»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #2
»
The Headlines of the New YorkTimes - a villanelle
| Critical Analysis #2 |
|
The Headlines of the New YorkTimes - a villanelle |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
The headlines of the New York Times In their descent from bad to worse Will never print my favorite rhymes. In place of them horrendous crimes Form images both crude and terse The headlines of the New York Times. With so much in our lives sublime News that dwells on violence and worse Will never print my favorite rhymes. They're shysters working overtime After the money in your purse The headlines of the New York Times. So pass my book, my son, for I'm Quite sure that paper that I curse Will never print my favorite rhymes. I'll save my nickels and my dimes Invest them in a book of verse. The headlines of the New York Times Will never print my favorite rhymes. |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Just wonderful!!! teach me how to cut it into pieces because I shall enjoy each verse one by one before he sells them out!!!!  You are a good Poet. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Very nice. I think you’ve made the form harder though by using short lines, longer lines act to smooth out the sharpness of the form’s repetition. I think it’s one of those rare occasions where filler words are obligatory and more happens to be more. Those headlines that infest the New York Times Fall fast in their descent from bad to worse I fear they’ll never print my favorite rhymes. Excuse my inept edit but hopefully you’ll get my drift. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, TomMark...I appreciate it Grinch, I see your point and it's valid. Unfortunately I'm a creature of habit and 8 syllables are what I enjoy. I've gone over the ones I have written and they are invariably 8 syllables jobbers. I think I must like for them to be a little hard-hitting, more than flowery. God (and everyone here) knows that when I write normal poems or ballads, I happily go up to 14 syllables per line with joy and as flowery as possible. For some reason, though, my preference is shorter lines for these. Hey, what can you expect from a guy who writes this...?  I'm living in poetic hell! It matters not how hard I try I just can't write a villanelle! I thought that I could do quite well Since I am such a clever guy... I'm living in poetic hell! I sit imprisoned in this cell My paper blank - my inkwell dry I just can't write a villanelle! Frustration makes my fingers swell As do my eyes from tears I cry.. I'm living in poetic hell! The words inside my head won't gel The way they should...don't ask me why! I just can't write a villanelle! Oh, God, release me from the spell Of how this form can mystify.. I'm living in poetic hell! I just can't write a villanelle! |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Mike: Technically, this looks pretty sound. In S2, Check your grammar on "them" ... looks like you're using it as a plural for "that" ... should be "those." L2 of S3 seems a little off-beat. I've seen the first step in a foot truncated at the beginning of the line, a non-accented step added to the end of the line, but don't recall seeing an accented syllable added to the beginning of the line. I like the effect the trucated foot has on the beginning of this line (it kinda hits you), but the advantage (to my ear) is lost by the remainder of the line. "Violence" seems a little metrically troublesome. Perhaps: "News of hatred, crime, and worse." Also, never been much a fan of the word "sublime" in poetry. Only time I've ever seen it is in poetry -- seems to be somewhat of a cliche. Might just be my taste, though. In S2 and S4, "The headlines of the New York Times" line seems to be a little forced at the end of the respective phrases. This could be helped by choosing a different end-rhyme for the L2s throughout. Notice how Thomas does it so well here: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/38.html In L1 of S5, you've done a nice job softening the pause caused by "my son" with the enjambment. I think these are the best constructed lines in the poem. As I'm sure you know, the villanelle is an extraordinarily difficult form to write well. I commend you on your effort. Jim |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
and it is too political. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hey, Jim! Thanks for stopping by... In S2, Check your grammar on "them" ... looks like you're using it as a plural for "that" ... should be "those." No, "them" refers to "headlines", which is acceptable and much smoother than using "those". If I were to say, "There were stop signs at the corner but the hurricane knocked them down", it would be the same, and knocked those down would sound pretty bad. I like the effect the trucated foot has on the beginning of this line (it kinda hits you), but the advantage (to my ear) is lost by the remainder of the line. "Violence" seems a little metrically troublesome. You are right on here. The line is not well-constructed and violence makes it worse. Your example works a lot better. In S2 and S4, "The headlines of the New York Times" line seems to be a little forced at the end of the respective phrases Yes, I can understand what you mean. I did it for a reason, though, doing a lot of performance poetry. I wanted a hard-hitting constant reminder of the subject, as if I were saying something like... He beat me day and night That father of mine and made me want to fight That father of mine And that is why I hate That father of mine. Thomas's example (probably the best villanelle ever written in my view) prefers to to slide into the line easily from the preceding one, which worked excellently for the effect he was trying to create. I was trying to hammer it home. I do understand your questioning it, though. Also, never been much a fan of the word "sublime" in poetry. Only time I've ever seen it is in poetry -- seems to be somewhat of a cliche. Might just be my taste, though. No, Jim, it's not your taste and I am properly ashamed. There are a handful of words that should never go into rhymed poetry in my opinion and sublime is certainly one of them. Strife is another and, if I never see another glossamer wing, that will be fine with me! Why is it there? I got lazy and took the easy road and am embarrased to admit it. I'll try not to let that happen again. I appreciate your fine comments, sir. TomMark.....nothing political at all. I wrote it over 20 years ago...  |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Mike, sorry if I'm getting stuck on a grammatical point, but I think the whole thing could be settled by a comma. If "them" is intended as a personal pronoun referring back to "rhymes," then "them" would be correct, and I'd just recommend you add some form of punctuation after "them" to make that clear. As it stands, I was reading the line the same way I might hear "How 'bout dem Cowboys!" I'm glad to see that wasn't your intent. The way the phrases are set out, I would think "them" would more logically serve as a pronoun for "rhymes" than "Headlines" ... and I think it works better reading it that way too. "[H]orendous crimes" don't seem take the place of Headlines, they seem to take the place of your "favorite rhymes" that you would prefer to see in the headlines. Adding a comma after "them" [i.e., rhymes] would then read: In place of them, horrendous crimes / Form images both crude and terse ... If you intend "them" to be used more like a demonstrative pronoun for "horrendous," then I think "those" is the correct choice. I thought this was your intent during my first read. I'm glad I was mistaken. It does read easier with "them." The comma would just help me hear it the way you do. Jim |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, Thank you for this villanelle. They drive me insane, which is difficult, seeing that I'm usually fairly placid. You're not the only one with difficulty writing them. I agree about Thomas. I happen to enjoy "The Waking" as well by Theodore Roethke. You're of a generation to know his stuff, but if you don't you might have a look. His formal poems are very good indeed, "I knew a woman, Lovely in her bones," may be one of the great 20th century lyric poems. He's not to everybody's taste, but if you like his stuff there so much magic there. Villanelles often run aground on the second line rhymes, which force the "plot" of the poem in odd directions. It's easy to lose direction or momentum due to the necessity of forcing a rhyme. A gift here to find a good clear path through the poem without the forced swervings one finds in failed villanelles. Alas! you paid a price, as we so aften have to. You repeated end rhymes in line 2 and 8. We need to look for words with lots of interesting rhymes before we commit ourselves to a rhyme cluster in these french forms. Otherwise, they will screw you to the wall for the sins of writing in English and not having had a classical education, where translation and versification are part of the basics. We have to come to these basic skills later in life, and it becomes easy to confuse versification with poetry as a result. This is fun verse. I suspect you also do decent poetry. You have the right look for it. Remember in Keats' day, to be a doctor (and he was a doctor) meant you had to be out with the like of Burke and Hare, bargaining gold for bodies of dubious provenance. We won't even talk of Villon or Rimbaud or Vallery. The late Donald Justice confessed that he'd never been able to write a satisfactory villanelle, though he still has a very fine reputation as a formalist. If you look through his collected poems, you'll find pieces that show their beginnings as villanelles before finding other, firmer footing. "Higgins is gone, taking both his pianos," I believe one of them starts; "There is no music now in all of Arkansas." A few more quibbles. The front page of the New York Times is not only deadset against printing you, they're pretty much deadset against printing poetry by anybody, though you may on rare occasions find it in the New York Times Book Review. The references I thought I detected in the comments about your poem about its perceived political nature may be references to the paper having a[n] (in my opinion mistaken) liberal bias. This opinion was widespread twenty years ago as well; I too was around long enough to remember such charges being leveled by Richard Nixon. There is a, for me, uncomfortable unconscious image that you present, also political, when you bring together in 19 lines this image cluster: New York/ New York Times/Crude and terse/Shysters working overtime after the money in your purse. I am also unclear why you would curse the paper. Perhaps I am touchy. My suggestion is you take the poem to a few good Jewish friends and ask them if it makes them uneasy, too. On the other hand, maybe I'm the only person who gets this vibe. If I don't bring it up, though, I know I wouldn't be doing my job. The shysters and the purse lines, however, are a bit of an undigested artifact in the middle of the poem. The connection between the refrain lines and the lines immediately before them are otherwise well thought out and well connected; not so here. Another quibble, I believe you have allowed the necessity of the rhyme to force you to use the word "rhymes" as a synonym for the word "poems." You substitute Part for Whole, a well established trope. Tropes are, as turns of speech, used to best effect in my experience as singular well chosen touches. When a single trope is used as part of a repetitive phrase, it wears very quickly unless it is extraordinarily fresh. Do you believe that was the case here? I hope you find my comments useful. They were meant to be. I actually enjoyed the poem, though you can see I had my difficulties. Sincerely, BobK. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I'll be honest. The verse was fun because I heard Groucho Marx's voice come alive. Please don't be offended. His wit for serious jabs was an art. I'll not knock your villanelle a letter because I can't, even if you make it look easy, I know better. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Personally, I liked the second villanelle better. It's probably just me though. My wife hates pets and I have nostalgia for good, old fashioned doggerel. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Jim, I'm losing my mind here. I wrote my response to you rather quickly between work stints and screwed up. OF COURSE the "them" refers to "rhymes". "In place of them (the rhymes)....." Why I said it referred to headlines was just fingers moving faster than thoughts. Sorry about that....  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
BobK, You repeated end rhymes in line 2 and 8. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. This poem's been around for a while and I never really noticed that...amazing. I suspect you also do decent poetry Well, thank you for at, at least. A few people think so Perhaps I am touchy I would have to say that's a possibility. This poems has been published on several poetry sites, not to mention poetry readings here locally - and you can believe me when I tell you we have both many Jews AND New Yorkers here in south Florida! - and not one person has ever expressed that view or feeling of uneasiness to me. There is nothing political intended here. At the time I worte it I had no interest in politics whatsoever, believe me. The title "New York Times" just flowed for me...much easier than the Sacramento Bee, for example  I'll agree that's unfair. As far as newspapers headlining the most provocative or controversial items they can for the sole purpose of selling copies....I'll stand by that.I believe you have allowed the necessity of the rhyme to force you to use the word "rhymes" as a synonym for the word "poems." Actually, no. I think rhyme is a very acceptable synonym for poem, otherwise Mother Goose would have had to write "nursery poems". You substitute Part for Whole, a well established trope. Tropes are, as turns of speech, used to best effect in my experience as singular well chosen touches. When a single trope is used as part of a repetitive phrase, it wears very quickly unless it is extraordinarily fresh. Do you believe that was the case here? I'm afraid I don't understand this. Part for Whole? What am I missing here? I thank you, Bob, for your comment and willingness to study the work well enough to discuss it in such an intelligent manner.....mucho appreciado. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Balladeer, Synecdoche: The substitution of a part for a whole is one form of synecdoche. Sometimes folks use the trope or figure of speech in reverse, the whole standing for a part. An example of a part being used as a substitute for a whole would be to label an administrator as "a suit;" or a worker as "a hired hand." Using a whole to substitute for a part? "The White House" when it's used as a synonym for "The President or a person speaking for the president." Or "The Pentagon" today stated, when we know that buildings don't speak, etc. A poem is the whole text. A "rhyme" in this context is a trope, synecdoche, that uses one of the tools of poetry to stand for the whole, a poem. The use of the word "rhyme" is complicated by its use in exactly the contexts you mention. Works that over time have been considered not as rich as poems, not as worthy, or of a lower class have been spoken of as rhymes. I happen to think Mother Goose collected a pretty sly group of poems. But they were called rhymes because they were also pretty subversive stuff. Apparently many of those cats and rats and mice were talking about real people, including Richard the Third. They were jibes. They were a subspecies of poetry, which is why they weren't mother goose poems. My comment on the use of the word "rhymes" still stands. My worry about the subtext of the villanelle may be way off base. I make loads of wretched mistakes. But what I asked you was not whether anybody had compained, which was the question you answered, but whether you had actually asked. I am happy that you've read widely and shown on several web sites, and I'm glad that you are proud as well. You should be. I've enjoyed the stuff of yours that I've seen. I'm also happy that there are many Jews in Florida as, I'm sure, there are many on the web. Why not take one or three of those many Floridian Jews aside in person and show them my absurd criticism and ask them if they've heard any echoes like that in this poem? One at a time. Folks that you think will give you a straight answer, not merely a polite one. I advise you not try this online, because you might get raving false positives. Remember, Balladeer, if I thought you were voicing sentiments of this sort on purpose, I wouldn't bother to say anything in the first place. What could I say? Keep on writing the good write, BobK. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I happen to think Mother Goose collected a pretty sly group of poems. But they were called rhymes because they were also pretty subversive stuff. Apparently many of those cats and rats and mice were talking about real people, including Richard the Third. They were jibes. They were a subspecies of poetry, which is why they weren't mother goose poems. My comment on the use of the word "rhymes" still stands. Now THAT is amazing to me. I had never heard that Mother Goose rhymes were beards for subversive topics. I love it. That would show real ingenuity by someone. I;ll certainly take your words for it but I went to Google to learn more about it but couldn't find much. Mother Goose is best known in the United States; in the United Kingdom and other English speaking nations the designation "nursery rhymes" is more common. no specific writer has ever been identified with such a name, of which the first known mention appears in an aside in a versified chronicle of weekly happenings that appeared regularly for several years, Jean Loret's La Muse Historique (in 1660). His remark, ...comme un conte de la Mere Oye ("...like a Mother Goose story") shows that the term was already familiar. The initiator of the literary fairy tale genre, Charles Perrault, published in 1695 under the name of his son a collection of fairy tales Histoires ou contes du temps passés, avec des moralités, which grew better known under its subtitle, "Contes de ma mère l'Oye" or "Tales of my Mother Goose". Perrault's publication marks the first authenticated starting-point for Mother Goose stories. Not much there but perhaps this fact leads to something... Most people in the UK now only know Mother Goose as a title for a Christmas pantomime; besides the pantomime called "Mother Goose", the rhymes have formed the basis for many classic British pantomimes. Could be that the way the English used the nursery rhymes leads to your comment? In Restoration England, a pantomime was considered a low form of opera, rather like the Commedia dell'arte but without Harlequin (rather like the French Vaudeville). In 1717, actor and manager John Rich introduced Harlequin to the British stage under the name of "Lun" (for "lunatic") and began performing wildly popular pantomimes. These pantomimes gradually became more topical and comic, often involving as many special theatrical effects as possible. Colley Cibber and his colleagues competed with Rich and produced their own pantomimes, and pantomime was a substantial (if decried) subgenre in Augustan drama. This form had virtually died out by the end of the 19th century. To me that seems like the most logical way your statement would make sense, not that Mother Goose rhymes were written as subversive poetry but more like thay may have been adapted to them by pantomime managers in the 1700's. If you haveany further info on this, I'd really like to hear it. I really DO find it fascinating.. Well, let's just say I'm calling my poetry subversive and that way I can make it the "rhymes" the New York Times won't print Thanks again for taking the time to explain your thoughts....I appreciate it. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
