styles; a style that I've worked on extensively. I use language, many times heightened, sometimes bland (depending on the nature of the piece and the message I wish to portray). And yes, I have rhythm, just not a rhythm you like or recognize. And I do express an intensely imaginative interpretation of my subject. More imaginative than most of the poetry I read, on this site at least (that's not ego, that's the way I see it). I find many of the poems I read to be trite, boring and painfully common. So Ess, I do write poetry. "It just ruins art, and makes it more like the coarsness of life "out there"." Heh, "out there?" I'd rather be "out there" than be cooped up in the closet of close-mindedness. But that's just a me thing. Thanks for the reply! Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I do, Ed. It depends on the reader. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ed? I don't want to seem like I am joining in a barage against you, but when you said this: quote: Your refusal to study traditional poets, along with a bit of obvious ignorance of specific poetic terms and therefore tools led me to ponder: "How would he know?" If you haven't read and studied the works of others, you can't place a claim on having developed something new. Without study, you have no idea if you aren't utilizing methods previously employed by more mainstream (or even traditional) poets. It might be new to you--but others might not see it that way. And please don't feel like I'm trying to attack you either, I believe I was your age when my English Lit. professor told me that "Interpretation is fifty percent of the art of poetry." (And yes, I got just as defensive as you are now.) An olive branch? So...I ask you, why not just drop the defensiveness and humor us with a try at...say, a sonnet? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I have to agree with Karen Ed ... Anti-tradition, or Anti-form, can be just as binding as anything. Closedmindedness comes in many forms, not a few of which try the hardest to appear otherwise. I will say that you have valid points in your response to Essorant though. Modern expressions of poetry, particularly Free Verse, are not antithetical to good poetry. Both of you need to explore, and add to what you have. JMO, Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Personally, I found the "What is Poetry" forum to be pretty useless and silly." Fine. Then there is no point in me speaking further, because I am just saying things that weakly echo what I feel I said more strongly in that thread. There is no point in me speaking further to you just for everything to be shrugged off as "pretty useless and silly". |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Brad and Ed, This is a little odd, for me, and I know I'm odd, but I rarely dissect a poem unless I’m forced to for an assignment. I always feel like I’m distorting the subtleties or worse--the big picture. I like your poem, Ed. To me, it represents the need for balance, which isn’t anything new in the universality of themes, nor is it hard to understand. This is also why I find the work to be more traditional and less atypical than suggested. I don’t find it dark or disturbing, and the issue of drugs doesn’t fit with me either. To me, it’s a reach to be inorganic with a very organic aptitude: To be smart enough to experience balance. That’s my take, if it’s worth anything, if not, disregard it. The only question I have deals with S1, line 5-6: “A fly will go into the deep into’s the deep.” The repetition of “into the deep,” Is this meant to be a provocation of deeper still, because Into IS the deep? The layers suggest the opposite of your explanation: [Meaning happiness is achieved through simplicity.] It’s hard work to achieve simplicity. This is a contrast, to me, that doesn’t fit into the balance, but that’s on an over-read. The thing that bothers me is: Why do you label other's work on this site as "typical and conforming, trite, boring, and even sickening and painfully common," when your non-conforming work isn't as atypical as you've led yourself to believe? In fact, I find this piece to be as typical of free verse, as you've found the rhyming forms on this site. Your language, metaphor, structure, flow, is nothing so extraordinary that it separated itself from the fold of poetry, which is a good thing. Separating yourself from the commoners is ego, Ed. Dictionary.com: 1.the "I" or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought. I kindly urge you to rethink your stance, as your attitude appears to be separating you more from poetry than your work. On the issue of obscurity: I can identify with two types of puzzles writers use/are being taught to use in poetry. 1. The reach for something deeper and more descriptive besides the "cheating words" (heart, love, soul, life) etc. 2. Being caught with the pen down: The writer has no real material but is skilled in metaphor, so a "self-manicure" becomes the foundation of a poem. Writers are hoping that readers mistake "Slicing through the tips of moons," as "time travel" or whatever. They're just cutting their nails and passing the content off as something it's not because they're in a pinch. Both examples produce obscurity, and the secret should be: How to avoid it. Not so much for acceptance or understanding, but for possible widespread acceptance of something completely misunderstood. I think writers know what they're doing much of the time. Some are amused by pulling woolly words over on people, but give them a real challenge and they may fail? I've made a mockery of form before, and I didn't like the results. Lesson learned. And content? Again, pulling words out of my...hmmm, didn't produce what I could be proud of. Yes, I do love sonnets, and I continue to try...to write them. They keep me balanced and very humble. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
God, I feel like I'm in front of HUAC with a red shirt on. I guess I'll just answer in order. Brad, I think you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about the reader, I'm talking about the writer. My full statement was: "I believe no form is superior. It all depends on the writer, and I don't see how one could possibly even begin to disagree with that." As in, a writer of one form is not better than a writer of another form strictly because of the form he chose. If a writer has no talent, it doesn't matter what form he or she uses. No talent equals no talent. The reader has nothing to do with the writing process, they only come into play after the fact. _______________________________ Karen, "I don't want to seem like I am joining in a barage against you, but when you said this:" It's ok; it seems to a popular thing to do. "Your refusal to study traditional poets, along with..." Where'd you come up with that? My refusal to study traditional poems? Have I ever refused to study traditional poems? No. I wrote traditional poetry for eight years, Karen. I studied it in school and took extra courses at a community college. When I grew up, I decided I didn't like it. It was boring and dull, so I changed my style; this was about three years ago. So yes, I would know. I'm not the moron everyone thinks I am. "...a bit of obvious ignorance of specific poetic terms and therefore tools led me to ponder" That's nice. I fumbled with the speaker and the author once (even when Brad admitted there's sometimes no difference between the two) and I'm all of the sudden ignorant? (I just wanted to make sure Brad didn’t think I was a drug addict. Because they know I’m interested in drug culture and apparently I write like a drug addict; I didn’t want him to get the wrong idea). You shouldn't be so quick to dish out the “ignorant label.” I suppose I can see why you would say that, but no, that's not the case at all. "Without study, you have no idea if you aren't utilizing methods previously employed by more mainstream (or even traditional) poets" I am utilizing mainstream methods. Do you think I've created an entirely different style of poetry? Or worse, do you think that I think that? My poetry is not that different and I am not even really good. In fact, I fail to ever see when I'm good because all people can complain about is how supposedly "weird" I write. I don't think my style is strange or that obscure. It’s like was John said, “Welcome to a world that is not at all impressed by you.” Before I was mad when he said that, but he’s right. "It might be new to you--but others might not see it that way" Karen, I've been writing for almost eleven years now. None of this is "new" to me. Karen, I like you a lot and I think you're a top-notch writer but you have to stop making these funky assumptions. lol "And please don't feel like I'm trying to attack you either" I don't think you're attacking me, I think you're really trying to help me. "So...I ask you, why not just drop the defensiveness and humor us with a try at...say, a sonnet?" Why? Why do you want to see me write a traditional poem so much? If you look at my early, early posts you'll see some traditional poetry. That was before my style changed. My earlier poetry makes me sick, so you can read it but just don't copy and paste it to discuss it. I really don't want to get into my old poetry. I know you're trying to help and I appreciate it very much my friend. Friend being the key word there. I'll maybe try to write a sonnet, I don't think I'll be able to though, there's only so much I can stomach, heh. If I do, I'll just email it to you because there's no way in hell I'm posting it, lol.Thanks Karen. _________________________________ Steph, "Anti-tradition, or Anti-form, can be just as binding as anything." Sure it can, if it's not done right. Traditional form can be awful if it’s not done right; which brings me back to the fact that the form doesn't matter as much as the skill of the writer. "Closedmindedness comes in many forms, not a few of which try the hardest to appear otherwise." True. But I'm not close-minded to traditional poetry because, as I was telling Karen, I tried it for the better part of my writing "career." I tried it and didn't like it. Good thing I was open to new styles. _______________________________ Oh Ess, Don't be sensitive. "Then there is no point in me speaking further, because I am just saying things that weakly echo what I feel I said more strongly in that thread. There is no point in me speaking further to you just for everything to be shrugged off as "pretty useless and silly"." I said the "What is Poetry" forum was pretty useless and silly. Not you. It wasn't even your thread. I said that because I felt nobody got anywhere in that thread. I'm always interested in what you have to say. I can't guarantee I'll like what you say or agree but I'm always interested. _________________________ Regina, "This is also why I find the work to be more traditional and less atypical than suggested." Wow, thank you. I've always thought of my work as "not so strange" but the usual replies I get made me think otherwise. "I don’t find it dark or disturbing, and the issue of drugs doesn’t fit with me either." You nailed it because it wasn't a dark story to begin with. I rarely write darkly. [The thing that bothers me is: Why do you label other's work on this site as "typical and conforming, trite, boring, and even sickening and painfully common,"] Well I'm not really labeling other's works as trite; that's just my opinion. I've read much of the poetry and it doesn't interest me. I dig a lot of the poetry on PiP's, but there's only a few poets on here that I specifically look for. I'm sorry if that sounds "snotty", but that's just how I feel. I also admit that I have horrible taste in poetry. My friends always give me hell for not liking Frost or Longfellow or Louis Stevenson (except Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide). I can't help it; they just don't interest me, much to my chagrin. "when your non-conforming work isn't as atypical as you've led yourself to believe?" Whoa now, hold your horses for a second. I've said many times before that I never thought my work was that different. If I may quote myself from the "What is Poetry" forum: "I never really thought my poems were that strange until people kept saying so." I too thought my poems were typical, to a certain degree. But the majority of replies I get on this site suggest that my style is too different to understand or I'm too obscure. I don't get it. "In fact, I find this piece to be as typical of free verse, as you've found the rhyming forms on this site." You are the first person on this site to say that and all I can really say is thank you. "Your language, metaphor, structure, flow, is nothing so extraordinary that it separated itself from the fold of poetry, which is a good thing." I agree, that is a great thing. "Separating yourself from the commoners is ego, Ed." Yes, I'm sure it sounds like that is what I'm attempting to do, but it's simply not the case. (I may be egotistical on some days but for the most part, I have the self-esteem of a fly.) I never thought my poetry was that different until, like I said, people kept saying otherwise. If I may, here are some snippets of usual replies I get: "I don't always understand what you write, but I don't think you expect me to." "I am not always clear what the hell you are talking about - but I still like it." "Too different I guess. I just don't understand." "First off I have to say I like your poem a lot but cannot fully understand it." "I don't pretend to understand all of your work that you do... I want to but it just doesn't get thru to me.." "ur weird..have some flowers!" "This is really bizarre" "i am glad you do not smoke meth." (The last is one of my favorites.) So as you can see, this idea that my work is "atypical" never came from me. Don't you think it burns me that people rarely understand me? Well, it does. "as your attitude appears to be separating you more from poetry than your work." Mmm, I disagree. "They're just cutting their nails and passing the content off as something it's not because they're in a pinch" Well, I hope this isn't how my stuff is looked at, probably is. I've said before that my thoughts on paper are how I think. I'm not trying to be obscure, I don't think my poetry is as obscure as some people let on. Thanks for all the advice Regina, I really appreciate it. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
 I like YOU, too, Ed!I am, though, admittedly, a drug addict. (They are just administered to me legally now--Um, need a chill pill?  ) I drink too. I'm allowed. I don't drive, I'm 45, and I live in Hell.I am also, admittedly ignorant too. I don't have a problem with ignorance. Stupidity drives me a bit buggy though. There's nothing wrong with ignorance, Ed. Everybody is ignorant about something, only a fool thinks he knows it all. (See? I just had to correct a noun verb disagreement.) And I'm asking for one sonnet Ed. I think there's a law somewhere that everyone must write at least 100 really crappy sonnets and attempt a Sestina three times before they can truly say they have suffered for their art. ESPECIALLY THE SESTINA. I cannot write a true haiku to save my life. (It's a very subtle sorta thing, and subtle ain't my specialty.) I drove Balladeer nuts too, 'cause he took plenty of time and trouble to teach me how to create "flow" with neat rhymes, but I just can't put down the free verse. (I generally considered my own poems more like, um, lyric--and I LIKE the slant rhymes.) I also like to employ assonance, occasional alliteration, and layered metaphor. (I over-do that alot.)This ain't the MIT of Poetry, Ed. Just write a freaking sonnet. We have several models to choose from, too! Now if you'll excuse me, I have hot wings in the oven and a genuine rash on me arse. Subtle....HA! gleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Just have fun, Ed. I gotta run!------->zip |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Ooops. My bad. Yes, bad poetry comes in many forms (any form). |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Let's go back to the poem for a moment: quote: ”Okay, following the first sentence, we get a confirmation that the fly will, at some time in the future, enter the mouth, and presumably fly down the esophagus.” quote: But how am I supposed to get from the fly to the idea with what you've given me. Even if I suspect that the fly is a stand in for something else, where do you lead me to the head and not the deep? I don't think it's a matter of literal versus metaphorical but where you, in fact, tell me to go. A poem read literally can still be a metaphor for something else. A poem read metaphorically should still work within the context of the metaphor itself. Isn't that why we talk about levels or layers to a poem? If there's anything I'm trying to get at here, it's that a metaphor is never an excuse to avoid getting the 'surface' level right. Oh, and don't tell me how to read! ------------------------ A couple of quick points: Please don't feel obligated to defend the poem. You like it, others like it and that's fine. My hope is simply that we can talk about poetry using your poem as an example. You mentioned Derrida in the other thread. I would be very careful using Derrida as an example of much of anything. Yes, he's funny sometimes, he's provocative, and can be powerful. But he is also horribly, horribly obscure and even contradictory at times. As someone else pointed out, if you understand everything Derrida writes, you haven't really read Derrida (and I think that's part of the point). I'm not saying that you have made any claims on Derrida (that you understand everything etc.), it's just that when sometimes, someone says, "I don't understand this," that's probably a better understanding than when someone says he does. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Ed, You're welcome. At least you're garnering replies. I personally love this one: "ur weird..have some flowers!" Laugh. Just a hint for future reference: People who use text message code in their replies are not to be trusted as experts on poetry or poets. Like, y'know? They are slinef. "Don't you think it burns me that people rarely understand me? Well, it does" Darlin', I'll tell you what I told my daughter. She's 18 and has won 2 very large poetry competitions. Her trophies are bigger than she is. And she's competing for a chance to go to Washington with the last one. Plus, she's earned a scholarship for college over her writing, and she still feels like "no one really gets her." Huh? Her poetry is deeply spiritual and it's her ministry in life to reach out to others with her whole heart and soul. I asked her, "Do you understand me at all times over every thing after all these years?" She said, "No. Not always." "Then quit thinking people should understand you on paper after one read, having never met you without any clue where you came from or where you're going. We're all strangers in the game and we get acquainted through expression. We may connect on a large scale or a tiny one, or we part ways and take separate routes, which is what the majority of her poetry is about, "the path to righteousness, or her spiritual journey." She needs to understand herself. I guess that's what I'm for? It's a joy to help out. Keep up the hard work. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
rwood, yep. PS I disagree with everything else. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
What does slinef mean? |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
Reg, She sure has a smart mama. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
slinef= so lame it's not even funny. I know, I know. Tisnf= That is so not fair. Yep, people usually do disagree with me, that is. Larry~ She's a much bigger person than I'll ever be, but she keeps me alert and on my toes trying. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Edster: I hate to use quotes brashly, But here's the gist of the thing expressed in a form uniquely Ogden Nashly: From "Very Like A Whale" by Ogden Nash. One thing that literature would be greatly the better for Would be a more restricted employment by authors of simile and metaphor. Authors of all races, be they Greeks, Romans, Teutons, or Celts, Can't seem to say that anything is the thing it is but have to go out of their way to say that it is like something elts." These are the first four lines of the poem, memorized when I was 20, so they may be slightly off. Of course, Ogden Nash was often considered to be slightly "off" himself... Jim |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Brad: "But how am I supposed to get from the fly to the idea with what you've given me. Even if I suspect that the fly is a stand in for something else, where do you lead me to the head and not the deep? I don't think it's a matter of literal versus metaphorical but where you, in fact, tell me to go." Yeah I see what you're saying Brad. I did repeat the line for emphasis and to add a sinister voice to it, hence the 's, like I said before. The head is the deep, I guess, as in deep into the head. And about me telling you where to go, you really shouldn't take directions from me, heh. I may put up a "big front" but I'm pretty inexperienced. Until I publish something, I consider myself to be completely inexperienced. I don't care what Uncle Sam says, I'm still a kid. Sometimes I let my metaphors and double meanings get away from me, you know? I need to work on that, well, I have been working on that. My recently posted poem "Asian Army of Clay Men" is one of my recent attempts of being straightforward and not "clouding" the piece with too many metaphors. "A poem read literally can still be a metaphor for something else." That is very true. I need to learn that. "A poem read metaphorically should still work within the context of the metaphor itself. Isn't that why we talk about levels or layers to a poem?" Great advice Brad. "Oh, and don't tell me how to read!" Sorry, I wasn't trying to. "You mentioned Derrida in the other thread. I would be very careful using Derrida as an example of much of anything." Yeah he's pretty out there. I was just making a point. "But he is also horribly, horribly obscure and even contradictory at times." You don't have to wonder why I like him. I like his obscurity but mostly I like that he can get away with it. I saw a great documentary about him and his life; he's crazy. I like how he mostly tells what Deconstruction is not. And how even people who call themselves Deconstructionists can't fully describe it. I just like that whole concept. "As someone else pointed out, if you understand everything Derrida writes, you haven't really read Derrida (and I think that's part of the point). I'm not saying that you have made any claims on Derrida (that you understand everything etc.), it's just that when sometimes, someone says, "I don't understand this," that's probably a better understanding than when someone says he does." Yeah well, I don't understand him at all. And that's not to say that I do understand him more than someone who claims to understand him. I'm trying to read Deconstruction and I just don't get it, at the present time at least. I'm hoping by the time I'm done reading it, I might have a clue, hopefully. But who knows, my brain is like a small nightclub and there is a high admittance fee to get in. And there's always drunk people dancing around in it. __________________________ Regina, You sound like a super mom. Your daughter is lucky to have you. You said she needs to understand herself. I know how she feels. I understand myself like I understand metaphysics. That's to say, I've heard of metaphysics but I know nothing about it. I'm lucky though, I stopped searching for definition long ago. Thanks again. ________________________ Jim, I love Nash. I remember my grandpa always reciting some of his little poems, like: Candy is dandy: but liquor is quicker. That's all I can remember. Thanks Jimbeaux, (I dig that spelling man, hehe). Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Edster: "Candy is Dandy" also turned up in a song recorded by Sippy Waters and Bessie Smith among others, and sounds like something from Jelly Roll Morton, who only stole from the best. Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker, I can drink all the liquor down in Costa Rica, Ain't nobody's business but my own! Which adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. Jimbeaux |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
