»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #2
»
Heraclitus was wrong
| Critical Analysis #2 |
|
Heraclitus was wrong |
|
|
McMongrel Junior Member
since 2008-03-02
Posts 17North Carolina, USA |
Heraclitus was wrong We do not all have one common world If we did then we would understand each other and our truths would converge As it is we clash like cars on the streets of Rome Where traffic laws are mere suggestions and you don't stop unless someone is hurt Our practice is quite the opposite We stop only if they aren't hurt For then we are able to take another crack at them |
||
| © Copyright 2008 McMongrel - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Just wondering why this isn't prose without punctuation. It's decent prose without punctuation, but prose. The stanza break between "Rome" and "where" doesn't seem to work at all. It seems to go back a ways to Grinch's discussion on what can you leave out of a poem and still have it be a poem. I think the upshot of that was that you can leave out everything except the poetry. Maybe this is a sly joke along those lines. Best, Jimbeaux  |
||
|
McMongrel Junior Member
since 2008-03-02
Posts 17North Carolina, USA |
Clearly, I am new at this, which is why I appreciate suggestions such as yours. I see the breaks as changing the meaning of sentences. Perhaps the breaks should have been here: As it is we clash like cars on the streets of Rome "As it is we clash" raises (at least to me) a different image than "As it is we clash like cars" This verse may have done it better "If we did then we would understand each other and our truths would converge" "We would understand" might suggest a greater cosmic understanding. "If we did then we would understand each other" focuses on the kind of understanding, and: "If we did then we would understand each other and our truths would converge" focuses it even more and gives the possible result of our understanding. So I guess I see it like peeling off the layers of an onion, revealing a different meaning as we progress through the writing. This may simply be an error on my part given my newness to this art form. That's why I am posting here: I want to learn from those who know more than I do and are willing to give suggestions I can use. Again, thanks for the comment. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
OK, but I think there is a larger issue that line breaks here, and fiddling with it in this way may not help the poem become a poem. Rcat seems to have missed the music in your other poem, where his fiddling with the structure may have inadvertently improved it. Don't take any of this yapping to heart, its just yapping... You can defend what you've done here, and put forth you thoughts on the transformative nature of line breaks, all of which is fine and good area of inquiry. Line breaks count, and there is nothing inherently wrong in declarative sentences. Not everone will agree, but it seems that even in the most prosaic offerings as poetry, there is something that transcends prose, often just the imagery presented. This poem suggests a facility with language which the poet may later use to greater effect. The problem is, no matter how well defended and explicated the work, it seems to be missing heart, soul, music or some something that pushes it out of the realm of prose. "I see the breaks as changing the meaning of sentences." Good thought. Take is a step further, perhaps, from "change" to "transformation." That has to do with the poetry part. Just yappin' Jimbeaux |
||
|
McMongrel Junior Member
since 2008-03-02
Posts 17North Carolina, USA |
Thank you for the thoughts. I am sure that in time I will learn to use constructive comments such as yours to improve my writing. I might have to choose one poem and spend several weeks reworking it over in many ways to see what develops. Perhaps I will do as RCat did and write them as prose, try new breaks, or no breaks, change the imagery, etc., to stir the pot and see what leaps out. |
||
|
A.Grace Junior Member
since 2008-03-02
Posts 31 |
Hi McMongrel, I guess I'll jump in here. I've only been writing poetry a few months, so I can relate. I think part of the problem is that in dealing with poetry, you need to be able to "paint a picture" with your words, not just tell a story. For instance: As it is we clash like cars on the streets of Rome Could become: As it is we crash like cars attempting to merge upon each other in the dense and narrow streets of Rome Something like that. Bring it to life, paint me a picture. Anyway, hope this helps. I've learned that critiques (even harsh ones) only help you improve- and everyone is looking for improvement. Take care, A. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I liked it more than Jim did, I think (See below). I also am a little uncomfortable with the prose/poetry distinction. I don't think he's wrong, however. To me, prose and poetry are genres, not quality markers. That is, prose marks a specific type of writing, poetry another. The dividing line is the linebreak (which is an added 'tool' for poets, not prosers). It is also the one that is the most easily recognized (like a rocket ship for science fiction, a Sherlock Holmes silhouette for mysteries, or a cowboy hat for westerns). It immediately creates expectations for the reader. How you play with those expectation (not always conscious) is what makes a poem 'work' or not. So, what I think Jim is talking about is what I've called 'movement' sometimes and 'tension' othertimes. I'm pretty sure this is what Robert Bly talks about when he's talking about 'Heat'. It's necessarily vague, but I would argue that this poem comes pretty close. Now, I also want to address A. Grace's (Grace) 'painting a picture'. Nine times out of ten this is great advice. It really is 'amazing,' Grace's point is often the best criticism you can give. However, I would argue that being specific is a slightly better term. Painting a picture tends to mean more adjectives and that's not always a good thing. You've kind of set yourself up with 'us' here. Do you have a specific group in mind? What it means of course are those people reading your poem and one can almost here a few going, "Yes, this is right" (The problem here is that if you take it like that, you in fact mean 'them') but many, many will also say, "I don't do that." I don't mind 'us' and can live with it (I've used it similarly), but you have to be careful that the ambiguity is what you intend. And know that the different 'us'-es will react differently. Is there a problem here? Yes, I think there is and that problem is incongruity. You begin with Heraclitus (a Greek), move to Rome, and then move into the 'Neverlands' of 'us'. The latter parts seem quite comfortable coinciding in one world, but the middle part implies that you are talking about something much more specific than a philosophical proposition. My advice would be to explore those specifics much more carefully than you have (Grace's 'paint me a picture') and also, perhaps, why those specifics triggered the bringing of Heraclitus into it (You might consider using him as an opening quote). Such an exploration just might generate a little more 'heat' than what you have here and satisfy Jim. quote: I enjoyed the start. I thought, hey, now we can have a philosophical discussion on 'one world, different viewpoints'/'different worlds' idea. quote: Same idea. 'Our truth' is a tricky thing. Truth necessarily depends on an understanding of the common world. quote: Nice shift, you move from the abstract to the specific. Not always a good move, but it can work. quote: Nice case of misdirection here. quote: Continuing the above. quote: And then the punchline! Like I said, I enjoyed it. |
||
|
McMongrel Junior Member
since 2008-03-02
Posts 17North Carolina, USA |
Thanks to all.I appreciate the advice. This is exactly what I need to become a poet. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
