»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #1
»
A little knowledge ....... (A "sort of" reply to Kristine)
| Critical Analysis #1 |
|
A little knowledge ....... (A "sort of" reply to Kristine) |
|
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
Kristine asked of Brad: "May I ask you (and others who might happen to see this) a question? I value your opinion. You, and Jimbo usually write pieces that only each other can figure out, either because the content contains historical facts not generally known, or the language is such that it must be deciphered." ~~~~~ What she wrote was of life and death And love and hate, of power and weakness Of famine and of plenty. Of wars, trade, freedom, guns and books and blood and rights and religion and art and sex. Of Judas and Hobbes and monarchs and of how with ground steel to strip the skin from a ripe apple without a single break. In tiny phlegm gasps she wrote. In bubbled chuckles and the silence of eyes. In yells of meaning and a Morse of little squeezes. She inked ignorance and innocence and captured all that matters. Egocentric; she wrote of nothing and everything, In her cot on a rock somewhere in time. [This message has been edited by Poertree (edited 03-06-2000).] |
||
| © Copyright 2000 Poertree - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Ok, Philip, Lots of pretty sounds here and it reads and flows great. But most everything you write does that. I must confess I seem to have missed something though. I'm sure you, or someone else with more knowledge than mine, will explain shortly. For some reason though, it was pretty to read. So thanks. Pete What terms shall I find sufficiently simple in their sublimity -- sufficiently sublime in their simplicity -- for the mere enunciation of my theme? Edgar Allan Poe |
||
|
patchoulipumpkin Member
since 2000-01-01
Posts 196Bermuda |
I agree with poet the sounds and flow of this is great. Especially the line "And a Morse of little squeezes" "She inked ignorance and innocence And captured all that matters" Great line The last line is great as well, it sounds really playful, but serious at the same time. Thanks for the read.. |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Oh yes...I WILL be back...(alright - I'm going to sleep now...)  'Writing sharpens life; life enriches writing' Sylvia Plath |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello Philip, I'll take a kick at the can here... "What she wrote was of life and death And love and hate, of power and weakness Of famine and of plenty. Of wars, trade, freedom, guns and books and blood and rights and religion and art and sex. Of Judas and Hobbes and monarchs and of how with ground steel to strip the skin from a ripe apple without a single break." Excellent opening stanza though I didn't think specific references fit with the rest of it, eg. "Judas and Hobbes". Also I didn't quite get the last line...was it just meaning simply a metal apple peeler? "In tiny phlegm gasps she wrote. In bubbled chuckles and the silence of eyes. In yells of meaning and a Morse of little squeezes." Loved this stanza. I pictured an old woman who's mind is still in tact but she can't convey it anymore due to illness...perhaps a stroke...and that she used to write but can't anymore. "She inked ignorance and innocence and captured all that matters. Egocentric; she wrote of nothing and everything," Good solid stanzas again. Consider chopping off the "of". "In her cot on a rock somewhere in time." I loved the ending to this. I interpreted it as you trying to show how meaningful yet meaningless her writing and herself is, almost like, this is a lovely story but it is just another story type of thing...I don't know if that was your intention but that's what I got out of it. Anyways, very enjoyable read, don't know if I was right about what you were trying to do but nonetheless I really liked it, thanks for the read, take care, Trevor |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
Thanks Trevor It's getting a little late here and I'm being harried to retire. I guess you take the prize for being the only one (so far) brave enough to take a stab at what i was trying to convey, if it's ok by you (guess you don't have much choice ..lol) I'll come back on this tomorrow .. Thanks again, and btw glad to see you back in full critical flow, it's not the same here without your input on a daily basis  .....You take care as well Trevor Philip |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Philip: My friend, if I was to sum up your intent with this piece I would do it with three words: "Association of ideas" (Hobbes' quote, not mine). "What she wrote was of life and death And love and hate, of power and weakness Of famine and of plenty. Of wars, trade, freedom, guns and books and blood and rights and religion and art and sex." I will take a guess at who "she" is a little later. What I think is ironic here is that all of the things you listed (while we all have a good idea what they mean) are abstractions and really don't give us any more than the meaning of the word. "Of Judas and Hobbes and monarchs" While these reference seem like the abstract references, they are actually quite concrete. I remember from my college days a lecture on Hobbes and his "association of ideas" philosophy. If I remember correctly, Hobbes observed that our mind works to connect seemingly unrelated words almost immediately, provided we understand the unspoken meaning of the given word. The example Hobbes gave was of an English general who remarked that Charles I (the "monarch")was dealt a Roman Penny. Charles I was betrayed and executed by those around him (the Puritans in the House of Commons). Oliver Cromwell (I REALLY hate him) presided over the Parliament and, for all intents and purposes, ruled England until the monarchy was restored. The Roman Penny is a reference to the coins paid to Judas Ischariot whose betrayal of Christ led to Christ's capture and crucifixion. So this is Hobbes's connection to Judas and the monarchs, right? So, I think, you have demonstrated that "A little knowledge" provides to someone a much clearer picture into what is actually being said than a series of, albeit recognizable, abstract words. "and of how with ground steel to strip the skin from a ripe apple without a single break." I think this is also a more concrete line. It also seems to have the added benefit of being easily recognizable by people who have lives and don't spend all their spare hours with their noses in books of ancient and forgotten lore.  "In tiny phlegm gasps she wrote. In bubbled chuckles and the silence of eyes. In yells of meaning and a Morse of little squeezes." Oh well, I suppose everybody's roll has to end at some time or another. Perhaps this was not meant to be more than a painting of a picture of the "she" in your poem. It is pretty obvious that "she" is sickly but it is also apparent that a certain passions burns within her. I may be taking your overall intent too far here but perhaps you are portraying her almost metaphorically. Without knowing ABOUT her, one would not know the depth of her thinking and feeling. By appearances only she is a sickly woman. By knowing a little bit about the woman, suddenly she is transformed into something else. Not an abstraction but something concrete. Something with substancially more depth. I like the imagery of Morse squeezes, no doubt alluding to a code of dots (short sounds) and dashes (long sounds). "She inked ignorance and innocence and captured all that matters." These are all abstracts but I guess they do tell us a little bit more about "she". "Egocentric; she wrote of nothing and everything, In her cot on a rock somewhere in time." I am going to take a shot in the dark and guess that "she" is Elizabeth Barrett Browning. I am only familiar with a few of her writings but the small amount of her work that I have read has been of divers subjects. I have a feeling that "Egocentric" is being used to describe her practice of writing about her thoughts and her feelings. Those were all that mattered to her perhaps. Philip, I must say that you never cease to amaze me. You may have demonstrated two points here: (1) That a little bit of knowledge has the potential of bringing much more meaning out of the poetry than is at first apparent through the association of ideas and (2) that it is possible for a poem to rely so heavily on this little bit of knowledge that the meaning of the poem is lost to the reader. Excellent work on this Philip. But I think if "Jimbo" figured this out, Kris is not going to be placated. Later. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 03-07-2000).] |
||
|
roxane Senior Member
since 1999-09-02
Posts 505us |
philip- forgive my probably terse reply, but i think it's great in its rhythm. i read it a couple of times. after the first stanza, it sort of trips about the tongue, like someone gathering their wits for a comeback after being insulted, but i wish it did that the whole way through. i love the contrasting objects in this poem: monarchs, apples, war, sex. "a little knowledge...", is actually a lot of knowledge? maybe you can better explain this to me. oh, and on a little bit of a personal note, i don't know if it's sarcasm or not, but i think it was ill-intended. oh well, i've done nothing but think about the whole thing all day. |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
Thanks Pete and Patch, and Lady K my dear - too late! I had to reply because I’m off to bonnie Scotland for a couple of days and Jim would have never forgiven me if I’d gon e without a responding to his suicidal attempt at interpretation ...lol..... Trevor When I first read your critique I rather thought that you’d missed the point, but on reflection although you maybe didn’t pick up precisely what i had in mind when writing, your end conclusion did contain a large element of what I was trying to say: “I loved the ending to this. I interpreted it as you trying to show how meaningful yet meaningless her writing (and herself) is” ......... The phrase how meaningful yet meaningless is probably the interesting part. Also the fact that you pictured an old woman is closer than I initially imagined. Old age is often referred to as second childhood, so I suppose that you were actually more or less spot on with that interpretation in terms of the validity of the overall idea. You’ll see what I mean below. Thanks again for taking a look at this Trevor it was much appreciated. Jim Well now, to say that you astound me would be an understatement .. how you can be so accurate and also so “inaccurate” in the space of one critique is breathtaking ...lol. I never in a million years thought that anyone would spot the connection between monarch Hobbes and Judas .. to be honest it was kind of secondary to my scheme of things and i only put it in there because Hobbes is about the only philosopher I know anything at all about and that’s not much! and also as a kind of irony in that the whole purpose of the poem was to emphasise the complete UNIMPORTANCE of such academic and human based musings. That you not only zoomed in on it but then proceeded to use it as the basis for further analysis is actually extremely funny, because in reality it was the least important bit. If we go back to Kris’s original point (and btw I discussed this with her just after I posted) ... i interpreted it as raising the issue of writing which in order to be interpreted aright needs the reader to have specific and detailed knowledge of a particular subject. The emphasis here is on “heavy” academic or technical knowledge. She went on to say that maybe it would be wise to just write “for herself”. I thought about this for a while and then tried to write something which would make people think about what really IS important. Are we all not endowed with an ability to “write” (and now the word write should no longer be interpreted literally ... read “express” instead)... are we all not endowed with the gift of “expression”. I won’t go into the detail of what i mean by that, I’m sure you can guess that I’m talking more about spiritual qualities than materialistic. Logically this is not the “knowledge” that is educated into us, but that which we have always .. .. the “I am”. A new born baby has it ... “Unless ye become as little children etc etc”.. I thought i had inserted enough in the piece to point up the baby ...... “tiny phlegm gasps ..... bubbled chuckles .... little squeezes ..... in her cot” maybe not ??.....lol Anyway the first stanza was meant to be a resume of material existence and life in a rather arbitrary “descending” order from the grand abstractions down to the minute detail and dextrous skill involved in doing something like peeling an apple.. I deliberately used “ground steel” instead of “knife” to try to “over-do” the minutiae. The Hobbes Judas reference was there firstly because i wanted to introduce supposedly influential/notorious humans into the list and also as a bit of irony to show how clever references in a piece can either be overlooked entirely or, by those “steeped in learning” magnified to the point where they dominate the context. I really didn’t think that even you Jim would find such a tenuous connection.....lol. Anyway you really made my day by proving the point that i was trying to make to Kris, I owe you several pints when you finally make it over here... .The overall point of the first stanza was to set the stage to suggest that all of human experience is can be expressed or “written about” by even an infant, and the second stanza deals with HOW in material terms that is done. I suppose what I’m trying to say is that in the chuckles, smiles and little squeezes of a new baby we can maybe glimpse something beyond the material world .... something of Love with an upper-case “L” maybe....... Carrying on the “writing” metaphor the next stanza develops the point that though at a material level she would be considered completely ignorant, yet in her innocence (back to Christ’s admonition) she expresses all that really matters, all that IS. And then another stanza in the same vein. Yes .. again at a material level a baby is totally “Egocentric” wrapped up in its own needs and wants .. and again in worldly terms she “writes” nothing .. but at a deeper lever she expresses “everything”. Finally a little indulgence i suppose ..lol. I just had a mental picture of an infant set beside the grandeur of Time (the universe or whatever) on an insignificant rock (a planet) and yet for all its apparent insignificance in such a setting the infant is every bit as “important”, a part of creation, which is maybe all interlinked, and herself an expression of creation. Close Jim, but maybe not close enough ....... lol I like some of Liz Browning’s writing btw .. she was voted most popular poet in the UK last year i believe. Roxane Well I guess the prize nearly goes to you for the comment: "a little knowledge...", is actually a lot of knowledge? ..... Excellent bit of insight there!! The title was meant to be kind of ironic as well derived from “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing” .... the point being that it is the “little” knowledge of our conceited selves that is “dangerous” not the “knowledge of innocence” ....... Well there we go .... Philip |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Sir P - I have read nothing of what you have written...and I intend to keep it that way - once again I am too late...sniff...so will have to come back later. Hey - bring me a haggis will you? I'm sure it can't taste any worse after 7 days in the post... 'Writing sharpens life; life enriches writing' Sylvia Plath |
||
|
Ted Reynolds Member
since 1999-12-15
Posts 331 |
Now that you've made your particular point(s), Philip, make the little revisions that will turn this into a VERY FINE poem we can also understand. Change all the "wrote"s (which threw us all way off track) to "thinks," get rid of the second half of the first stanza (since you've now explained all that to us here,) changed "inked" to "drooled" or something, and it's definitely the baby of your conception (oops, unintended pun, but it sure stays.) Throw out the bathwater, keep the baby. [This message has been edited by Ted Reynolds (edited 03-09-2000).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Philip: LOL. Why do I get the feeling I've been set up? I think you've misinterpreted your own poem, btw. "Tiny phlegm gasps" gave me an almost immediate impression of sickly frailty rather than the impression of a baby. The "bubbled chuckles" I associated with the phlegm and not with little baby, saliva bubbles. Why do you mislead me so?"I never in a million years thought that anyone would spot the connection between monarch Hobbes and Judas." I'm hurt! "... to be honest it was kind of secondary to my scheme of things and i only put it in there because Hobbes is about the only philosopher I know anything at all about and that’s not much!" Ahhh, my fiend (no typo). I other words, you bated the hook, cast your line and I swallowed hook, line and sinker. What is really interesting is the context of Hobbes' little connection (the Association of Ideas) and how well this fit in with much of your wording. "... and also as a kind of irony in that the whole purpose of the poem was to emphasise the complete UNIMPORTANCE of such academic and human based musings." I suppose it demonstrated that academic and human based musings can lead one in pursuit of an untamed ornithoid (a wild goose chase) also. "The Hobbes Judas reference was there firstly because i wanted to introduce supposedly influential/notorious humans into the list and also as a bit of irony to show how clever references in a piece can either be overlooked entirely or, by those 'steeped in learning' magnified to the point where they dominate the context." Man did I fall for that one. I think it is natural, though, to be drawn to and zero in on the concrete (Judas, Hobbes and monarchs are certainly more concrete than the preceding concepts). I thought your reference to Hobbes was a clever allusion to his "Association of Ideas" doctrine. If you think about it, that doctrine could be easily used as a tool in answering Kris's original question. It is actually one of Hobbes' ideas I actually agree with. "I really didn’t think that even you Jim would find such a tenuous connection.....lol." Laugh it up, Philip. "Anyway you really made my day by proving the point that i was trying to make to Kris, I owe you several pints when you finally make it over here..." I'm printing this out and will present it to you as proof of your debt as soon as I get over there. Good poem, Philip. Jim |
||
|
X Angel Senior Member
since 1999-11-07
Posts 1521Oregon |
I wanted to reply yesterday, but I was so daunted by the wordy, insightful replies I didn't dare too....but then I thought well I'd like Phillip to know I thought this was an awesome poem...so here I am back again. "Phillip that was an awesome poem!" ~X~ |
||
|
bboog Member
since 2000-02-29
Posts 303Valencia, California |
this seemed to me like somebody had received a "dear john" letter and the poem was reading between the lines. I liked the last line best about being on a cot on a rock somewhere. (That was my impression, though I've been wrong many times before.) bboog |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
Lady K ... I don't hate the post office enough to inflict a squashed Haggis on them .. I tried to eat one (not a post office, a haggis) for breakfast yesterday .......Ugh !! Ken I've been thinking about your suggestions. First thing to say is that perhaps I didn’t invest enough thought into this. Though the message I wanted to convey was fairly clear to me i confess the actual writing of it didn’t take so long. The other point is that I suppose it was written with a specific readership in mind (mainly Kris and Jim!) so perhaps obscurity was subconsciously "built in" ...lol. Having said that I can't help feeling still that the "baby" references were sufficient to allow a reader to see them. As to the word "wrote”, that is the one word in the poem I can’t change !! ...lol ..... The whole point of the piece is that here we have the purity of innocence and ignorance outdoing the academics of Earth at their “own game”. They write ...... she “WRITES” ... Also at a practical level the whole point of the second stanza would be lost if I changed wrote to “thinks”. The essence of that stanza is that it is at the human level of expression and an attempt as showing how deeper meaning might be glimpsed even through very human actions. The important thing though is that it isn’t simply an “internal thought” of some human baby , but an outward manifestation of spiritual innocence. She “wrote” her “real” thoughts and innocence in her smiles etc. I guess if you want me to change “inked” to “drooled” I haven’t really got through to you with this one yet ......lol ....... As for the first stanza, I have to say I’m not sure about any of it!! The one thing I do know thought is that either it ALL goes, or none of it. Now that Jim has read the poem, , maybe it’s purpose has been served and I should think of a better way of conveying what I was trying to do in that stanza ...Thanks for reading Ken....... Jim LOL ..... You don’t have to print it out, I already framed it ...... Heather I am honoured that you came in here and commented on this and also very grateful for your kind reply. Why on earth you of all people should be “daunted” I really have no idea .. you should be posting here yourself ! “Wordy”?? .... definitely ..lol ......... Thanks again Bob Humpphhh ... you just made me dislike this poem ... lol I do see what you mean though, the “she wrotes” do give it the atmosphere of correspondence maybe. Still that isn’t necessarily bad ...... just think of it as “Dear Human Race” or “Dear philosopher” or even better “Dear Jim” !!!!! and you won’t be too far from what I intended .......Take care Philip |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ahhh, Philip it seems you have outsmarted yourself here. To argue that this is a poem showing the meaninglessness of academic knowledge is a rather authoritarian statement if you ask me. You didn't but did you think that was going to stop me? You've used the idea of a baby combined with the metaphor of 'writing' to 'fool' the reader into thinking it is something important, something profound but in actuality you are saying that the simplicity, the innocence of a baby is really all you need to 'write'. One, only someone with a certain degree of sophistication would be able to come with that idea in the first place. Two, how could a baby read the poem? You argue that she 'wrote' (and now you slide towards a more general reading -- express) but how could a baby express this thought? How could an adult express this thought if they were acting and thinking like babes? You can't even make your statement without the 'book' and/or experience learning necessary to conceive this thought. You're too smart for your own philosophy, Philip. But let's address what you said to Jim: "Well now, to say that you astound me would be an understatement .. how you can be so accurate and also so “inaccurate” in the space of one critique is breathtaking ...lol." --You are assuming that there is a correct interpretation to a poem but do you honestly thinking such an interpretation exists? You can't take something from your pocket "What is in my pocket?" type riddles and expect people to believe you. An interpretation, or at least one type of interpretation, is based on the words and how they are used and not the intent of the author. "I never in a million years thought that anyone would spot the connection between monarch Hobbes and Judas .. to be honest it was kind of secondary to my scheme of things and i only put it in there because Hobbes is about the only philosopher I know anything at all about and that’s not much! and also as a kind of irony in that the whole purpose of the poem was to emphasise the complete UNIMPORTANCE of such academic and human based musings." It is a minor point for you but where do you say in the poem that it is minor? Actually, what most interpretation is is exactly this favoring of one line over the other. Not even the author can see everything he is writing. "That you not only zoomed in on it but then proceeded to use it as the basis for further analysis is actually extremely funny, because in reality it was the least important bit." --Now, how is a reader supposed to know this? The fact is Jim's interpretataion is more persuasive than your own. You can't always assume that your conscious intent is what controls the reading of a poem (even your own later reading). How do you know Jim is showing some unconscious concern with yourself and Browning, a secret wish to denigrate her writing (you did say she was vote most popular in your country) and at the same time to take that particular position. I'm not fully persuaded by Jim's interpretation primarily because the Morse line seems like an anachronism if it is indeed Browning. I was having fun doing some research trying to find the poetess in the poem and was disappointed to find that you were playing a trick on us. "If we go back to Kris’s original point (and btw I discussed this with her just after I posted) ... i interpreted it as raising the issue of writing which in order to be interpreted aright needs the reader to have specific and detailed knowledge of a particular subject." --This is a self-evident statement. You have to know how to read English, for one, to interpret a poem. "The emphasis here is on “heavy” academic or technical knowledge." I'm not sure what you are implying here. Certain poems do require this type of knowledge -- Elliot's mythical intelligent man idea -- others do not. You read what you like. If you post a philosopher's name in a poem it kind of seems natural to assume that reading that philosopher would enhance the meaning of the poem. I'm not sure what a 'haggi' is but I'm sure I would understand that previous interaction better if I did. Is that haggi allusion something that we should call obscure? She went on to say that maybe it would be wise to just write “for herself”. Of course she should. I still want to read it though. It all depends on what you want to do first. Others may dislike it, others may wish to do other things but there is nobody out there who really has the authority to say what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' in poetry. "I thought about this for a while and then tried to write something which would make people think about what really IS important." I have no idea what this actually means. Certainly, you are not trying to tell me, to enforce your own views of life on me, are you? "Are we all not endowed with an ability to “write” (and now the word write should no longer be interpreted literally ... read “express” instead)... are we all not endowed with the gift of “expression”. I won’t go into the detail of what i mean by that, I’m sure you can guess that I’m talking more about spiritual qualities than materialistic." Don't suppose you want to put that in the philosophy forum so that I can show that the spiritual is actually dependent on the material. "Logically this is not the “knowledge” that is educated into us, but that which we have always .. .. the “I am”. A new born baby has it ... “Unless ye become as little children etc etc”.." Instinct and self-awareness are two different things. Babies are not able to form that thought yet. I can't prove that but I'm pretty sure I'm right here. "I thought i had inserted enough in the piece to point up the baby ...... “tiny phlegm gasps ..... bubbled chuckles .... little squeezes ..... in her cot” maybe not ??.....lol" Well, I think the majority of us see it differently. At what point are we right and you are incorrect. "... I owe you several pints when you finally make it over here..." Hey, can I get in on that one? "The overall point of the first stanza was to set the stage to suggest that all of human experience can be expressed or “written about” by even an infant," Wrong, wrong, wrong. " and the second stanza deals with HOW in material terms that is done. I suppose what I’m trying to say is that in the chuckles, smiles and little squeezes of a new baby we can maybe glimpse something beyond the material world .... something of Love with an upper-case “L” maybe......." Fine but your making a huge generalization with this statement. Actually, you seem to be assuming that 'academics' are denying that there is meaning or value in a baby's gurgle (they don't). You make a reverse mistake by arguing that we should exclude academic or technical knowledge as irrelevant. Both are relevant. "Carrying on the “writing” metaphor the next stanza develops the point that though at a material level she would be considered completely ignorant, yet in her innocence (back to Christ’s admonition) she expresses all that really matters, all that IS." Rather authoritarian of you to make this statement, don't you think? How do you know all that really matters? "And then another stanza in the same vein. Yes .. again at a material level a baby is totally “Egocentric” wrapped up in its own needs and wants .. and again in worldly terms she “writes” nothing .. but at a deeper lever she expresses “everything”." Nothing and everything are, more or less, the same thing so you are saying the same thing here. What about being able to express more than a baby? What about being able to express something less? Get away from the absolute statements your making and you'll see the world more clearly. Now, who is the one being authoritarian? "Finally a little indulgence i suppose ..lol. I just had a mental picture of an infant set beside the grandeur of Time (the universe or whatever) on an insignificant rock (a planet) and yet for all its apparent insignificance in such a setting the infant is every bit as “important”, a part of creation, which is maybe all interlinked, and herself an expression of creation." 2001, a Space Odysey (sp)? Philip, obviously I'm not being that serious here but the poem, the philosophy, and the writer are making mistakes that only a child SHOULD make. Wanna play? Brad [This message has been edited by Brad (edited 03-12-2000).] |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
Brad I wondered when you'd wake up, but now you have just let me say thanks for taking the time to go through this ... You ask "Wanna play?" The answer is .. "Yes", but not right now it's too late, tomorrow then, and also provided you don't hold me strictly to the hastily thought out forms of expression in this particular poem. As I said before, it's nowhere near "watertight" and I guess my somewhat muddled explanations only go to emphasise that point. HOWEVER I know what I wanted to say and you've written enough to convince me that we can have a nice disagreement: "Don't suppose you want to put that in the philosophy forum so that I can show that the spiritual is actually dependent on the material" Huh ?? you've gotta be kiddin' !? ...lol and: "Well, I think the majority of us see it differently. At what point are we right and you are incorrect" I'll just steal your words in reply Brad: "--so the majority is always right? There's a latin term for this fallacy but I forgot and I'm not going to look it up" .. Argumentum ad Vercundiam I understand ... lol So till the morrow .. and I guess this is one discussion I would really quite like to have. I dunno that you'll gain much from it Brad, but I sure will .. thanks for waking me and making me think! Bye for now P PS Ohhhhh yes btw, just what do you mean by this: "The fact is Jim's interpretataion is more persuasive than your own." HUH !! You tryin' to give me a sleepless night or somethin' ......? Maybe I should've just stayed in Scotland ......! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Philip, You got me. That statement is indeed false. However, the mistake is not where you think. It is in my use of 'right' and 'wrong', 'correct' or 'incorrect'. I find the arugments of others in this thread more persuasive than your own (at the moment, I change my mind all the time). I base my thinking on the words of the poem itself and do not always accept the author's words as the final word -- notice my use of 'authoritarian' in the above post. Talk to ya tommorrow. Sleep well and have pleasant dreams (about anything other than this stuff), Brad |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
>>> Hi Brad (mine start >>>) ... oh and i didn't have time to proof read ... sorry Ahhh, Philip it seems you have outsmarted yourself here. >>> So what's new? To argue that this is a poem showing the meaninglessness of academic knowledge is a rather authoritarian statement if you ask me. You didn't but did you think that was going to stop me? >>> You're dead right I didn't. Me authoritarian!! There must be some mistake! I'm the most egalitarian person you could possibly hope to meet ..lol. >>> There is no way I'd try and argue the "meaninglessness of academic knowledge" .. I'm merely trying to argue its ultimate irrelevance! You've used the idea of a baby combined with the metaphor of 'writing' to 'fool' the reader into thinking it is something important, something profound but in actuality you are saying that the simplicity, the innocence of a baby is really all you need to 'write'. >>> Ok look .. I admit that this poem perhaps had less than "honest" origins in that it was partly written "for" you and Jim ... mainly Jim actually, but methinks you are being just slightly unfair to petit moi. I never really meant to "fool" anyone. In my defence I'd say that I honestly thought that the child/baby thing was obvious, and then having established that "she" was in fact a baby, I'd have thought that it was equally clear that "wrote" did not in fact mean to physically write .. btw Jenni picked up that latter point straight away without any prompting at all ... so there! Incidentally, does the word "cot" mean something other than "a baby's cradle or bed" in America? I would've thought that word alone would have removed the supposed obscurity as to "she"? >>> (Later edit) I now discover having talked to a friend and checked out Webster's that cot in the US does not in fact mean "baby's crib" as it does in Britain ... This might explain a lot .....lol ..... sorry guys ! >>> this poem isn't "just" about the simplicity and innocence of a baby .. its more about arguing that we have all "knowledge" certainly from the moment we are born and probably before that. It's meant to be about the circularity and interconnectness of all things .. the baby was just a handy example .. I might just as well have used an old senile person (as per trevor's reply) or a cat. One, only someone with a certain degree of sophistication would be able to come with that idea in the first place. >>> purr purr .. flattery will get you everywhere Brad Two, how could a baby read the poem? You argue that she 'wrote' (and now you slide towards a more general reading -- express) but how could a baby express this thought? How could an adult express this thought if they were acting and thinking like babes? You can't even make your statement without the 'book' and/or experience learning necessary to conceive this thought. You're too smart for your own philosophy, Philip. >>> ~sigh~ I guess the mistake I made in this poem was to try to present extremes. From the "ground steel" to "life and death" and from "a cot .. in time" to "little squeezes". The result seems to have been the potential for a reader to zoom in on a particular part and then seize upon that to try and interpret the whole. The second stanza is particularly out of place in terms of the remainder of the piece in that it focusses very narrowly upon how a baby communicates, when in fact, on reflection, such communication is rather irrelevant to the main theme of the poem. However what I intended was as well as conveying that I was in fact talking about a baby, also to say that it's what we already ARE that's important not what is educated into us or what we learn. But let's address what you said to Jim: "Well now, to say that you astound me would be an understatement .. how you can be so accurate and also so "inaccurate" in the space of one critique is breathtaking ...lol." --You are assuming that there is a correct interpretation to a poem but do you honestly thinking such an interpretation exists? >>> ok Brad now I'm with you. One of the truly amazing things I've come to realise in the last few months about poetry is that my teachers way back weren't kidding when they said .. "Make up your OWN mind" about what a poem "says" to you. I read others' poems (and even my own) and see things differently each time, sometimes weeks later. You can't take something from your pocket "What is in my pocket?" type riddles and expect people to believe you. >>> That's surely not the point Brad. If I wanted to play games like that (which btw I don't .. except just possibly in the present special case of this poem and Jim) they I certainly wouldn't "expect" people to believe or even care whether they did or not. The fun and purpose would surely be purely in seeing whether other people came to the conclusions the writer expected them to and even more interestingly if they didn't, what conclusions they might come to and why. If you're suggesting that this was in fact strictly a "What's in my pocket type riddle" ie pure guesswork, or even a Gollum type riddle then I might have to disagree I suppose. An interpretation, or at least one type of interpretation, is based on the words and how they are used and not the intent of the author. >>> Agreed. But so what? "I never in a million years thought that anyone would spot the connection between monarch Hobbes and Judas .. to be honest it was kind of secondary to my scheme of things and I only put it in there because Hobbes is about the only philosopher I know anything at all about and that's not much! and also as a kind of irony in that the whole purpose of the poem was to emphasise the complete UNIMPORTANCE of such academic and human based musings." It is a minor point for you but where do you say in the poem that it is minor? Actually, what most interpretation is is exactly this favoring of one line over the other. Not even the author can see everything he is writing. >>> Yes I agree again. For what it's worth I didn't say (did I?) anywhere that Jim's interpretations were invalid, just that they were different to what I had intended. In point of fact I was both surprised and delighted by some of his comments. Given the misunderstanding over the word "cot" its maybe not so surprising though. "That you not only zoomed in on it but then proceeded to use it as the basis for further analysis is actually extremely funny, because in reality it was the least important bit." --Now, how is a reader supposed to know this? The fact is Jim's interpretataion is more persuasive than your own. >>> I still don't agree. Two other close readers of the piece up the fact that real "writing" was not taking place and that was on the basis of not knowing about the "real" meaning of the word "cot". I contend that the whole piece is just too vague and wooly to be about a specific person. There is nothing in it that even hints at an identity unless you embark on some kind of Agatha Christie type hunt, and even then I'm hard pressed to see how you get to Elizabeth Browning. I suggest that the result achieved by Jim is mostly engendered by his particular mind set, by the way that he approaches poetry and writes and reads it, in fact by the very attitude which Kristine mentioned and which first prompted me to write the confounded piece ...lol. I submit (lol) that Jim was SEARCHING for a way to make the poem fit comfortably with his ideas. Now I am NOT (hear that Brad NOT) saying that there is anything at all wrong with this .. far from it .. its inevitable .. what I am saying though is that it's quite clear that some people will be (by reason of education, culture, age, sensitivity, etc etc) better equipped to interpret a poem in the way that the writer "intended" than others , and in this particular case I think Jim tried too hard to make the poem "fit", so while his interpretation is one possibility and a valid one I disagree that its necessarily "more" persuasive. Having said that the attractiveness of Jim's version will obviously be greater for someone who perhaps thinks as he does ... lol... we can go on and on like this .... You can't always assume that your conscious intent is what controls the reading of a poem (even your own later reading). >>> I agree ... see above. How do you know Jim is showing some unconscious concern with yourself and Browning, a secret wish to denigrate her writing (you did say she was vote most popular in your country) and at the same time to take that particular position. I'm not fully persuaded by Jim's interpretation primarily because the Morse line seems like an anachronism if it is indeed Browning. >>> chuckling here Brad I was having fun doing some research trying to find the poetess in the poem and was disappointed to find that you were playing a trick on us. >>> It wasn't meant to be "a trick". In fact I really still have a hard time believing that so many people could have thought that "she" was a specific adult person. What more can I say..lol ........ohh except "sorry Brad". "If we go back to Kris's original point (and btw I discussed this with her just after I posted) ... I interpreted it as raising the issue of writing which in order to be interpreted aright needs the reader to have specific and detailed knowledge of a particular subject." --This is a self-evident statement. You have to know how to read English, for one, to interpret a poem. >>> Yes. "The emphasis here is on "heavy" academic or technical knowledge." I'm not sure what you are implying here. Certain poems do require this type of knowledge -- Elliot's mythical intelligent man idea -- others do not. You read what you like. If you post a philosopher's name in a poem it kind of seems natural to assume that reading that philosopher would enhance the meaning of the poem. I'm not sure what a 'haggi' is but I'm sure I would understand that previous interaction better if I did. Is that haggi allusion something that we should call obscure? >>> ok Brad being serious for a while .... did I write "haggis"? I'm not in the Forum right now? A haggis is a sheep's gut (I think sheep anyway) stuffed with all sorts of unsavoury innards plus oatmeal I think ... a delicacy in Scotland. >>>What started this poem was the posting of "obscure" poems in the Forum, and the raising of the issue by Kris. Self evidently a poem is obscure to a reader if that reader is not in possession of certain facts which another (more academic) reader might know about, and there might be any other number of reasons for obscurity. I suppose though that it might be possible to sympathise more with a poet who wrote what he/she supposed was a fairly straightforward piece and posted in the Forum only to have it labelled as obscure, rather than a poet who based a piece around the "life cycle of the haggis" or the theories of a little known philosopher. The latter would not really be entitled to feel piqued if readers failed to grasp the full import. All of which is rather off the point except that such thoughts then started a chain of thought which basically ended up in that poem which was trying to say something along the lines of: "Fine, go write about your haggisses and your philosophers and anything else under the sun that you care to, maybe such pieces will give pleasure, provoke thought, but ultimately everything that matters everything that IS (including the poems about haggisses and philosophers and life and death and apple peel) is." >>> perhaps Brad all I'm saying is that this was my (feeble) attempt at a "lets get it in perspective poem" .....!! >>>She went on to say that maybe it would be wise to just write "for herself". Of course she should. I still want to read it though. It all depends on what you want to do first. Others may dislike it, others may wish to do other things but there is nobody out there who really has the authority to say what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' in poetry" >>> Here again I agree with you absolutely of course. I thought about this for a while and then tried to write something which would make people think about what really IS important." I have no idea what this actually means. Certainly, you are not trying to tell me, to enforce your own views of life on me, are you? >>> LOL .... I tried to answer this above .. As for "enforcing views" ...... lol .. I have no set views to "enforce" (yuck horrible word) and never will have ..... I merely discuss possibilities and probabilities. "Are we all not endowed with an ability to "write" (and now the word write should no longer be interpreted literally ... read "express" instead)... are we all not endowed with the gift of "expression". I won't go into the detail of what I mean by that, I'm sure you can guess that I'm talking more about spiritual qualities than materialistic." Don't suppose you want to put that in the philosophy forum so that I can show that the spiritual is actually dependent on the material. >>> I'm tempted to say "rubbish" to this, except I just remembered that I have no set views to enforce .... Also I guess we need to understand what we both mean by "spiritual" before wasting time finding that we agree with each other after all. Actually as this question goes to the heart of what I was trying to say in the poem I suppose it needs discussing somewhere, if you won't discuss it here, when I have a little more time I'll look into Philosophy. "Logically this is not the "knowledge" that is educated into us, but that which we have always .. .. the "I am". A new born baby has it ... "Unless ye become as little children etc etc".." Instinct and self-awareness are two different things. Babies are not able to form that thought yet. I can't prove that but I'm pretty sure I'm right here. >>> at a material level I'd have to agree. "I thought I had inserted enough in the piece to point up the baby ...... "tiny phlegm gasps ..... bubbled chuckles .... little squeezes ..... in her cot" maybe not ??.....lol" Well, I think the majority of us see it differently. At what point are we right and you are incorrect. >>> I blame it on the blasted "cot", and those pilgrims who warped our precious language ..lol .. I know, I know .... twas the other way round .. you told me already Brad .... (kiddin') "I owe you several pints when you finally make it over here..." Hey, can I get in on that one? >>> whenever Brad .... "one" is never enough though .....lol "The overall point of the first stanza was to set the stage to suggest that all of human experience can be expressed or "written about" by even an infant," Wrong, wrong, wrong. >>> depends on your viewpoint, but perhaps I explained that badly, I'm getting tired here .. maybe later.... " and the second stanza deals with HOW in material terms that is done. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that in the chuckles, smiles and little squeezes of a new baby we can maybe glimpse something beyond the material world .... something of Love with an upper-case "L" maybe......." Fine but your making a huge generalization with this statement. Actually, you seem to be assuming that 'academics' are denying that there is meaning or value in a baby's gurgle (they don't). >>> foul foul ...... I never said that or even implied it .. see above. You make a reverse mistake by arguing that we should exclude academic or technical knowledge as irrelevant. Both are relevant. >>> ok now this I can answer .. we are talking about two different things. Of course at a material level they are "relevant", part of the rich tapestry and all that ... BUT ... (anyway you should know what I'm gonna say by now .. see above).. "Carrying on the "writing" metaphor the next stanza develops the point that though at a material level she would be considered completely ignorant, yet in her innocence (back to Christ's admonition) she expresses all that really matters, all that IS." Rather authoritarian of you to make this statement, don't you think? How do you know all that really matters? >>> Gawd Brad ... quit the authoritarian stuff will ya !! All I was doing was trying to explain what was in my mind while writing the poem (which I'm beginning to hate .lol). Whether what was in my mind was "right or wrong" I haven't the faintest idea and neither have you probably ... doesn't stop us having a nice argument though .. >>> Once and for all I wasn't "making a statement" about the state of the universe I was merely explaining my thinking behind a poem which in turn was an, admittedly shoddy, attempt at putting forward one possible point of view >>> Quite evidently I don't know all that matters or I wouldn't be here making my fingers ache talking to you !! "And then another stanza in the same vein. Yes .. again at a material level a baby is totally "Egocentric" wrapped up in its own needs and wants .. and again in worldly terms she "writes" nothing .. but at a deeper lever she expresses "everything"." Nothing and everything are, more or less, the same thing so you are saying the same thing here. What about being able to express more than a baby? What about being able to express something less? Get away from the absolute statements your making and you'll see the world more clearly. >>> This poem doesn't WANT to see "the world" .... I'm not saying it again ...lol .. you might be right about nothing and everything though .. I'll think about that ... thanks. Now, who is the one being authoritarian? >>> That's the most interesting thing you said for a while. I suspect that we can't tell whether we are each being "authoritarian" merely from reading these words. Its more a state of mind. The same sentence from two different people could be authoritarian from one but not from the other. In this particular instance I know you well enough to know that you didn't intend to be authoritarian .................. I hope ......lol. "Finally a little indulgence I suppose ..lol. I just had a mental picture of an infant set beside the grandeur of Time (the universe or whatever) on an insignificant rock (a planet) and yet for all its apparent insignificance in such a setting the infant is every bit as "important", a part of creation, which is maybe all interlinked, and herself an expression of creation." 2001, a Space Odyssey >>> lol ... yes now you mention it .. by gad (lol) you are right .. forgot all about that Philip, obviously I'm not being that serious here but the poem, the philosophy, and the writer are making mistakes that only a child SHOULD make. >>> Well I AM being serious (for once). In matters of poetry, literature and philosophy I AM a child. I'm here to grow up, and the faster the better ...... See ya and thanks again Philip |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
OK Here I am. I am proving Elton wrong (and you -  )Now I swear on my mother's honour that I haven't read any of this (bar one tiny part whilst scrolling down about a child...but I didn't make many connections, though it may influence the way I see this now!) So here I go - an entirely new critique for you to debunk/defend... Here is the first thing I am wondering: Who is the 'she'? And so the reader is presented with a fill-in-the blank scenario...thankyou Phillip... Now, the first verse suggests to me a woman of no particular description experiencing all that life is offering. (Not sure I like the fullstop (period, grumble grumble) in: 'And love and hate, of power and weakness Of famine and of plenty. Of wars, trade, freedom, guns'. Why did you choose that?) Now what I really like is the last line, when this person jumps from writing about all of these intense things to a simple little thing like peeling an apple. Beautifully described btw. Now...my question - is this person really writing anything? Given how this slots into the rest of the piece I feel like this might be metphoric for something like feeling or thinking about the world? What suggests this to me is: Egocentric; she wrote of nothing and everything, Mind you - that depends on what perspective you take. These lines speak to me of relativity...in this case - What this person is writing/thinking is everything - like these things are very real concerns in the world but nothing to her through her egocentricity. (The 'writing' concept would emerge through the common literary idea of life as a blank page which a person inscribes with the words of their living.) Anywhere near what you intended my friend? In tiny phlegm gasps she wrote. In bubbled chuckles and the silence of eyes. In yells of meaning and a Morse of little squeezes. This leaves me slightly bemused. Phlegm (a generally icky word but good for hangman... ) makes me feel that this person is ill - maybe terminally which could lead to these observations (And I really think a comma could work here:In tiny phlegm gasps she wrote, in bubbled chuckles and the silence of eyes. I love 'bubbled chuckles and 'silence of eyes' - pure, tight descriptions - awesome.) BUT - chuckles doesn't fit really with a person on a death bed. Nope. Unless they were envisioning a land of happy plenty to follow! Which, if so, again doesn't fit with the preoccupation (admittedly egocentric) of worldly things. Sigh.... Here I sit in a confused blather... NOW - perhaps the word child that caught my eye may be helping a little but I can see this from another perspective. That this is a younger person - the psychological stage for egocentrism according to Piaget falls between the ages of 2-4yrs in the Preoperational stage... but of course there is a cot mentioned here - which still supports my notion of an older person near death - (you know how when an elderly person is near dying some perceive that as being 'reduced to a childlike state') but - don't mean to get all picky - a child is incapable of being egocentric up until around two - simply because they do not KNOW they exist. They cry and demand attention purely for instinctive survival, not out of any KNOWLEDGE that the world is based around THEM. A child of two would probably not be in a cot. (Am I being too pedantic in terms of your poem?) The last line which is GREAT - really sharp, sums up the whole thing to me in one way which can apply to both of my interpretations: that this person - young or old, hence life or death, is generic...across the board for everyone - and we all experience things in life, from the simple to the complex no matter what the time we live in. There you go...my babble... Overall - I think this is fantastic - you have some awesome phrases. It is spacially beautiful. Yep - Sir P, you have done a freezing job! I will go and read what everyone has written and your responses soon...hehe - that should be fun! The Lady K... 'Writing sharpens life; life enriches writing' Sylvia Plath |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ahem ... um ... Philip? It appears that the lovely and talented Lady K reached many of the same conclusions I reached. What do you think of the Hobbes reference, Kamla? I'm becoming more and more convinced that I am right after all!  Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 03-16-2000).] |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
Grrrrrrrrrr I obviously didn't brief her well enough ... Whaddya playin' at K .. don't you realise he's the enemy?? ... P |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Geeze ... The American Revolution ... The War of 1812 ... haven't you Brits learned by now that you are just no match for us Yanks? Except for that doggone British pound ... what makes the darned thing so much more valuable than an American dollar?Jim |
||
|
warmhrt Senior Member
since 1999-12-18
Posts 1563 |
Hello Philip, I know I'm very late in replying on this one, but I had a very good reason for being so tardy. I very much appreciate your addressing the issue I spoke of in your writing of this piece...I think it proves one of my points about "obscure" writing. It is usually open to interpretatation by the reader, and here on the forum we are lucky in that we can question the writer's intentions. Otherwise, one is left only with their own perceptions, and occasional befuddlement. My perception of this piece is that poets have the ability to look at everything in a different light than most...that light being as seen through the eyes of a child...seeing things as they are, instead of as some adults view those same things...as they've been taught to see them. The poet, though seeing through the innocent eyes of his/her world (egocentric), possesses the abilities to express these views with chosen words, communicating them to others, with or without the "knowing" of what they write. Essentially, Philip, I percieve this poem as saying anyone who can "see" and express can be a poet...that there is no requirement of formal academics, or thorough knowledge needed of a subject to be able to write about it. I sure hope I'm at least close on this. You know I am a Yank, also...proud to be one, glad we won, glad it's done, my Brit friend. Now no more fighting with Jim ... Thanks again, Kris A Marrowless Assembly, Is culpabler than shame ~ Emily Dickinson |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Well well... Just read Jim's reply and your own - you, Sir P, have attracted much attention with this and I just don't have the time to read it all at present. But wow - see - what Jim and I said must go because we both got that and well, we're great! (hahahahahaha) Ahh Jim...I can't back you up on the American thing cause well - I'm not...BUT, hey - they're stuck with a Queen (I am in denial Phillip) and the rest of the world? We have Lovely People in govt - who, while perhaps being a little 'overbearing' at times actually do stuff other than playing with their corgis... Now - the Hobbes reference - I am very impressed Jim that you managed to get that. Me - I just kind of wondered in a vague way - 'Where is Calvin...?' But having learned about him from what you have written I would say 'most certainly' on the ideas thing. Also I admire your audicity when you pulled EBB out of the hat - awesome! I can definitely see her in this, Jim - I really can... Well Phillip - are you going to admit you were wrong and your poem is actually how WE see it? I mean after all it is all subjective is it not???? (lol - just teasing ya) K[This message has been edited by Severn (edited 03-16-2000).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
