Instructions on how to crash an airplane into a dictionary / mhb
M.H.Benders
Instructions on how to crash an airplane into a dictionary
I tell the guy in the seat next to me
I'd really love to start my own bureaucracy one day.
That society is a blank sheet waiting to be numbered
and that I submit every dream I have to my wife
who controls the lights in our bedroom.
That our world is a dark place because it is shy.
That it waits out there, beyond the round windows
of the plane, sitting on its hands like a child would
that weathermen are really the worst sort of tyrants,
worse than newsreaders who usually just do
what they're told. That you can't trust women
when it comes to lightswitches because they
are essentially milkable weathermen.
I tell him, and this time I slightly raise my voice,
that my name is not really Muhammed.
I tell him the media are fooling him.
I tell him he should drop the mobile phone
he has clenched between his fingers.
The guy in the seat next to me doesn't move,
doesn't even blink his eyelids. I stand up
confused - I feel dreamy and inspired and walk
towards the pilots in the cockpit but I can't,
I swear, I really do, I can't
find the lightswitch on such moments.
And taking my relief in the dark
I feel how the plane takes a dive
and lands, just like my pen lands
on this piece of paper now:
it happens every day
while the world sits on its hands
you can't switch off words
or women or airplanes or the sort of tyrants
that point their fingers at clouds and laugh.
M.H.Benders - 03-10-2004
Josh Hill
wrote:
Like most of your poetry, this contains the occasional inspiration,
but because it is not finished, it never transcends the forgettable.
It is, in a way, the poetical equivalent of your thought: all bark and
snarl, but lacking teeth.
--
Josh
"I have never studied the actual Pearl Harbor case but it has always seemed
quite unnatural to me - why would Japan all of a sudden decide to attack
some US Islands?" - Martijn Benders
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
>>you can't switch off words
>>or women or airplanes or the sort of tyrants
>>that point their fingers at clouds and laugh.
>>
>>M.H.Benders - 03-10-2004
>
> Like most of your poetry, this contains the occasional inspiration,
> but because it is not finished,
Translation: I am a talentless hack and a parrot and I can't stop
responding to Mr Benders, and I vent stupid idea's about potery all the
time, like the idea that poems 'have to be finished' which reveal the
level of my knowledge about poetry is just about as high as my level of
knowledge on anything else.
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill
wrote:
Heh
Benders, I have never known anyone as scared of criticism as you are
-- or as eager to give it.
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
>>Translation: I am a talentless hack and a parrot and I can't stop
>>responding to Mr Benders, and I vent stupid idea's about potery all the
>>time, like the idea that poems 'have to be finished' which reveal the
>>level of my knowledge about poetry is just about as high as my level of
>>knowledge on anything else.
>
>
> Heh
>
> Benders, I have never known anyone as scared of criticism as you are
> -- or as eager to give it.
Scared of criticism from a deranged boyband manager? I'm afraid you're
right. The thought scares the hell out of me.
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill
wrote:
You'd be scared of criticism from your own shadow, Bonkers. That's
been obvious since you first came to my attention with your hysterical
reaction to my critique of an earlier poem. The silliest Gary Gamble
target is better able to take criticism than you are -- and now you're
hunched over your computer, waiting eagerly to see what I'll swat you
with next. It's pathetic, really.
Chuck Lysaght
This actually quite good.
>
> M.H.Benders - 03-10-2004
M.H.Benders
>>Scared of criticism from a deranged boyband manager? I'm afraid you're
>>right. The thought scares the hell out of me.
>
> You'd be scared of criticism from your own shadow, Bonkers.
I'd indeed fear the criticism of my own shadow quite a lot more than any
criticism of you. 'This poem has inspiration but isn't finished' is
poetry critique that would baffle 12 year old girls in pink diaries.
> That's
> been obvious since you first came to my attention with your hysterical
> reaction to my critique of an earlier poem.
I remember you were kissing my hiney frantically before I made it clear
to you what I thought about you and your ideas.
> The silliest Gary Gamble
> target is better able to take criticism than you are
The idea that one should 'be open to criticism' from such nonentities as
you and Gamble is of course completely silly. I'm not very open to
criticism anyway, as I tend to regard people here as amateurs and I'd
mostly rather listen to my own shadow.
M.H.Benders
Russell B Waters
"M.H.Benders" <m.be...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:416106b1$0$25965$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
I thought the poem was good.
--
Rusty
http://www.yiwsnclub.com/cgi-bin/ref.cgi/29228/
http://permaworld.org/members/rbwaters/index.shtml
www.rbwaters.com
Josh Hill
<m.be...@chello.nl> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>Scared of criticism from a deranged boyband manager? I'm afraid you're
>>>right. The thought scares the hell out of me.
>>
>> You'd be scared of criticism from your own shadow, Bonkers.
>
>I'd indeed fear the criticism of my own shadow quite a lot more than any
>criticism of you. 'This poem has inspiration but isn't finished' is
>poetry critique that would baffle 12 year old girls in pink diaries.
On the contrary, the criticism addresses the most obvious of the two
basic flaws in your poetry, and the one that you are most likely able
to do something about.
You said, when you were insulting Jim Sheard the other day, "Polish,
polish, polish - a sure sign of the untalented sculptor, and they
bloody well know it." But, of course, if you know anything about
poetry, you know that there is no rule in this regard: some good poets
revise heavily, some do not, some devote different degrees of effort
to different works, depending.
What matters is the poetry itself.
Now compare
That our world is a dark place because it is shy.
To
The guy in the seat next to me doesn't move,
doesn't even blink his eyelids.
The first line is fine, even brilliant. But if "The guy in the seat
next to me doesn't move" is a line of poetry, I'm a fat ugly Dutchman
with weird hair. And "doesn't even blink his eyelids"?!? What the fuck
is he going to blink with if not his eyelids, his dick?
Walt Whitman got away with nuggets in stretches, but his nuggets were
a good deal shinier and his stretches a good deal shorter than yours.
>> That's
>> been obvious since you first came to my attention with your hysterical
>> reaction to my critique of an earlier poem.
>
>I remember you were kissing my hiney frantically before I made it clear
>to you what I thought about you and your ideas.
An interesting glimpse into the ex post facto rationalizations of the
neurotic. What in fact happened is that you posted a poem in cracked
English, I criticized it politely (very politely, considering that I
didn't know at the time that English was your second language), and
you accused me of being unqualified to judge your work with all the
hurt conviction of the moon-swoon-my-grandma-loved-this tyro.
>> The silliest Gary Gamble
>> target is better able to take criticism than you are
>
>The idea that one should 'be open to criticism' from such nonentities as
>you and Gamble is of course completely silly. I'm not very open to
>criticism anyway, as I tend to regard people here as amateurs and I'd
>mostly rather listen to my own shadow.
IOW, you're a self-deluding fool who is so insecure about his work
that he judges critics by the degree to which they say good things
about his poetry.
The funny thing is that for all your excoriation of poetry groups as
being self-congratulation sessions for amateurs, you're scared to
subject your work to anything other than the timid tea "I loved this,
but maybe you should use a different word at the start of line 11"
critiques of the sort you claim to abhor. At the same time, you're
more than delighted to make pronouncements like "Let's face the music:
even a more respectable fellow like Jim Sheard, who got some
recognition for his work in England - his work looks like carefully
crafted wordpuzzles that wouldn't entertain even the most scrutinious
scrabble fetishist." In your view, frankness is something to be used
on others.
M.H.Benders
> On the contrary, the criticism addresses the most obvious of the two
> basic flaws in your poetry, and the one that you are most likely able
> to do something about.
'your poems are not finished' - gosh, now there's a decent critique.
> What matters is the poetry itself.
>
> Now compare
>
> That our world is a dark place because it is shy.
>
> To
>
> The guy in the seat next to me doesn't move,
> doesn't even blink his eyelids.
>
> The first line is fine, even brilliant. But if "The guy in the seat
> next to me doesn't move" is a line of poetry, I'm a fat ugly Dutchman
> with weird hair.
It is poetry. It sounds flat and bland, but that's exactly what it's
supposed to sound like. I know what you want: you want the entire piece
to sound like a cuckooclock - you'd be the sort of filmmaker that would
prop his entire movie full with special effects. This is because you
don't understand the first thing about poetry. Poetry isn't about
sounds, like movies aren't about special effects. Yet here you are,
puffing yourself up as a supposed 'movie expert', telling that foreign
moviemaker he should put more special effects in his movies because
that's the sort of tripe you're used to.
> At the same time, you're
> more than delighted to make pronouncements like "Let's face the music:
> even a more respectable fellow like Jim Sheard, who got some
> recognition for his work in England - his work looks like carefully
> crafted wordpuzzles that wouldn't entertain even the most scrutinious
> scrabble fetishist." In your view, frankness is something to be used
> on others.
Hm, no. It's just that the number of participants here whose opinions
would matter to me are very small. I'd probably listen if Dale or
Chandra would say something about it, as both have proven they are quite
knowledgable about poetry in general. But listening to you is like
listening to the directions of a madman when it comes to poetry and
why would I listen to someone who has such bad taste he thinks Keats
belongs in the English canon.
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill
That's a good one. "Oh, well, this part of my poem is worse than the
other part because I made it intentionally dull. Can't have too much
quality in a poem, can we. That's a mistake made by amateurs."
Good poetry moves from peak to peak, not peak to trough. If artists
had listened to you, half the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel would be
painted pea green, and the opening chords of Beethoven's Fifth would
give way to a fellow playing a kazoo.
> > At the same time, you're
>> more than delighted to make pronouncements like "Let's face the music:
>> even a more respectable fellow like Jim Sheard, who got some
>> recognition for his work in England - his work looks like carefully
>> crafted wordpuzzles that wouldn't entertain even the most scrutinious
>> scrabble fetishist." In your view, frankness is something to be used
>> on others.
>
>Hm, no. It's just that the number of participants here whose opinions
>would matter to me are very small. I'd probably listen if Dale or
>Chandra would say something about it, as both have proven they are quite
>knowledgable about poetry in general. But listening to you is like
>listening to the directions of a madman when it comes to poetry and
>why would I listen to someone who has such bad taste he thinks Keats
>belongs in the English canon.
Perhaps because, rather obviously, Keats does belong in the English
cannon, and it's only your bizarre egomania that keeps you from
recognizing the obvious, that he got there because many interested
people over many years admired his work, and keeps you from developing
your ear to the point where you can hear what the rest of us do.
You remind me of the colorblind interior designer I saw describe a
beautiful color scheme as dull because the tones, having the same
luminance, seemed to him the same shade of grey.
You have the affectations of the artist grafted onto the body of a
newbie. You're like one of those Volkswagons with a Rolls-Royce
grille. You're like a penguin that brags about its wings and dismisses
rumors of distant birds that fly:
"Squonk! In all of birdkind, there is no wing as magnificent as mine,
just as there is no plain as warm and verdant as this, my pleasant
Antarctic home. These 'eagles' you say you have seen -- surely they
are half my size, and fortunate to eat the sardine before it eats
them. This 'flight' -- imaginary or second-rate. Those 'palm trees'
and 'atolls' -- drab, featureless, colorless, and chill."
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
>>It is poetry. It sounds flat and bland, but that's exactly what it's
>>supposed to sound like. I know what you want: you want the entire piece
>>to sound like a cuckooclock - you'd be the sort of filmmaker that would
>>prop his entire movie full with special effects. This is because you
>>don't understand the first thing about poetry. Poetry isn't about
>>sounds, like movies aren't about special effects. Yet here you are,
>>puffing yourself up as a supposed 'movie expert', telling that foreign
>>moviemaker he should put more special effects in his movies because
>>that's the sort of tripe you're used to.
>
> That's a good one. "Oh, well, this part of my poem is worse than the
> other part
It isn't worse - that's what you make of it.
> because I made it intentionally dull.
Bland is a better word. It's a narrative poem.
> Can't have too much
> quality in a poem, can we.
You associate quality with fluffy word combinations and nice sounds.
This is why you like Keats, even though his entire opus consists
of dumb, fluffy poems about elves.
> Good poetry moves from peak to peak, not peak to trough.
Says you. What do you know about poetry?
> If artists
> had listened to you, half the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel would be
> painted pea green,
Why not.
> and the opening chords of Beethoven's Fifth would
> give way to a fellow playing a kazoo.
A mouthharp would be interesting too, or a Foekepot.
>>Hm, no. It's just that the number of participants here whose opinions
>>would matter to me are very small. I'd probably listen if Dale or
>>Chandra would say something about it, as both have proven they are quite
>>knowledgable about poetry in general. But listening to you is like
>>listening to the directions of a madman when it comes to poetry and
>>why would I listen to someone who has such bad taste he thinks Keats
>>belongs in the English canon.
>
> Perhaps because, rather obviously, Keats does belong in the English
> cannon, and it's only your bizarre egomania that keeps you from
> recognizing the obvious, that he got there because many interested
> people over many years admired his work,
Uh, so being canonized is just a matter of popularity. We can expect
Britney Spears to turn up in the canon if it would be up to people like
you.
M.H.Benders
Alacrity Stone
Alacrity (the reader)
"M.H.Benders" <m.be...@chello.nl> wrote in message
news:416069A9...@chello.nl...
Gwyneth Box
"M.H.Benders" wrote:
Hi Martijn,
Whether you're 'open to criticism or not', I'll risk commenting
(as an amateur, of course).
> Instructions on how to crash an airplane into a dictionary
The title alone would make this worth reading for me.
But continuing downwards there's much more to comment on...
> I tell the guy in the seat next to me
> I'd really love to start my own bureaucracy one day.
> That society is a blank sheet waiting to be numbered
I like your choice of numbering the pages, not just writing on them,
numbers being so much more sinister. It also makes it less cliché.
Using 'blank sheet' is probably not common for an English language
native (I think a 'blank page', or a 'blank sheet of paper' would be more
likely, but I'm not the best judge) but it leads into the bedroom & dream
images, and gives us a subtext of even the beds being numbered and
regimented.
(And now I think about it, there's absolutely no reason why it should
sound like a 100% native, anyway.)
> and that I submit every dream I have to my wife
> who controls the lights in our bedroom.
Do guys admit to such things? I thought all men controlled
all the power switches as a matter of (stereotypical) principle.
Which makes this a good observation.
> That our world is a dark place because it is shy.
The 'our world is a dark place' is probably a cliché, but the
next phrase saves it from being a bothersome one. (Indeed, the
narrator's voice might well justify the use of cliché anyway.)
> That it waits out there, beyond the round windows
This almost perfect reference to the UK kids' programme
Play School would be even better if the window was singular,
and possibly even capitalised.
> of the plane, sitting on its hands like a child would
I want punctuation at the line end and a capital for the next line,
but that's probably a personal thing.
I do like the idea of the world sitting on its hands.
> that weathermen are really the worst sort of tyrants,
Have you read George Mikes about the weather forecasts for
farmers being different because the farmers do such a grand
job and deserve better weather than the rest of us?
> worse than newsreaders who usually just do
> what they're told. That you can't trust women
> when it comes to lightswitches because they
> are essentially milkable weathermen.
That made me laugh.
> I tell him, and this time I slightly raise my voice,
The slightly strange position of the word 'slightly' is an
excellent lead in to the next line.
> that my name is not really Muhammed.
> I tell him the media are fooling him.
> I tell him he should drop the mobile phone
> he has clenched between his fingers.
>
> The guy in the seat next to me doesn't move,
> doesn't even blink his eyelids. I stand up
> confused - I feel dreamy and inspired and walk
> towards the pilots in the cockpit but I can't,
> I swear, I really do, I can't
> find the lightswitch on such moments.
Lovely stop-start pacing here.
The preposition 'on' grated. I think you'd do better with 'at'.
(However, your use of 'airplane' makes it American English
and I know their preposition usage is different.)
> And taking my relief in the dark
> I feel how the plane takes a dive
>
> and lands, just like my pen lands
> on this piece of paper now:
> it happens every day
> while the world sits on its hands
Again, I'd favour line end punctuation & capitalisation
of the new stanza.
> you can't switch off words
> or women or airplanes or the sort of tyrants
> that point their fingers at clouds and laugh.
Great ending.
Martijn, I loved this.
True, it's well-contextualised here by recent postings, which helps,
but I think I'd like/appreciate it wherever I'd read it.
I could niggle more about clichés and about linebreaks & punctuation,
but I think you know what you're doing even (especially?) when it
isn't quite what I'd do.
Thanks for posting it.
g.
(replying only in aapc.)
>
> M.H.Benders - 03-10-2004
M.H.Benders
Gwyneth Box wrote:
>>Instructions on how to crash an airplane into a dictionary
>
> The title alone would make this worth reading for me.
> But continuing downwards there's much more to comment on...
It's nice to see you post here again, Gwyneth.
> Great ending.
>
> Martijn, I loved this.
So, you don't agree with Josh that 'it never transcends the forgettable.
It is, in a way, the poetical equivalent of your thought: all bark and
snarl, but lacking teeth'?
Could you explain what's wrong with Josh's viewpoint?
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>It is poetry. It sounds flat and bland, but that's exactly what it's
>>>supposed to sound like. I know what you want: you want the entire piece
>>>to sound like a cuckooclock - you'd be the sort of filmmaker that would
>>>prop his entire movie full with special effects. This is because you
>>>don't understand the first thing about poetry. Poetry isn't about
>>>sounds, like movies aren't about special effects. Yet here you are,
>>>puffing yourself up as a supposed 'movie expert', telling that foreign
>>>moviemaker he should put more special effects in his movies because
>>>that's the sort of tripe you're used to.
>>
>> That's a good one. "Oh, well, this part of my poem is worse than the
>> other part
>
>It isn't worse - that's what you make of it.
Sure it is. And it doesn't meet your own criterion -- every line
should be useable as a title.
>> because I made it intentionally dull.
>
>Bland is a better word. It's a narrative poem.
Pea green.
>> Can't have too much
>> quality in a poem, can we.
>
>You associate quality with fluffy word combinations and nice sounds.
>This is why you like Keats, even though his entire opus consists
>of dumb, fluffy poems about elves.
You sound like Keats's contemporary critics. Most critics are much
better at separating the good from the bad than recognizing the great.
They idolize the likes of Spielberg.
>> Good poetry moves from peak to peak, not peak to trough.
>
>Says you. What do you know about poetry?
Six, eight, and forty-two.
>> If artists
>> had listened to you, half the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel would be
>> painted pea green,
>
>Why not.
Because then it would appeal only to people like you, and there is
already more than enough pea green in basements and outhouses for
people like you.
>> and the opening chords of Beethoven's Fifth would
>> give way to a fellow playing a kazoo.
>
>A mouthharp would be interesting too, or a Foekepot.
Yes, and when I was eight I liked stories about talking bunnies.
>>>Hm, no. It's just that the number of participants here whose opinions
>>>would matter to me are very small. I'd probably listen if Dale or
>>>Chandra would say something about it, as both have proven they are quite
>>>knowledgable about poetry in general. But listening to you is like
>>>listening to the directions of a madman when it comes to poetry and
>>>why would I listen to someone who has such bad taste he thinks Keats
>>>belongs in the English canon.
>>
>> Perhaps because, rather obviously, Keats does belong in the English
>> cannon, and it's only your bizarre egomania that keeps you from
>> recognizing the obvious, that he got there because many interested
>> people over many years admired his work,
>
>Uh, so being canonized is just a matter of popularity. We can expect
>Britney Spears to turn up in the canon if it would be up to people like
>you.
Erm, no, rather obviously not. The vast majority of popular works
don't enter the canon, and many or most of the works in the canon were
not particularly popular. The canon has utility because it represents
the consensus of the most sophisticated judges; they choose the works
that genius typically recognizes right out of the gate, but that the
majority of critics do not.
Art
Is this the extent of your caricature?
Perhaps you ARE a spam bot located in the basement of the Hague.
Programmed by the lackeys of the World Court and the Black OP's section
of the European Union Secret Police, perhaps?
Should we alert AVID to investigate? Or are they in on it?
---
Art
"No; I have not been charged with that.
In fact, nobody has said that to me yet."
---Lee Oswald
(1963)
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
>>>That's a good one. "Oh, well, this part of my poem is worse than the
>>>other part
>>
>>It isn't worse - that's what you make of it.
>
> Sure it is.
No it isn't.
> And it doesn't meet your own criterion -- every line
> should be useable as a title.
It's perfectly usable as a title.
>>You associate quality with fluffy word combinations and nice sounds.
>>This is why you like Keats, even though his entire opus consists
>>of dumb, fluffy poems about elves.
>
> You sound like Keats's contemporary critics. Most critics are much
> better at separating the good from the bad than recognizing the great.
> They idolize the likes of Spielberg.
They should, because Spielberg is a talented director and Keats is a
overrated boring slug. To suggest that Keats could even stand in the
shadow of someone like Baudelaire is disgusting. He should be expelled
from the English Canon right away, or rather, the English Canon should
be expelled from the school of poetry altogether for misbehaving in
class for over 300 years.
>>>Good poetry moves from peak to peak, not peak to trough.
>>
>>Says you. What do you know about poetry?
>
> Six, eight, and forty-two.
Translation: I am a boyband manager.
>>>Perhaps because, rather obviously, Keats does belong in the English
>>>cannon, and it's only your bizarre egomania that keeps you from
>>>recognizing the obvious, that he got there because many interested
>>>people over many years admired his work,
>>
>>Uh, so being canonized is just a matter of popularity. We can expect
>>Britney Spears to turn up in the canon if it would be up to people like
>>you.
>
> Erm, no, rather obviously not. The vast majority of popular works
> don't enter the canon,
Evidence proves otherwise.
> and many or most of the works in the canon were
> not particularly popular.
Poppycock.
The canon has utility because it represents
> the consensus of the most sophisticated judges;
Deranged boyband managers with a burnout syndrome?
> they choose the works
> that genius typically recognizes right out of the gate,
Genius archetype = mob religion
> but that the
> majority of critics do not.
It's much harder to be a critic than to be a genius. You are the living
proof of that, even if only you yourself believe you 'have the IQ of a
GENIUS' as you once proclaimed in public.
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
Art wrote:
>>>Martijn, I loved this.
>>
>>So, you don't agree with Josh that 'it never transcends the forgettable.
>>It is, in a way, the poetical equivalent of your thought: all bark and
>>snarl, but lacking teeth'?
>>
>>Could you explain what's wrong with Josh's viewpoint?
> Is this the extent of your caricature?
Could you repeat that question in English?
> Perhaps you ARE a spam bot located in the basement of the Hague.
Is it spam now to talk about poetry here and not about how japanese
balloon stories justify killing a hundred thousand innocent people?
M.H.Benders
Art
"M.H.Benders" wrote:
>
> Art wrote:
>
> >>>Martijn, I loved this.
> >>
> >>So, you don't agree with Josh that 'it never transcends the forgettable.
> >>It is, in a way, the poetical equivalent of your thought: all bark and
> >>snarl, but lacking teeth'?
> >>
> >>Could you explain what's wrong with Josh's viewpoint?
>
> > Is this the extent of your caricature?
>
> Could you repeat that question in English?
>
> > Perhaps you ARE a spam bot located in the basement of the Hague.
>
> Is it spam now to talk about poetry here
You're not talking about poetry, you're discussing people's RIGHT to
talk about poetry. That's okay, it just falls right in line with the
angst plagued Caffe Latte drinking antidemocratic anarchist poet
caricature you've painted yourself to be.
I'm not even complaining, I'm just amazed that the caricature runs so shallow.
> and not about how japanese
> balloon stories justify killing a hundred thousand innocent people?
Unit 731 was hardly a balloon story, Boer Boy.
Look, the justification for killing those 100,000 was so that we could
pave the way for Mao's Empire. The US, like you, thought as bad as
dictators may be, they are acceptable, at least, if they COME from the
country they wish to strangle.
What we must avoid at all costs is NOT the loss of freedom, but the
evils of foreign aggression.
Which, I suppose, is why you guys got kicked out of Transvaal.
M.H.Benders
Art wrote:
>>>Perhaps you ARE a spam bot located in the basement of the Hague.
>>
>>Is it spam now to talk about poetry here
>
> You're not talking about poetry, you're discussing people's RIGHT to
> talk about poetry.
Not at all. You just can't read proper english sentences. Anyone can
discuss my poems or criticize them - I just made it clear that the
opinions of most people here don't matter to me.
Isn't it clear from above remark that you simply lack the intelligence
to discuss poetry or have political conversations? If you can't even
understand a few simple lines written in your mother tongue and make
up propositions from it that are completely ridiculous - then what
business do you have with poetry in general?
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
Alacrity Stone wrote:
> An interesting piece and enjoyable to read. Thanks Martijn (the writer).
No problem, dude.
M.H.Benders
--
"The English Canon should be expelled from the school of poetry
altogether for misbehaving in class for over 300 years."
M.H.Benders
The Webempire of Benders:
http://www.kannibaal.nl - poetry and polemics
http://www.vildanboran.com - animations and movies
http://www.topzo.nl - professional search engine marketing
http://www.myrmex.nl - Web design agency Myrmex
Josh Hill
wrote:
>
>
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>>That's a good one. "Oh, well, this part of my poem is worse than the
>>>>other part
>>>
>>>It isn't worse - that's what you make of it.
>>
>> Sure it is.
>
>No it isn't.
>
>
>> And it doesn't meet your own criterion -- every line
>> should be useable as a title.
>
>It's perfectly usable as a title.
Yeah, and a jalopy is usable as a race car.
>>>You associate quality with fluffy word combinations and nice sounds.
>>>This is why you like Keats, even though his entire opus consists
>>>of dumb, fluffy poems about elves.
>>
>> You sound like Keats's contemporary critics. Most critics are much
>> better at separating the good from the bad than recognizing the great.
>> They idolize the likes of Spielberg.
>
>They should, because Spielberg is a talented director and Keats is a
>overrated boring slug. To suggest that Keats could even stand in the
>shadow of someone like Baudelaire is disgusting. He should be expelled
>from the English Canon right away, or rather, the English Canon should
>be expelled from the school of poetry altogether for misbehaving in
>class for over 300 years.
Spielberg is a talented hack with a gift for amusing adventure flicks
like Jaws and the Indiana Jones movies. His "serious" efforts are
laughable tripe.
>>>>Good poetry moves from peak to peak, not peak to trough.
>>>
>>>Says you. What do you know about poetry?
>>
>> Six, eight, and forty-two.
>
>Translation: I am a boyband manager.
Explanation for the slow boy: I am neither so immodest nor so insecure
that I have to tout my work or my knowledge, or belittle the work of
others. Besides, I showed once without intending it that like any of
the more capable poets here, I could outwrite you even in your own
style.
>>>>Perhaps because, rather obviously, Keats does belong in the English
>>>>cannon, and it's only your bizarre egomania that keeps you from
>>>>recognizing the obvious, that he got there because many interested
>>>>people over many years admired his work,
>>>
>>>Uh, so being canonized is just a matter of popularity. We can expect
>>>Britney Spears to turn up in the canon if it would be up to people like
>>>you.
>>
>> Erm, no, rather obviously not. The vast majority of popular works
>> don't enter the canon,
>
>Evidence proves otherwise.
Oh for fuck's sake. Can you possibly go a day without demonstrating in
the most spectacular way possible that you don't know what the fuck
you're talking about? For every work that enters the canon, literally
thousands of popular ones do not.
>> and many or most of the works in the canon were
>> not particularly popular.
>
>Poppycock.
Bullshit. Bach was considered an excessively difficult composer, and
most of his works weren't even published until 75 years after his
death. Joyce was desperate for money. Melville had to give up writing
and work as a clerk in the patent office. Mozart couldn't get a decent
job. Robert Frost endured years of rejection. Emily Dickinson was
virtually unpublished. And so forth.
> The canon has utility because it represents
>> the consensus of the most sophisticated judges;
>
>Deranged boyband managers with a burnout syndrome?
>
>
>> they choose the works
>> that genius typically recognizes right out of the gate,
>
>Genius archetype = mob religion
Oh, uh, right, Newton was no different from the Church.
>> but that the
>> majority of critics do not.
>
>It's much harder to be a critic than to be a genius. You are the living
>proof of that, even if only you yourself believe you 'have the IQ of a
>GENIUS' as you once proclaimed in public.
IQ is not a matter of belief, not something that is measured by a
test, and anyone with an IQ higher than Koko the Gorilla's could tell
you that a genius IQ doesn't make one a creative genius any more than
having muscular legs makes one a soccer champ.
As to critics, great artists are by necessity astute critics; one
cannot excel at creating what one does not appreciate. There have
been, of course, great critics who were not primarily artists; it is
even possible for an academic expert to know more about the
theoretical aspects of criticism than the artist himself, who needs no
such thing to guide him.
But your assertion that it is harder to be a critic than to be a
genius -- in what sense are those contraries? -- is the purest sort of
hokum. Not for the first time do I suspect that you are so in love
with the sound of your own voice that meaning has to wait shivering in
the anteroom.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>
>
>Art wrote:
>
>>>>Perhaps you ARE a spam bot located in the basement of the Hague.
>>>
>>>Is it spam now to talk about poetry here
>>
>> You're not talking about poetry, you're discussing people's RIGHT to
>> talk about poetry.
>
>Not at all. You just can't read proper english sentences. Anyone can
>discuss my poems or criticize them - I just made it clear that the
>opinions of most people here don't matter to me.
Unfortunately, you seem to be saying something very different: "The
opinions of those who are critical of my poetry don't matter to me,
but I'm pleased as punch with the sort of 'I loved this, but you
should change "spoons" to "feathers" and cut a syllable from the
sixteenth line' crit group post that I always make fun of."
Chandra P Das
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:25:51 GMT, "M.H.Benders" <m.be...@chello.nl>
>>Uh, so being canonized is just a matter of popularity. We can expect
>>Britney Spears to turn up in the canon if it would be up to people like
>>you.
>
>
> Erm, no, rather obviously not. The vast majority of popular works
> don't enter the canon, and many or most of the works in the canon were
> not particularly popular. The canon has utility because it represents
> the consensus of the most sophisticated judges; they choose the works
> that genius typically recognizes right out of the gate,
Useless canon zealot. Experienced readers and writers consume literature
from a wide variety of cultures and languages. What more needs to be
said about this? The English speaking people wield their canon in the
global arena like the American's weild their military. Fucking tyrants!
Let me ask you a question. For a true student of literature, how is his
time best managed: reading everything that Shakespeare wrote or perhaps
reading a handful of his good stuff and spending the rest of the time to
read, say, the Mahabharatha? -- Reading everything that Heany wrote or
perhaps even skipping over him altogether (if time is a major issue) to
read Ritsos? And the reality is such that time is a major issue for
everybody. You can as much as any good reader/writer needs out of
English literature in five years of study at most. After that you either
move on to other stuff or remain an inbred, wanking English literature
expert.
Chandra P Das
>
>
> They should, because Spielberg is a talented director and Keats is a
> overrated boring slug. To suggest that Keats could even stand in the
> shadow of someone like Baudelaire is disgusting.
Baudelair is a god. Even the craziest English canon zealot wouldn't have
the balls to compare Keats with him. Preposterous.
>He should be expelled
> from the English Canon right away, or rather, the English Canon should
> be expelled from the school of poetry altogether for misbehaving in
> class for over 300 years.
I'd suggested 20 years earlier and the canon freak went hysterical.
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
> Spielberg is a talented hack with a gift for amusing adventure flicks
> like Jaws and the Indiana Jones movies. His "serious" efforts are
> laughable tripe.
Not at all. 'Duel' is one of the best suspense movies ever made.
The fault you make is the fault any deranged amateur critic makes:
you think that making one really good movie is not enough to be
considered talented. It is. Like writing 3 brilliant poems in your life
is enough to be considered a major poet.
>>>>Says you. What do you know about poetry?
>>>
>>>Six, eight, and forty-two.
>>
>>Translation: I am a boyband manager.
>
> Explanation for the slow boy: I am neither so immodest nor so insecure
> that I have to tout my work or my knowledge, or belittle the work of
> others.
Translation: I am a hypocrite who has never even self-published any
work, I have never won an award, I am basically a boring guy who wrote a
few Keats parodies and I think that exalted me to the level of someone
who can pretend he's an authority on poetry for the rest of my life.
> Besides, I showed once without intending it that like any of
> the more capable poets here, I could outwrite you even in your own
> style.
That must be why you've never won any award while I have won several.
>>>Erm, no, rather obviously not. The vast majority of popular works
>>>don't enter the canon,
>>
>>Evidence proves otherwise.
>
> Oh for fuck's sake. Can you possibly go a day without demonstrating in
> the most spectacular way possible that you don't know what the fuck
> you're talking about? For every work that enters the canon, literally
> thousands of popular ones do not.
Every writer that entered the canon is a popular writer. There are some
less popular writers which indeed didn't make it into the canon, but the
canon itself is nothing but an instrument of popularity, not of quality.
Of course you're nitwit enough to claim that the local popularity of any
writer would be relevant - while its bleedingly obvious that it isn't.
All canonization is done so by sheer popularity. The canon is the
Britney Spears list of Academics.
>>>and many or most of the works in the canon were
>>>not particularly popular.
>>
>>Poppycock.
>
> Bullshit. Bach was considered an excessively difficult composer, and
> most of his works weren't even published until 75 years after his
> death.
He's available in the Free Record Shop, for christ sake. He's the summum
Bonum of popularity amongst classical composers. Who the fuck cares what
some local hillbillies thought of him? That's what hillbillies are good
for - to ridicule the great, and make an ass out of themselves in public.
> Joyce was desperate for money.
Oh, christ.
>Robert Frost endured years of rejection.
And rightly so. I wish it lasted a few centuries longer.
> Emily Dickinson was
> virtually unpublished.
Unfortunately, the mob changed taste.
>>>they choose the works
>>>that genius typically recognizes right out of the gate,
>>
>>Genius archetype = mob religion
>
> Oh, uh, right, Newton was no different from the Church.
'The Genius' has in most cases just replaced the function of 'The
Priest' - same game, different suit.
>>It's much harder to be a critic than to be a genius. You are the living
>>proof of that, even if only you yourself believe you 'have the IQ of a
>>GENIUS' as you once proclaimed in public.
>
> IQ is not a matter of belief,
There is no such thing as an 'IQ' - the idea that one can measure
intelligence with numbers is so incredibly simplistic that anyone who,
like you, claims to have 'the IQ of a genius' disqualifies himself from
being able to have any sort of intellectual discourse immediately.
M.H.Benders
--
"The English Canon should be expelled from the school of poetry
altogether for misbehaving in class for over 300 years."
M.H.Benders
Chandra P Das
>
>
> There is no such thing as an 'IQ' - the idea that one can measure
> intelligence with numbers is so incredibly simplistic that anyone who,
> like you, claims to have 'the IQ of a genius'
Even JP wouldn't be stupid enough to claim having an IQ of over 90. It's
like the chuckles claiming he lives in a 'luxury' apartment.
M.H.Benders
Chandra P Das wrote:
>> They should, because Spielberg is a talented director and Keats is a
>> overrated boring slug. To suggest that Keats could even stand in the
>> shadow of someone like Baudelaire is disgusting.
>
> Baudelair is a god. Even the craziest English canon zealot wouldn't have
> the balls to compare Keats with him. Preposterous.
Anyone serious about poetry would wipe his ass with Keats oeuvre. I
mean, I don't like Blake or Yeats much but they at least wrote some
memorable poems. I dare anyone to post a single poem Keats wrote that's
not some dreary pink fluff fantasy about annoying elves.
>> He should be expelled from the English Canon right away, or rather,
>> the English Canon should be expelled from the school of poetry
>> altogether for misbehaving in class for over 300 years.
>
> I'd suggested 20 years earlier and the canon freak went hysterical.
He's a funny little imposter. He can't criticize anything that's in the
canon, because that would undermine his principle beliefs, so his
reaction to the idea that Nietzsche hated Kant was to claim that this
could have never been the case. How could one genius not recognise the
other genius? Impossible. Nietzsche must have like Kant, for they're
both in the Canon. What a fruitcake!
M.H.Benders
--
"The English Canon should be expelled from the school of poetry
altogether for misbehaving in class for over 300 years."
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
Chandra P Das wrote:
>> There is no such thing as an 'IQ' - the idea that one can measure
>> intelligence with numbers is so incredibly simplistic that anyone who,
>> like you, claims to have 'the IQ of a genius'
>
> Even JP wouldn't be stupid enough to claim having an IQ of over 90. It's
> like the chuckles claiming he lives in a 'luxury' apartment.
He has not only said so here in AAPC, he has proclaimed his Genius IQ
all over usenet.
Read and weep:
As you can see, he's widely impopular in other newsgroups as well.
But delusional as he is, he still seems to believe he has friends
everywhere. He belongs in a straightjacket, if he's not there already.
Chandra P Das
>
>
> Chandra P Das wrote:
>
>>> They should, because Spielberg is a talented director and Keats is a
>>> overrated boring slug. To suggest that Keats could even stand in the
>>> shadow of someone like Baudelaire is disgusting.
>>
>>
>> Baudelair is a god. Even the craziest English canon zealot wouldn't
>> have the balls to compare Keats with him. Preposterous.
>
>
> Anyone serious about poetry would wipe his ass with Keats oeuvre. I
> mean, I don't like Blake or Yeats much but they at least wrote some
> memorable poems. I dare anyone to post a single poem Keats wrote that's
> not some dreary pink fluff fantasy about annoying elves.
>
>>> He should be expelled from the English Canon right away, or rather,
>>> the English Canon should be expelled from the school of poetry
>>> altogether for misbehaving in class for over 300 years.
>>
>>
>> I'd suggested 20 years earlier and the canon freak went hysterical.
>
>
> He's a funny little imposter. He can't criticize anything that's in the
> canon, because that would undermine his principle beliefs, so his
> reaction to the idea that Nietzsche hated Kant was to claim that this
> could have never been the case. How could one genius not recognise the
> other genius? Impossible. Nietzsche must have like Kant, for they're
> both in the Canon. What a fruitcake!
In the dufus disneyboy's dreamworld, all the big thinkers and artists of
the present and old sit together around a gentle fire, pointing at the
stars, giggling like schoolgirls and telling each other soothing fairy
tales in lilting voices until the fucken dawn breaks.
He's a nitwit of the highest order.
>
> M.H.Benders
>
Chandra P Das
>
>
> Chandra P Das wrote:
>
>>> There is no such thing as an 'IQ' - the idea that one can measure
>>> intelligence with numbers is so incredibly simplistic that anyone
>>> who, like you, claims to have 'the IQ of a genius'
>>
>>
>> Even JP wouldn't be stupid enough to claim having an IQ of over 90.
>> It's like the chuckles claiming he lives in a 'luxury' apartment.
>
>
> He has not only said so here in AAPC, he has proclaimed his Genius IQ
> all over usenet.
>
> Read and weep:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=joshua+p.+hill+iq+of+a+genius&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=ffo960h131tnss263lriievm96os2ar13n%404ax.com&rnum=3
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=joshua+p.+hill+iq+of+a+genius&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=NVEjc.126217%24e17.12731%40twister.nyroc.rr.com&rnum=7
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=joshua+p.+hill+iq+of+a+genius&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=tvdu10tgrkdvbl078js6gl51f6909dv0ur%404ax.com&rnum=11
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=joshua+p.+hill+iq+of+a+genius&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=p58jntkemlppu1hrrj1faiufic3jtvftpd%404ax.com&rnum=22
>
Hahaha... so he's dumber than I thought.
> As you can see, he's widely impopular in other newsgroups as well.
It seems like JP takes frequent reamings from that 'fundoc' character.
Deservingly so, of course. So we weren't wrong in assuming he's despised
in every group he posts to.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>
>
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> Spielberg is a talented hack with a gift for amusing adventure flicks
>> like Jaws and the Indiana Jones movies. His "serious" efforts are
>> laughable tripe.
>
>Not at all. 'Duel' is one of the best suspense movies ever made.
>The fault you make is the fault any deranged amateur critic makes:
>you think that making one really good movie is not enough to be
>considered talented. It is. Like writing 3 brilliant poems in your life
>is enough to be considered a major poet.
Rot. Orson Welles's reputation, for one, rests mostly on a single
great film.
>>>>>Says you. What do you know about poetry?
>>>>
>>>>Six, eight, and forty-two.
>>>
>>>Translation: I am a boyband manager.
>>
>> Explanation for the slow boy: I am neither so immodest nor so insecure
>> that I have to tout my work or my knowledge, or belittle the work of
>> others.
>
>Translation: I am a hypocrite who has never even self-published any
>work, I have never won an award, I am basically a boring guy who wrote a
>few Keats parodies and I think that exalted me to the level of someone
>who can pretend he's an authority on poetry for the rest of my life.
Why the fuck would I self-publish? That's for losers. And while I
sometimes let others publish my work when they ask for it, I can't say
that I care about publication enough to mail stuff off. Oh, if I
thought I'd written something for the ages, I'd probably send it to
somewhere or other so I could collect the rejection slips, but I
don't. I'm not even sure that it's possible to write such stuff, given
current constraints; the poetry market is largely an academic one, and
I don't want to write overstuffed underdicked academic tripe any more
than you do.
>> Besides, I showed once without intending it that like any of
>> the more capable poets here, I could outwrite you even in your own
>> style.
>
>That must be why you've never won any award while I have won several.
Poetry contests don't mean shit. If it amuses you to get third place
in something, by all means, submit your stuff. Me, I haven't bothered
to enter any poetry contests and probably won't, unless I'm way bored
the day the envelope arrives. While the competition for most isn't
what one would call stiff, it's way too much trouble to mail the
entries: neither the prize money nor the bragging rights amount to
anything unless you win the Pulitzer or Nobel, and then you have to
dress in scratchy clothes, listen to speeches, and shake hands with
inbred people to get your cash.
>>>>Erm, no, rather obviously not. The vast majority of popular works
>>>>don't enter the canon,
>>>
>>>Evidence proves otherwise.
>>
>> Oh for fuck's sake. Can you possibly go a day without demonstrating in
>> the most spectacular way possible that you don't know what the fuck
>> you're talking about? For every work that enters the canon, literally
>> thousands of popular ones do not.
>
>Every writer that entered the canon is a popular writer. There are some
>less popular writers which indeed didn't make it into the canon, but the
>canon itself is nothing but an instrument of popularity, not of quality.
>
>Of course you're nitwit enough to claim that the local popularity of any
>writer would be relevant - while its bleedingly obvious that it isn't.
>
>All canonization is done so by sheer popularity. The canon is the
>Britney Spears list of Academics.
I've never seen anyone make so many paragraphs out of so little sense.
>>>>and many or most of the works in the canon were
>>>>not particularly popular.
>>>
>>>Poppycock.
>>
>> Bullshit. Bach was considered an excessively difficult composer, and
>> most of his works weren't even published until 75 years after his
>> death.
>
>He's available in the Free Record Shop, for christ sake. He's the summum
>Bonum of popularity amongst classical composers. Who the fuck cares what
>some local hillbillies thought of him? That's what hillbillies are good
>for - to ridicule the great, and make an ass out of themselves in public.
Are you aware of just how perfectly you've described yourself?
>> Joyce was desperate for money.
>
>Oh, christ.
>
>
>>Robert Frost endured years of rejection.
>
>And rightly so. I wish it lasted a few centuries longer.
>
>
>> Emily Dickinson was
>> virtually unpublished.
>
>Unfortunately, the mob changed taste.
>
>
>>>>they choose the works
>>>>that genius typically recognizes right out of the gate,
>>>
>>>Genius archetype = mob religion
>>
>> Oh, uh, right, Newton was no different from the Church.
>
>'The Genius' has in most cases just replaced the function of 'The
>Priest' - same game, different suit.
Uh huh.
You go to Church, dude; I've got a plane to catch.
>>>It's much harder to be a critic than to be a genius. You are the living
>>>proof of that, even if only you yourself believe you 'have the IQ of a
>>>GENIUS' as you once proclaimed in public.
>>
>> IQ is not a matter of belief,
>
>There is no such thing as an 'IQ' - the idea that one can measure
>intelligence with numbers is so incredibly simplistic that anyone who,
>like you, claims to have 'the IQ of a genius' disqualifies himself from
>being able to have any sort of intellectual discourse immediately.
When I'm in the mood to discuss cognitive science with a tree frog
I'll give you a call.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:25:51 GMT, "M.H.Benders" <m.be...@chello.nl>
>
>>>Uh, so being canonized is just a matter of popularity. We can expect
>>>Britney Spears to turn up in the canon if it would be up to people like
>>>you.
>>
>>
>> Erm, no, rather obviously not. The vast majority of popular works
>> don't enter the canon, and many or most of the works in the canon were
>> not particularly popular. The canon has utility because it represents
>> the consensus of the most sophisticated judges; they choose the works
>> that genius typically recognizes right out of the gate,
>
>Useless canon zealot. Experienced readers and writers consume literature
>from a wide variety of cultures and languages. What more needs to be
>said about this? The English speaking people wield their canon in the
>global arena like the American's weild their military. Fucking tyrants!
>
>Let me ask you a question.
You'd better do something, because if the best troll you can come up
with is claiming I have an IQ of 90 you will lose my interest /fast./
> For a true student of literature, how is his
>time best managed: reading everything that Shakespeare wrote or perhaps
>reading a handful of his good stuff and spending the rest of the time to
>read, say, the Mahabharatha? -- Reading everything that Heany wrote or
>perhaps even skipping over him altogether (if time is a major issue) to
>read Ritsos? And the reality is such that time is a major issue for
>everybody. You can as much as any good reader/writer needs out of
>English literature in five years of study at most. After that you either
>move on to other stuff or remain an inbred, wanking English literature
>expert.
As it happens, a Swiss guy and I have been reminiscing fondly over
Lazarillo de Tormes and the 1001 Nights in another group. The notion
that I limit my reading to works written in English or that foreign
works are not taught in American schools is ludicrous. And what makes
you think I'm interested in telling people what they should read? Read
the Bubawubabobaboobala if you like, or Doritos, or My Pet Goat; I'm
not your fucking nanny. However, if your ear is such that you stop
after reading a bit of Shakespeare's "good stuff" (did he write any
bad stuff?), you should probably consider a career in refrigerator
repair.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>M.H.Benders wrote:
Bwah. That fundoc character has reamed almost everybody at some point;
I daresay he's even less popular than Martijn, because he's a lot more
capable, a lot meaner, and does little but flame people. He originally
attacked me with an anti-Semitic slur right after my father had died.
It took me quite a while to turn the tables on him.
And, of course, as anyone who's obsessed enough to check out the other
groups I frequent will quickly see, I'm friends with just about
everyone there. Of course, if you want to go dumpster diving, you'll
find one or another flame war, but then, one would find the same for
you and your fellow Bobbsey Twin, and you don't even frequent that
group, with its tradition of friendly flaming; you manage to make
asses of yourself here.
Me, I've better things to do with my time than dig up dirt on you two,
and, really, it's not necessary, since it comes in such great quantity
from your own mouths. If you were a good deal brighter than you are,
you would realize that your pathetic trolls will always come back to
the matter of your bigotry.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>M.H.Benders wrote:
Yeah, yeah, right. Now, tell us again how Jews control the Senate, the
White House, and the New York Times.
Chandra P Das
Ya know, dopeshit, theoretically I'd have no problems at all with our
whole country being run by Jews. But back to the center stage of global
reality for a moment: the Arab-Israeli conflicts. Now it's up to you to
prove to ME that the American government is not overwhelmingly pro-Jew
and anti-Arab. Tell me, why does the rest of the world think of America
as being so pro-Jew, so pro-Israel and so anti-Arab? What is going on
with our media and politicians? Are we getting fucked out of our minds?
Answer me: why are we so biased that no matter what crimes Israel
commits againsts the people of Palestine, we hardly ever hear/see it in
our media? Have you followed the American media for the last few days at
all? Of course you haven't, you stupid Zionist.
Anyway, this is what the Arabs think, what the rest of the non-American
world sees:
The Clinton Administration:
Madeleine Albright
Secretary of State
Robert Rubin
Secretary of Treasury
William Cohen
Secretary of Defense
Dan Glickman
Secretary of Agriculture
George Tenet
CIA Chief
Samuel Berger
Head National Security Council
Evelyn Lieberman
Deputy Chief of Staff
Stuart Eizenstat
Under Secretary of State
Charlene Barshefsky
U.S. Trade Representative
Susan Thomases
Aide to First Lady
Joel Klein
Assistant Attorney General
Gene Sperling
National Economic Council
Ira Magaziner
National Health Care
Peter Tarnoff
Deputy Secretary of State
Alice Rivlin
Ecomomic Advisory
Janet Yellen
Chairwoman, National Economic Council
Rahm Emanuel
Policy Advisor
Doug Sosnik
Counsel to President
Jim Steinberg
Deputy to National Security Chief
Jay Footlik
Special Liason to the Jewish Community
(no other group has a special liason)
Robert Nash
Personal Chief
Jane Sherburne
President's Lawyer
Mark Penn
Asia Expert to NEC
Sandy Kristoff
Health Care Chief
Robert Boorstin
Communications Aide
Keith Boykin
Communications Aide
Jeff Eller
Special Assistant to Clinton
Tom Epstein
Health Care Adviser
Judith Feder
National Security Council
Richard Feinberg
Assistant Secretary Veterans
Hershel Gober
Food and Drug Administration
Steve Kessler
White House Counsel
Ron Klein
Assistant Secretary Education
Madeleine Kunin
Communications Aide
David Kusnet
Dept. AIDS Program
Margaret Hamburg
Dir. Press Conferences
Many Grunwald
Liason to Jewish Leaders
Karen Adler
Dir. State Dept. Policy
Samuel Lewis
National Security Council
Stanley Ross
National Security Council
Dan Schifter
Director Peace Corps.
Eli Segal
Deputy Chief of Staff
Alan Greenspan
Chairman of Federal Reserve Bank
Robert Weiner
Drug Policy Coordinator
Jack Lew
Deputy Director Management and Budget
James P. Rubin
Under Secretary of State
David Lipton
Under Secretary of The Treasury
Lanny P. Breuer
Special Counsel to The President
Richard Holbrooke
Special Representative to NATO
Kenneth Apfel
Chief of Social Security
Joel Klein
Deputy Whlte Honse Counsel
Sidney Blumenthal
Speclal Advisor to Pirst Lady
David Kessler
Chief of Food & Drug Adininistration
Seth Waxman
Acting Solicitor General
Mark Penn
Presidential Pollster
Dennis Ross
Special Middle East Representative
Howard Shapiro
- General Counsel for the FBI
Lanny Davis
White House Special Counsel
Sally Katzen
Secretary of Management and Budget
Kathleen Koch
Heads FBI Equal Opportunity Office
John Podesta
Deputy Chief of Staff
Alan Blinder
Vice Chairman of Federal Reserve
Janet Yellen
Heads Council of Economlc Advisors
Ron Klain
Chief of Staff for Al Gore
Gwyneth Box
"M.H.Benders" wrote:
> Gwyneth Box wrote:
>
> >>Instructions on how to crash an airplane into a dictionary
> >
> > The title alone would make this worth reading for me.
> > But continuing downwards there's much more to comment on...
>
> It's nice to see you post here again, Gwyneth.
My drafts folder is full of unsent c&c and flames. I see no point
in posting the latter, and the former are too likely to get lost in
the ot threads to do much good. So I mostly just do the c&c for
my own benefit and try & learn from it. But I'm definitely still
around.
>
> > Great ending.
> >
> > Martijn, I loved this.
I wish you hadn't snipped the rest - this makes it look like I just
posted a fan crit, which it wasn't supposed to be!
(The few niggles were in part deliberate to show that I'd taken time
to look at the detail and I didn't really find it wanting.)
> So, you don't agree with Josh that 'it never transcends the forgettable.
absolutely not.
> It is, in a way, the poetical equivalent of your thought: all bark and
> snarl, but lacking teeth'?
It has a certain deadpan tone to it which I find 100% right for the voice
of the narrator. It doesn't bark or snarl for me, I read it more as growling
a bit uncomfortably in its sleep, which, I think, is the whole point.
Anyway, to agree with Josh's crit, I'd have to agree with his opinion
of your thought.
> Could you explain what's wrong with Josh's viewpoint?
If I thought I could explain what was wrong with Josh's viewpoint,
I'd be as active in the ot threads as the rest of you.
I would like to know why he considers this poem 'unfinished', though.
Or, perhaps, why that should be considered a useful criticism of a poem
posted on a c&c forum.
g.
>
>
> M.H.Benders
Josh Hill
<gwy...@patchword.com> wrote:
>
>"M.H.Benders" wrote:
>> Could you explain what's wrong with Josh's viewpoint?
>
>If I thought I could explain what was wrong with Josh's viewpoint,
>I'd be as active in the ot threads as the rest of you.
>
>I would like to know why he considers this poem 'unfinished', though.
>Or, perhaps, why that should be considered a useful criticism of a poem
>posted on a c&c forum.
OK. Here's an early version of Robert Frost's famous sonnet "Design":
In White
A dented spider like a snow drop white
On a white Heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of lifeless satin cloth -
Saw ever curious eye so strange a sight? -
Portent in little, assorted death and blight
Like the ingredients of a witches' broth? -
The beady spider, the flower like a froth,
And the moth carried like a paper kite.
What had that flower to do with being white,
The blue prunella every child's delight.
What brought the kindred spider to that height?
(Make we no thesis of the miller's plight.)
What but design of darkness and of night?
Design, design! Do I use the word aright?
And here's the final one:
Design
I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth--
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches' broth--
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.
What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall?--
If design govern in a thing so small.
See how it changed from an interesting draft to a great poem through
careful revision?
Consider the first line in its two versions:
A A dented spider like a snow drop white
B I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
At first, it almost seems that the second version is /less/ developed,
less sophisticated than the first. But:
- By beginning with "I," Frost enrages us immediately in the poem,
let's us know right off that it's written in the first rather than the
third person and so establishes identification with the narrator --
and that identification is crucial to the effectiveness of the poem,
which is a dialog between men about God. He also gets the sentence
going right away, whereas the original version required four lines and
worked only by virtue of an inversion.
- Frost eliminates the inversion in "snow drop white"
- "Dimpled" is a much better word choice than "dented," don't you
think? The latter implies that the spider is damaged goods.
- "Fat" creates a very different impression than "snow drop." It makes
us think of something living rather than dead; it personifies the
spider, makes it seem human, creates an emotional connection. (Frost
recycles "snow drop" later on.)
- "Dimpled" and "fat" remind us of a baby, don't they? And at the same
time make us think of greed, of satiation. And they make us wonder --
does the spider have motivations like we do, or is it a machine?
- The language, formal in the first version, is now reminiscent of a
nursery rhyme, and, along with the personification and baby/pig
ambivalence of "fat" and "dimple" this creates a potent tension
between innocence and horror and establishes an almost palpable
revulsion; the first version, by way of contrast, wasn't much more
than a pleasant visual image. And the first line now prefigures the
Tyger-like starting theme of the poem -- How could a moral God have
created both innocence and horror? -- and Frost's development of it:
is the spider an automaton or is it motivated like a man, are we
ourselves automatons, is there a God with a plan at all?
Frost's other revisions also bring significant improvements to the
poem, adding depth, creating unity of tone and emotional significance,
improving the exposition, replacing weak lines and words with stronger
ones. Forex, the straightforward and useful "Then steered the white
moth thither in the night?" replaces the stilted, parenthetical, and
metaphorically remote "(Make we no thesis of the miller's plight)."
And isn't "dead wings carried like a paper kite" more evocative than
"the moth carried like a paper kite"? Doesn't "The wayside blue and
innocent heal-all" make a much better music than "The blue prunella
every child's delight?" The revised version of this line seems to me
to evoke heaven, while the original was an unfortunate combination of
"prunella," which makes us think of prunes and ugly step-sisters, and
Blakeian child-talk.
Frost has altered the rhyme scheme from the virtuosic but mind-numbing
AAAAAA to the more pleasing and effective ABAABB, and in the process,
created effective new groupings. And check this out:
A. What but design of darkness and of night
B. What but design of darkness to appall?--
F has taken a straightforward line that means, in essence, the Devil
done it, and through a seemingly minor alteration endowed it with
ambiguity, so that it can be interpreted either as the Devil done it,
or God done it to thwart the Devil's design, expressing thereby much
the same ambiguity that was implicit in the first lines baby/pig
contrast. And isn't the final line, "If design govern in a thing so
small," clearer, more effective, and less rhetorically overwrought
than the original stilted "Design, design! Do I use the word aright?"
And again, doesn't it echo the themes prefigured in the first line --
is the spider a motivated creature/an automaton//is there a god/is the
universe an automaton//do we have free will/are we automatons? Does a
"thing so small" apply to us as well as the spider?
There are lots of other improvements as well, improvements which go
beyond Frost's apparent decision to update the language somewhat in
keeping with changes in style and his own voice (the drafts are very
far apart).
So do you see what I'm getting at? Martijn believes, like many
beginning poets, that revision and polish are somehow antithetical to
poetry, that a poem ought somehow to be a divine revelation from the
muse. But that's a naive view. For all that the treasures that drop
into our laps, most good poets revise, and that revision can, in the
right hands, make the difference between a gemstone and a gem.
My thesis here is that Martijn's poetry lacks the depth and effect
that revision can provide. His poetry is, if one makes allowances for
the wretched translations and the periodic clunker, fairly effective,
if one doesn't go beyond a reading or two; but then, so was Frost's
original, and it wasn't anything like it could have been.
Martijn will no doubt point to those poets who revise carefully and
accomplish little with the revision, because they've reached the
limits of their gift. But it's wrong to conclude that such poets fail
because of the revision; they fail because no matter how carefully one
cuts zirconia it never becomes diamond, not because diamond needn't be
cut.
I could make lots of suggestions, help him to clean up the bad English
and otherwise play copy editor, nanny, and nurse, but I can't improve
the poem in any genuine sense without the sort of rewrite that would
turn it into my poem, and that's not what it's about -- he has to
improve it himself.
M.H.Benders
No. I think the first version is much better. It is playful, funny and
natural while the second version is polished, dense and boring.
There are several things in the first version that are much better.
Version 1:
The beady spider, the flower like a froth,
And the moth carried like a paper kite.
Version 2:
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite
Version 2 has some cliche connections injected: snow, death.
Completely unnecissary. Why would the spider have to become a 'snow-drop
spider' - one of the most ugly metafors one could think of? Why not
simply carry a moth - no, Mr Frost had to make it more tragical with
'dead wings'.
Version 1:
The blue prunella every child's delight.
Version 2:
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
Anyone who claims *this* is improvement is nuts. This is plain
devolution.
There is a good reason why the revisionist process is unartistic.
If we listened to you, painters would spend years and years repainting
the same painting. There are some that do that, but they're not the
brightest kind.
Poetry is not a rational process. Revisionism is. Therefore, a revision,
in most cases, makes a poem worse. It is an attempt to make the poem
'sound better' with rational tricks. It usually spoils the whole thing.
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
Gwyneth Box wrote:
> I wish you hadn't snipped the rest - this makes it look like I just
> posted a fan crit, which it wasn't supposed to be!
Hee, come on now, just confess you're the head of my fanclub!
>>So, you don't agree with Josh that 'it never transcends the forgettable.
>
> absolutely not.
But do you have the IQ of a genius? Because that's the only thing that
would matter to Joshers in this respect.
>>Could you explain what's wrong with Josh's viewpoint?
>
> If I thought I could explain what was wrong with Josh's viewpoint,
> I'd be as active in the ot threads as the rest of you.
Well, I'm out of the routine forever now I read the psychoanalysis
made on another newsgroup. Save it to say that the intolerance exhibited
here by certain newsgroup participants, either on a poetry level or a
political, is alarming.
(look out, Josh is going to paste a quote here)
> I would like to know why he considers this poem 'unfinished', though.
> Or, perhaps, why that should be considered a useful criticism of a poem
> posted on a c&c forum.
As always, he didn't answer that question. But his opinion is that
everything should be polished and restyled until all life is practically
gone from it.
M.H.Benders
--
"The English Canon should be expelled from the school of poetry
altogether for misbehaving in class for over 300 years."
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill
If you'd seen a white American house spider with its round, swollen
abdomen, you'd know how apt and evocative is the description "snow
drop spider"; that Frost was able to pinpoint the species so
efficiently is fairly remarkable. And "snow drop" is, of course,
present in the first version as well.
Frost, in fact, refers ironically to the whiteness and purity of snow,
and probably, to its frigidity as well. I count at least seven
references to whiteness in the poem -- he uses the word three times in
the first three lines, and again at the beginning of the sestet --
including the subtle "appall," which as we use it today means "to
evoke strong dismay," but which literally means to make pale, and
which has the added advantage of making us think of the pall used in a
funeral.
White, needless to say, stands for innocence.
>Why not
>simply carry a moth - no, Mr Frost had to make it more tragical with
>'dead wings'.
No, he used "dead wings" because it is a poetically powerful
juxtaposition that embodies the contrast between the moth's
light-seeking flight and the earthbound spider. It thus becomes not
just a reference to death, but to the failed hope of an afterlife.
>Version 1:
>
>The blue prunella every child's delight.
>
>Version 2:
>
>The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
>
>Anyone who claims *this* is improvement is nuts. This is plain
>devolution.
You aren't sensitive enough to English to know what you're talking
about. "Prunella" is a total bust -- the name makes one think of
wrinkled prunes, old people, and ugly sisters in German fairy tales --
and neither the Blakeism nor the sentence itself work very well.
Frost's revision gives rise to a stunning visual image, that of a blue
sky with white clouds in it, and adds depth to the symbolism: note the
innocent lightness of the colors, the flight/heaven symbolism, and the
name "heal-all," which is as delightfully evocative of grace as
"Prunella" is of ugliness.
>There is a good reason why the revisionist process is unartistic.
>If we listened to you, painters would spend years and years repainting
>the same painting. There are some that do that, but they're not the
>brightest kind.
Erm, no. Unless you're talking the guy at the county fair, painters
routinely make sketches and studies and overpaint.
>Poetry is not a rational process. Revisionism is. Therefore, a revision,
>in most cases, makes a poem worse. It is an attempt to make the poem
>'sound better' with rational tricks. It usually spoils the whole thing.
Then virtually every poem ever published has been ruined, because most
of them have been revised.
Leisha
rhyme scheme. It's a big step for me, and hard work, to refine some
writing from my journal into something that resembles a poem, even
though I am refining it because it seemed to me that I was writing
poetry. The biggest, most difficult step is to let the polished poem
flow into a form. The form changes the pace and the flavor, the words
change and even the meaning. I can see how this happened in Frost's poem
over and over. Maybe I'm learning something!
I like how you said you can't make a diamond of cubic zirconium. I think
of my collection of poems as gems--I take them out & polish them.
Far-apart drafts? Presently I am going back 15-20 years and looking at
what I wrote then, because the situation in the early 80s seems so
similar, so relevant to today.
Thanks for the poetic contribution.
Leisha
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
>>Version 2 has some cliche connections injected: snow, death.
>>Completely unnecissary. Why would the spider have to become a 'snow-drop
>>spider' - one of the most ugly metafors one could think of?
>
> If you'd seen a white American house spider with its round, swollen
> abdomen, you'd know how apt and evocative is the description "snow
> drop spider";
So, its merely a decription, not a metafor.
> that Frost was able to pinpoint the species so
> efficiently is fairly remarkable.
It's typically you to suggest that 'snowdrop spider' as the description
of a fat white spider would be a remarkable accomplishment. An
experienced reader would rather say that it's an obvious description, a
cliché even.
> Frost, in fact, refers ironically to the whiteness and purity of snow,
> and probably, to its frigidity as well. I count at least seven
> references to whiteness in the poem
Didn't escape me, but doesn't excite me either. What's the point, other
than proving you can find 7 different descriptions of white? Has it ever
occured to you that Frost does this kind of things because he likes to
be thought of as clever, as most western poets do? Chandra is right - in
the West poetry has become just an intellectual game.
> White, needless to say, stands for innocence.
So what is the spider innocent of?
>>Why not
>>simply carry a moth - no, Mr Frost had to make it more tragical with
>>'dead wings'.
>
> No, he used "dead wings" because it is a poetically powerful
> juxtaposition
You just see what you want to see. There's nothing poetic about the
image at all. A spider that carries a moth, ok. A spider that carries a
pair of dead wings - come on now, there is a thing in literature called
'credibility'.
If the spider carries just dead wings (as opposed to what? Alive wings?)
it means he's already consumed the moth:
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches' broth--
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.
The mixing is of course the eating process, another (too) obvious
metafor. The Witches kettle is just another (too) obvious metafor -
it's like Frost got a thesaurus and looked up John Smith's associations
with spiders: witches, black, white, moth. And i really don't know about
carrying dead wings 'as a paper kite' - is that a strong metafor? I
don't think so. In the first version he carried the moth like a paper
kite, which I thought was an amusing image. Now the image has become
ridiculous: you can see the spider running up its web trying to hose two
dead wings into the air on a sunday afternoon. A bad change.
> that embodies the contrast between the moth's
> light-seeking flight and the earthbound spider.
Too obvious. "What had that flower to do with being white?"
The spider, in jewish kabbalah, is attributed to the heart.
The Moth is the messenger. The spider is the light, the moth is the
transition of light.
> It thus becomes not
> just a reference to death, but to the failed hope of an afterlife.
The failed hope of an afterlife? Are we reading the same poem?
>>There is a good reason why the revisionist process is unartistic.
>>If we listened to you, painters would spend years and years repainting
>>the same painting. There are some that do that, but they're not the
>>brightest kind.
>
> Erm, no. Unless you're talking the guy at the county fair, painters
> routinely make sketches and studies and overpaint.
Can you show me the sketchbook of Jackson Pollock?
>>Poetry is not a rational process. Revisionism is. Therefore, a revision,
>>in most cases, makes a poem worse. It is an attempt to make the poem
>>'sound better' with rational tricks. It usually spoils the whole thing.
> Then virtually every poem ever published has been ruined, because most
> of them have been revised.
I think you're beginning to grasp the concept.
Leisha
>
>
> Gwyneth Box wrote:
>
>
>> I wish you hadn't snipped the rest - this makes it look like I just
>> posted a fan crit, which it wasn't supposed to be!
>
>
> Hee, come on now, just confess you're the head of my fanclub!
>
>>> So, you don't agree with Josh that 'it never transcends the forgettable.
>>
>>
>> absolutely not.
>
>
> But do you have the IQ of a genius? Because that's the only thing that
> would matter to Joshers in this respect.
>
>>> Could you explain what's wrong with Josh's viewpoint?
>>
>>
>> If I thought I could explain what was wrong with Josh's viewpoint,
>> I'd be as active in the ot threads as the rest of you.
>
>
> Well, I'm out of the routine forever now I read the psychoanalysis
> made on another newsgroup. Save it to say that the intolerance exhibited
> here by certain newsgroup participants, either on a poetry level or a
> political, is alarming.
>
> (look out, Josh is going to paste a quote here)
>
>
>> I would like to know why he considers this poem 'unfinished', though.
>> Or, perhaps, why that should be considered a useful criticism of a poem
>> posted on a c&c forum.
>
>
> As always, he didn't answer that question. But his opinion is that
> everything should be polished and restyled until all life is practically
> gone from it.
>
> M.H.Benders
>
>
work. I disagree that it will only devolve into academic blandness,
although that's possible. I've overworked lots of poems, only to set
them aside, then cut them down to their vital parts later and begin again.
Poetry is hard work. Success is subjective, but the work itself is vital.
Leisha
M.H.Benders
Leisha wrote:
> I agree wholeheartedly with Josh that we should revise and improve our
> work.
Most amateurs agree with that. It's somekind of masochism that comes
along with the knowledge of amateurism.
> I disagree that it will only devolve into academic blandness,
> although that's possible.
There is some point in rewriting if it comes to correcting errors, but
the idea that one can rationally shift words around to improve a poem is
rather errant. I've been through the masochism stage and I've concluded
that when I revised my work a lot it definatly became more polished,more
rational, but not significantly better as poetry - far from that.
The 'poetry workshop masochism' crowd somehow hates to hear that,
though. It sounds like blasphemy to them. They go through all kind of
pains to try ridicule your position, because they feel it threatens
their very existence. And it probably does.
My idea is that it's far more interesting to put time into the creative
process itself, than in the revisionist process which is a rational and
mobpleasing sort of process. People rewrite poems because they care what
others will say about them - it's the Blob listening out there, and
conformity is right around the corner.
You know this is true. Revisionism is the good old ideal of perfection -
its a religious concept that almost never turns out well.
And it shouldn't, because they have it all upside down. Poetry has
nothing to do with 'sounding good' or 'making the perfect language
puzzle'. The world is already perfect - the job of the artist or the
poet is to uncover its imperfections. To show the sleeping crowd the
hideous, the obscene. Potery has never been a bourgeois instrument, it
was an instrument of fire and revolt.
That is, until the English blokes took over. Baudelaire became Keats,
that dull sod with his pointless sonnets about elves. People like P.Hill
came along and started calling a 'snow drop spider' a genius way of
describing a fat white spider. What is our weaponry against such
infidels, I ask you?
The answer is simple but efficient: The International Canon. The Canon
that consists of real poets, such as Baudelaire, Majakovski and
Pilinszky. The International Canon is the only reliable guide through
the world of poetry.
English blokes should be able to match up with the masters before they
can be part of any canon whatsoever. The good old days when you could
just be canonized because you write a few thousand poemns about eleves
is over: you have to drink Baudelaire under the table before you're
allowed back in, and I somehow doubt that Mr Frost is accepting the
challenge.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>>>Version 2 has some cliche connections injected: snow, death.
>>>Completely unnecissary. Why would the spider have to become a 'snow-drop
>>>spider' - one of the most ugly metafors one could think of?
>>
>> If you'd seen a white American house spider with its round, swollen
>> abdomen, you'd know how apt and evocative is the description "snow
>> drop spider";
>
>So, its merely a decription, not a metafor.
No, it's both. A small tour de force.
>> that Frost was able to pinpoint the species so
>> efficiently is fairly remarkable.
>
>It's typically you to suggest that 'snowdrop spider' as the description
>of a fat white spider would be a remarkable accomplishment. An
>experienced reader would rather say that it's an obvious description, a
>cliché even.
I challenge you to describe a spider (other than a black widow or
tarantula) so vividly in two words that a layman immediately
recognizes the species and can look it up as I did, and to make that
description serve at the same time as an appropriate metaphor.
>> Frost, in fact, refers ironically to the whiteness and purity of snow,
>> and probably, to its frigidity as well. I count at least seven
>> references to whiteness in the poem
>
>Didn't escape me, but doesn't excite me either. What's the point, other
>than proving you can find 7 different descriptions of white? Has it ever
>occured to you that Frost does this kind of things because he likes to
>be thought of as clever, as most western poets do? Chandra is right - in
>the West poetry has become just an intellectual game.
Frost does it because it works. The analysis comes later, and is not
part of the experience of reading the poem.
>> White, needless to say, stands for innocence.
>
>So what is the spider innocent of?
Is it? "What had that flower to do with being white,/The wayside blue
and innocent heal-all?" Miller moths and house spiders are typically
brown, occasionally off-white; the heal-all is blue.
Think about it.
>>>Why not
>>>simply carry a moth - no, Mr Frost had to make it more tragical with
>>>'dead wings'.
>>
>> No, he used "dead wings" because it is a poetically powerful
>> juxtaposition
>
>You just see what you want to see. There's nothing poetic about the
>image at all. A spider that carries a moth, ok. A spider that carries a
>pair of dead wings - come on now, there is a thing in literature called
>'credibility'.
>
>If the spider carries just dead wings (as opposed to what? Alive wings?)
>it means he's already consumed the moth:
>
>Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
>Like the ingredients of a witches' broth--
>A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
>And dead wings carried like a paper kite.
>
>The mixing is of course the eating process, another (too) obvious
>metafor. The Witches kettle is just another (too) obvious metafor -
>it's like Frost got a thesaurus and looked up John Smith's associations
>with spiders: witches, black, white, moth. And i really don't know about
>carrying dead wings 'as a paper kite' - is that a strong metafor? I
>don't think so. In the first version he carried the moth like a paper
>kite, which I thought was an amusing image. Now the image has become
>ridiculous: you can see the spider running up its web trying to hose two
>dead wings into the air on a sunday afternoon. A bad change.
The "witch's broth" is tongue-in-cheek, and refers not to the meal but
to the entire tableau. The "dead wings carried like a paper kite" is a
doubly ironic reference to play -- remember the description of the
spider as a baby -- and to the ghastly "flight" of the dead wings in
the mandibles of the spider. The whole thing has the air of a satanic
ritual ("right" is a play on "rite").
>> that embodies the contrast between the moth's
>> light-seeking flight and the earthbound spider.
>
>Too obvious. "What had that flower to do with being white?"
>The spider, in jewish kabbalah, is attributed to the heart.
>The Moth is the messenger. The spider is the light, the moth is the
>transition of light.
I'd say this has about as much to do with the kabbalah as it does with
bagels and cream cheese. For a more plausible influence, see Chapter
42 of Moby Dick, "On the Whiteness of the Whale":
"Though in many natural objects, whiteness refiningly enhances beauty,
as if imparting some special virtue of its own, as in marbles,
japonicas, and pearls; and though various nations have in some way
recognised a certain royal preeminence in this hue . . . yet for all
these accumulated associations, with whatever is sweet, and honorable,
and sublime, there yet lurks an elusive something in the innermost
idea of this hue, which strikes more of panic to the soul than that
redness which affrights in blood.
"This elusive quality it is, which causes the thought of whiteness,
when divorced from more kindly associations, and coupled with any
object terrible in itself, to heighten that terror to the furthest
bounds. Witness the white bear of the poles, and the white shark of
the tropics; what but their smooth, flaky whiteness makes them the
transcendent horrors they are? That ghastly whiteness it is which
imparts such an abhorrent mildness, even more loathsome than terrific,
to the dumb gloating of their aspect. So that not the fierce-fanged
tiger in his heraldic coat can so stagger courage as the
white-shrouded bear or shark."
http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.309/sec.42/
>> It thus becomes not
>> just a reference to death, but to the failed hope of an afterlife.
>
>The failed hope of an afterlife? Are we reading the same poem?
I'm reading it. You seem to be skimming.
>>>There is a good reason why the revisionist process is unartistic.
>>>If we listened to you, painters would spend years and years repainting
>>>the same painting. There are some that do that, but they're not the
>>>brightest kind.
>>
>> Erm, no. Unless you're talking the guy at the county fair, painters
>> routinely make sketches and studies and overpaint.
>
>Can you show me the sketchbook of Jackson Pollock?
Can you show me the sketchbook of Fats Waller? Get real.
>>>Poetry is not a rational process. Revisionism is. Therefore, a revision,
>>>in most cases, makes a poem worse. It is an attempt to make the poem
>>>'sound better' with rational tricks. It usually spoils the whole thing.
>
>> Then virtually every poem ever published has been ruined, because most
>> of them have been revised.
>
>I think you're beginning to grasp the concept.
I've always grasped the concept. And it's really profoundly silly,
because all you're saying is "I, Martijn Benders, don't like these
poems, therefore they're bad."
Josh Hill
<lei...@NOSPAMdecisionresearch.org> wrote:
>>
>> There are lots of other improvements as well, improvements which go
>> beyond Frost's apparent decision to update the language somewhat in
>> keeping with changes in style and his own voice (the drafts are very
>> far apart).
>>
>>
>Yes! More! I wonder whether Frost was revising this poem to change the
>rhyme scheme.
I think that's a pretty good speculation, actually.
I've been thinking about that rhyme scheme. The Italian sonnet has the
shape of a spider, with the octet the abdomen and the sestet the head.
It seems to me that after using the conventional A B B A A B B A
pattern for the sestet, Frost initially decided to use the unusual A A
A A A A rhyme scheme in the sestet to give rise to an impression of
entrapment -- the reader is trapped in the rhyme just as the moth is
trapped in the spider's mandibles and the rhyme is the sonic
equivalent of whiteness, that is, it's undifferentiated, uncolored,
pure, and monotonous.
Cf. Chapter 42 of Moby Dick, "On The Whiteness of the Whale," which
almost certainly influenced the poem:
"Or is it, that as in essence whiteness is not so much a color as the
visible absence of color; and at the same time the concrete of all
colors; is it for these reasons that there is such a dumb blankness,
full of meaning, in a wide landscape of snows- a colorless, all-color
of atheism from which we shrink?"
http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.1/bookid.309/sec.42
("It was the whiteness of the whale that above all things appalled me"
-- Frost has even borrowed the word "appall" in the revised version,
which suggests to me that he may have read or reread that chapter at
about the time he made the final revision, which dates from 1922, just
about the time of Melville's rediscovery.)
It seems to me, though, that the revised version works just as nicely
as a representation of a spider -- what great mandibles a couplet
makes!
> It's a big step for me, and hard work, to refine some
>writing from my journal into something that resembles a poem, even
>though I am refining it because it seemed to me that I was writing
>poetry. The biggest, most difficult step is to let the polished poem
>flow into a form. The form changes the pace and the flavor, the words
>change and even the meaning. I can see how this happened in Frost's poem
>over and over. Maybe I'm learning something!
I think this is one of the most instructive demonstrations of the
process of revision and intensification that I've ever seen, and also
that it's almost an education in itself in the elements of poetry. It
reminds me in a way of Bach's revisions to the Well-Tempered Clavier
-- there's a site on-line that has MP-3's of the various versions, and
it's fascinating to see how he altered the work to make it richer.
Did you notice that when Frost removes something, he usually puts it
someplace else? The snow drop gets moved, "portents in little" becomes
"a thing so small" . . . it's like an intricate puzzle, Rubik's Cube,
perhaps, solved by an intellect of uncanny power . . .
>I like how you said you can't make a diamond of cubic zirconium. I think
>of my collection of poems as gems--I take them out & polish them.
>Far-apart drafts? Presently I am going back 15-20 years and looking at
>what I wrote then, because the situation in the early 80s seems so
>similar, so relevant to today.
Heh, I've done that too, with the poems I wrote as a teenager. It
works surprisingly well. And I've always found that when you take
something out after it's been on the shelf for a while, you can see it
anew.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Gwyneth Box wrote:
>
>Well, I'm out of the routine forever now I read the psychoanalysis
>made on another newsgroup. Save it to say that the intolerance exhibited
>here by certain newsgroup participants, either on a poetry level or a
>political, is alarming.
>
>(look out, Josh is going to paste a quote here)
It's not necessary: if anybody doesn't know that you're the last
person in the world who should be preaching "intolerance" they're
blind.
As to your being out of it, I've heard that before. It's always the
same, isn't it? You troll, I whomp your ass or rather you whomp your
own ass by saying something incredibly dumb; you get all whiny and
plaintive or try to wiggle your way out of what happened and then
retreat -- after which you forget what happened, and troll again.
Leisha
What an unfortunate view of western poets. I'm saddened by this. I don't
believe it's true--certainly not of us all.
>
>
> Frost does it because it works. The analysis comes later, and is not
> part of the experience of reading the poem.
>
>
>>>White, needless to say, stands for innocence.
>>
>>So what is the spider innocent of?
>
>
> Is it? "What had that flower to do with being white,/The wayside blue
> and innocent heal-all?" Miller moths and house spiders are typically
> brown, occasionally off-white; the heal-all is blue.
>
> Think about it.
>
>
>>>>Why not
>>>>simply carry a moth - no, Mr Frost had to make it more tragical with
>>>>'dead wings'.
>>>
>>>No, he used "dead wings" because it is a poetically powerful
>>>juxtaposition
>>
>>You just see what you want to see. There's nothing poetic about the
>>image at all. A spider that carries a moth, ok. A spider that carries a
>>pair of dead wings - come on now, there is a thing in literature called
>>'credibility'.
>>
>>If the spider carries just dead wings (as opposed to what? Alive wings?)
>>it means he's already consumed the moth:
I think the spider is preparing to consume the moth, "ready to begin the
morning right." The dead wings are not the only thing the spider
carries--they signify the moth's inability to escape being breakfast.
>>
>>Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
>>Like the ingredients of a witches' broth--
>>A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
>>And dead wings carried like a paper kite.
>>
>>The mixing is of course the eating process, another (too) obvious
>>metafor. The Witches kettle is just another (too) obvious metafor -
>>it's like Frost got a thesaurus and looked up John Smith's associations
>>with spiders: witches, black, white, moth. And i really don't know about
>>carrying dead wings 'as a paper kite' - is that a strong metafor? I
>>don't think so. In the first version he carried the moth like a paper
>>kite, which I thought was an amusing image. Now the image has become
>>ridiculous: you can see the spider running up its web trying to hose two
>>dead wings into the air on a sunday afternoon. A bad change.
I like the paper kite following the dead wings because it serves again
to remind us that the moth is inanimate. Also paper kites are fragile,
like a dead moth's wings--paper kites and dead moth wings are transient,
always falling apart, almost transparent. The image is fitting in many ways.
I still can't disagree more that we shouldn't revise, for fear of
becoming too bland & academic. Revision in poetry is not like getting
series of facelifts, which causes our celebrities to all look very much
alike as they age. Poetry is a reflection of our thinking, and each of
us is unique and therefore our words will be infused with our
characteristic flavor even if we try to remain headless when we write,
try to tap into something deep in the human stream of consciousness. Let
go!
But then revise.
Leisha
Josh Hill
wrote:
>
>
>Leisha wrote:
>
>> I agree wholeheartedly with Josh that we should revise and improve our
>> work.
>
>Most amateurs agree with that. It's somekind of masochism that comes
>along with the knowledge of amateurism.
Most pros agree with that. Rank amateurs don't. What I think you may
be referring to are those who try to accomplish with excessive
revision what should have been accomplished with the poem itself.
>> I disagree that it will only devolve into academic blandness,
>> although that's possible.
>
>There is some point in rewriting if it comes to correcting errors, but
>the idea that one can rationally shift words around to improve a poem is
>rather errant. I've been through the masochism stage and I've concluded
>that when I revised my work a lot it definatly became more polished,more
>rational, but not significantly better as poetry - far from that.
That merely means that you aren't revising effectively.
>The 'poetry workshop masochism' crowd somehow hates to hear that,
>though. It sounds like blasphemy to them. They go through all kind of
>pains to try ridicule your position, because they feel it threatens
>their very existence. And it probably does.
Like people would sit around fixing poems if they didn't think there
was an advantage to fixing poems.
>My idea is that it's far more interesting to put time into the creative
>process itself, than in the revisionist process which is a rational and
>mobpleasing sort of process. People rewrite poems because they care what
>others will say about them - it's the Blob listening out there, and
>conformity is right around the corner.
>
>You know this is true. Revisionism is the good old ideal of perfection -
>its a religious concept that almost never turns out well.
You're over-analyzing. If it's broke, fix it. There is no rule here,
except what works.
It would be more accurate to say that a poem has to be good in the
first place, and that it can be revised to death. "Perfection is the
enemy of good." One has to find a happy medium.
>And it shouldn't, because they have it all upside down. Poetry has
>nothing to do with 'sounding good' or 'making the perfect language
>puzzle'. The world is already perfect - the job of the artist or the
>poet is to uncover its imperfections. To show the sleeping crowd the
>hideous, the obscene. Potery has never been a bourgeois instrument, it
>was an instrument of fire and revolt.
Tommyrot.
You are so fucking programmed, Benders.
Poetry shows what it likes. If it is to be great, it must have unusual
honesty, to be sure, but only second-rate sheep believe that honesty
tied down to any political creed.
>That is, until the English blokes took over. Baudelaire became Keats,
>that dull sod with his pointless sonnets about elves. People like P.Hill
>came along and started calling a 'snow drop spider' a genius way of
>describing a fat white spider. What is our weaponry against such
>infidels, I ask you?
That you're a tin-eared troll has never been in dispute.
[Drivel hosed]
Chandra P Das
It's an exaggeration and of course it's not true for all. But the
general trend seems to be in that direction. Poets are acting as if the
world were running short of mathematicians and clocksmiths. Language is
a precision tool, a poem isn't. People who revise shouldn't revise for
polishing effects. Revise to make the poem rougher. Revise not to settle
but to unsettle it. Reading a perfect, polished little poem is like
getting socks for Christmas. Boring. You don't put the poem down like a
tray of champagne glasses onto the table -- you slam the fucken thing
down like the law! Another thing about revision: who *doesn't* revise?
There are probably a few of us here who right at this moment are
revising poems we haven't even written yet and maybe won't get around to
writing for another ten years. If poetry has one thing in common with
math, it's this: most of the critical processes involved take place
anywhere BUT on the desk with the pen and paper. The desk work has to be
done, of course, but it's last and least significant part of the
process. Maybe Benders doesn't spend a lot of agonizing hours on the
desk fiddling around with all the words, but seeing that he's presented
some damn good poems here, I'm pretty sure he spends quite a bit of time
composing his poems in his head. And lastly: people spend a lot of time
here talking the poet's tool-kit, the 'craft', etc. Having a bigger,
more sophisticated tool-box is not going to yield good poetry. You need
to acquire some basic tools, obviously, but after this it's all about
going out there and and taking your chances, putting your balls out
there in the risky back alleys of the ghetto-universe. When you've got
too many tools, you just end up tooling around most of the times. You
become a peddler of a sort. A 'dealer', not a poet. And the number of
dealers in the Western poetry scene is staggeringly high.
Dale
M.H.Benders wrote:
>
>
> My idea is that it's far more interesting to put time into the creative
> process itself, than in the revisionist process which is a rational and
> mobpleasing sort of process. People rewrite poems because they care what
> others will say about them - it's the Blob listening out there, and
> conformity is right around the corner.
>
Perhaps it is true many (if not most) writers rewrite so as to please an
audience, but I can inform you - from my own experience - that it is not
invariably so, and that rewriting can be as much a creative act as the
initial writing itself. And there is no reason - at all - that it
shouldn't be. Truth is, the damn thying doesn't always come out right
the first, second, third, or fourth time: sometimes never. As long as
one is writing with the intent to revisit (and unearth) what prompted
the poem in the first place, there simply isn't any problem with revision.
dmh
Chandra P Das
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:24:10 -0700, Leisha
> <lei...@NOSPAMdecisionresearch.org> wrote:
[...]
>>I like how you said you can't make a diamond of cubic zirconium. I think
>>of my collection of poems as gems--I take them out & polish them.
Poems as gems? What a ludicrously insulting concept. If you thought of
them as Porshes in your three-story, Jerry-Seinfeld-style garage which
you took out once in a while for a spin, I could understand somewhat.
What value does a diamond have? It's only got a big price because it's
scarce and women want it for foolish reasons. But this is exactly how
modern western poetry's valuation mechanism works. Cerebral poems full
of tricks and gimmics, even though they're intrinsically worthless, are
valuable because people with high IQ value them.
>>Far-apart drafts? Presently I am going back 15-20 years and looking at
>>what I wrote then, because the situation in the early 80s seems so
>>similar, so relevant to today.
>
>
> Heh, I've done that too, with the poems I wrote as a teenager.
Gawd.
M.H.Benders
Dale wrote:
>> My idea is that it's far more interesting to put time into the
>> creative process itself, than in the revisionist process which is a
>> rational and mobpleasing sort of process. People rewrite poems because
>> they care what others will say about them - it's the Blob listening
>> out there, and conformity is right around the corner.
>>
>
> Perhaps it is true many (if not most) writers rewrite so as to please an
> audience, but I can inform you - from my own experience - that it is not
> invariably so, and that rewriting can be as much a creative act as the
> initial writing itself.
Maybe. The problem, however, is that the process of revision is by
nature a rational process. It's like you sit down and listen to what
your intellect says about the poem. And of course, the intellect will
object if it feels threatened by anything in the poem itself.
There might be some way to turn it again into a creative process, but
the problem with that is that you're basically writing a new poem. As
such it comes very close to my position: not revising at all. Or, to
make it more absurd: to revise the one poem you're writing for the rest
of your life. I like that image: every poet basically writes just one
poem in different versions.
M.H.Benders
Chandra P Das wrote:
> Maybe Benders doesn't spend a lot of agonizing hours on the
> desk fiddling around with all the words, but seeing that he's presented
> some damn good poems here, I'm pretty sure he spends quite a bit of time
> composing his poems in his head.
This is true - I usually think about a poem for about a day, sometimes
longer, then I go to a computer and write it down in a hour or so.
I think the revisionist process is already present in that day. For the
rest, the editors can do their job. What else does the world has editors
for?
M.H.Benders
>>>Erm, no. Unless you're talking the guy at the county fair, painters
>>>routinely make sketches and studies and overpaint.
>>
>>Can you show me the sketchbook of Jackson Pollock?
>
> Can you show me the sketchbook of Fats Waller? Get real.
More intolerance. You're the most intolerant person I've ever met.
You don't tolerate any political system other than your own, you don't
tolerate any artistic opinion other than your own. And frankly, Jackson
Pollock is so far above you that the ethical dilemma is one of
mounteneering, not of philosophy as such.
The idea that one can't tolerate anything but the most bland type of
democracy as a political system in this world matches well with the idea
that one can't tolerate any artist that differs in a substantial way
from your ultraconservative and biased neocon viewpoints.
In such world Frost, Eliott and Pound are the bigshots - the so-called
'superintellectuals' which are in reality crippled copycats.
M.H.Benders
Gwyneth Box
problems with posting.
Josh Hill wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:43:43 +0200, Gwyneth Box
> <gwy...@patchword.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"M.H.Benders" wrote:
>
> >> Could you explain what's wrong with Josh's viewpoint?
> >
> >If I thought I could explain what was wrong with Josh's viewpoint,
> >I'd be as active in the ot threads as the rest of you.
> >
> >I would like to know why he considers this poem 'unfinished', though.
> >Or, perhaps, why that should be considered a useful criticism of a poem
> >posted on a c&c forum.
>
> OK. Here's an early version of Robert Frost's famous sonnet "Design":
(snipped a long and in-depth discussion of two versions of
a sonnet by Frost)
Thanks for this explanation, Josh.
I admit that were it not for your carefully argued analysis I would
not have observed (all) the same improvements.
I do see that there are some improvements, but personally I don't
agree with all your points. (I admit that since you've already given
me your analysis I haven't spent a very long time trying to draw my
own conclusions.)
One specific thing I would differ about is the removal of the word
'prunella' which actually was the word which told me what plant
Frost was talking about - I'd got heal-all and all heal mixed up,
partly because I saw 'snow drop' and thought white berries -
and gave me a far better understanding of the whole picture.
The word 'prunella' has a very different connotation for me than
it does for you. It has nothing to do with pantomines and prunes
and much to do with nature and flowers etc. (Actually, I know an
environmental photography company of the same name.)
Whether this is a UK/US thing, gender-, age-, language- etc.
related, who knows?
It does, however, seem to highlight one of the problems - we
are bringing our own cultures, experience and prejudices to the
interpretation and criticism of the poetry posted here (and
presumably all that we read). I'm definitely a European, and
I think we've seen that there is a big generally US/European
divide on many issues in the group.
I have neither time nor inclination to discuss Frost's two
poems, I'm afraid; interesting though the discussion could be,
it wasn't what I asked - I was talking about a specific poem
of Martijn's, not asking for a justification of the revision
process.
> So do you see what I'm getting at? Martijn believes, like many
> beginning poets, that revision and polish are somehow antithetical to
> poetry, that a poem ought somehow to be a divine revelation from the
> muse. But that's a naive view. For all that the treasures that drop
> into our laps, most good poets revise, and that revision can, in the
> right hands, make the difference between a gemstone and a gem.
I believe I have read revisions by Martijn on aapc. I know that
he's been very open to criticism of odd turns of phrase caused
by translation or non-standard English.
I do think that you are being unrealistic in citing revisions of a
sonnet or other formal verse in reference to Martijn's writing.
I know that poetry should be the best words in the best order and
nothing superfluous, or some inadequate definition along those lines,
but the forced discipline of a sonnet makes choices much more limited
and, I think, sometimes does allow for a clear and undisputed
'this is better' judgment, certainly for individual lines, sometimes
for the whole piece. It is often less obvious in free verse.
I'm also not entirely sure what value the discussion of the two
Frost poems has on the question of why you think this specific
poem by Martijn is unfinished.
So far as I can see, you've only cited one phrase as not being poetry.
For me, the sheer flatness of that line added to the validity of the
narrator's voice.
> My thesis here is that Martijn's poetry lacks the depth and effect
> that revision can provide. His poetry is, if one makes allowances for
> the wretched translations and the periodic clunker,
I have no reason to believe that the piece in question is anything other
than an original English poem. And if I didn't know Martijn was not a
native speaker, I would not have known it was not a first-language
poem. There were a couple of niggling prepositions that I pointed out,
but I honestly think a skilled English writer could have included them
deliberately to add to the credibility of the voice.
> fairly effective,
> if one doesn't go beyond a reading or two; but then, so was Frost's
> original, and it wasn't anything like it could have been.
I have read poems of Martijn's that are among the most memorable
contemporary poetry that I know.
I am aware that I am favourably prejudiced about his work because
of past experience, but I read, read aloud and re-read anything
before I c&c it here. This particular piece touched me enough to
warrant a posted comment, which is saying a great deal in the
current state of aapc.
> Martijn will no doubt point to those poets who revise carefully and
> accomplish little with the revision, because they've reached the
> limits of their gift. But it's wrong to conclude that such poets fail
> because of the revision; they fail because no matter how carefully one
> cuts zirconia it never becomes diamond, not because diamond needn't be
> cut.
Personally, I believe in revision. But I also know I have pieces
which I've revised the life out of.
One problem with revision for some of Martijn's poetry is that
it is to some extent topical.
If I take four years to reach a passable description of seeing a
lizard in the city, it hardly matters. If I take even four days to
polish a poem about my reaction to a news item, the relevance
is lost. That is not to say that I won't try to do the best I can with
the latter poem, but I will find the objective distance hard to obtain,
and may be satisfied with a less than perfect version.
If I later find that there is something that transcends the topicality
- which I would hope there was - I will rewrite it when I can distance
myself from it enough. The original may still exist in its own right,
though. And it stands as a valid cultural statement of the times in
which it was written.
Anyway, whether Martijn revises or not, is of little relevance. He
posts poetry and it's up to the rest of us if we want to comment on it.
If he, or anyone else, consistently ignores our comments, or obviously
makes no progress in the direction we think they should be moving, we
may do better to stop bothering.
Alternatively, we need to look at *why* we are critiquing in the first
place. Personally, I think I learn a lot from the close reading that a
detailed c&c requires; if the writer gets something out of my comments,
even better, but the time has been well spent anyway, in exploring the
poem and seeing what works or doesn't work for me.
> I could make lots of suggestions, help him to clean up the bad English
> and otherwise play copy editor, nanny, and nurse, but I can't improve
> the poem in any genuine sense without the sort of rewrite that would
> turn it into my poem, and that's not what it's about -- he has to
> improve it himself.
It's tempting to interpret your conclusion as a claim that the poem
would only be better if it were reworked to be *your *poem - i.e.
to conform to your preferences - even if that isn't what you meant.
Josh, I appreciate your posting the Frost versions and discussion,
but we are bound to disagree, both about Martijn's poetry and other
stuff, so there isn't much point trying to convince each other.
(And, yes, that probably does make me sound complacent in my
prejudices, but I haven't time to rephrase it.)
g.
Gwyneth Box
"M.H.Benders" wrote:
> Gwyneth Box wrote:
>
> > I wish you hadn't snipped the rest - this makes it look like I just
> > posted a fan crit, which it wasn't supposed to be!
>
> Hee, come on now, just confess you're the head of my fanclub!
And I bask in reflected glory.
> >>So, you don't agree with Josh that 'it never transcends the forgettable.
> >
> > absolutely not.
>
> But do you have the IQ of a genius?
Could I be head of the mhb fanclub if I didn't?
(snip)
> Save it to say that the intolerance exhibited
> here by certain newsgroup participants, either on a poetry level or a
> political, is alarming.
What worries me most is the lack of humour.
> (look out, Josh is going to paste a quote here)
He seems to have quite a collection.
g.
(snipped the rest)
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Maybe. The problem, however, is that the process of revision is by
>nature a rational process. It's like you sit down and listen to what
>your intellect says about the poem. And of course, the intellect will
>object if it feels threatened by anything in the poem itself.
>
>There might be some way to turn it again into a creative process, but
>the problem with that is that you're basically writing a new poem. As
>such it comes very close to my position: not revising at all. Or, to
>make it more absurd: to revise the one poem you're writing for the rest
>of your life. I like that image: every poet basically writes just one
>poem in different versions.
But then, it's not that far from the truth.
Leisha
One editor said to me that he edits other people's work to make it sound
like he, the editor, had written it. "Isn't that what we all do?" he
asked. But I felt that his approach was superficial. A good editor
challenges us to refine what we are saying and keeps their red pen off
our voice.
Leisha
Stuart Leichter
Wordsworth's thoughts of genesis
and the Romantics' imitations
of ancestral folk ballads,
Coleridge's flashing eyes,
a lizard in the city,
that before 2066 there will be
only one way to spell 'judgment',
of all things.
--
Stuart
in article ck17sa$j1j$1...@nnrp.atgi.net, Leisha at
lei...@NOSPAMdecisionresearch.org wrote on 10/6/04 12:52 PM:
Gwyneth Box
Leisha wrote:
> Gwyneth Box wrote:
> >
> > Josh Hill wrote:
> >
(snip)
> >
> >>I could make lots of suggestions, help him to clean up the bad English
> >>and otherwise play copy editor, nanny, and nurse, but I can't improve
> >>the poem in any genuine sense without the sort of rewrite that would
> >>turn it into my poem, and that's not what it's about -- he has to
> >>improve it himself.
> >
> >
> > It's tempting to interpret your conclusion as a claim that the poem
> > would only be better if it were reworked to be *your *poem - i.e.
> > to conform to your preferences - even if that isn't what you meant.
>
> One editor said to me that he edits other people's work to make it sound
> like he, the editor, had written it. "Isn't that what we all do?" he
> asked.
A poetry editor?
If he edits a magazine, I imagine that the whole publication would
end up rather bland after a while.
I am less surprised, though, by what he does, than by the fact he
recognises he does it and admits to it.
I heard of an anthology of science fiction short stories by various
English language authors all translated into Spanish by the same
person. The work was unusable, I believe, as all the individuality
had been eroded.
> But I felt that his approach was superficial. A good editor
> challenges us to refine what we are saying and keeps their red pen off
> our voice.
No doubt some editors abuse their position and force changes that
the writer doesn't want.
For a novice writer, there is always the potential danger of believing
that everyone else knows better. If someone is *an editor*, it's
tempting, but possibly unjustified, to assume their advice is good.
I take the c&c I get from people here and elsewhere as a reason to
question my original decisions. I don't think that I *have* to change
something because someone - even someone whose opinion I respect -
suggests it could be improved. But if there are suggestions or questions
about what I've written, I go back and look at it and why I wrote it.
Sometimes I'll agree with them and sometimes I find I am happy with
my own choices. And, of course, there are times when I agree that a
change is needed, but not the way they have pointed, so I find another
option.
g.
>
>
> Leisha
Julie Carter
<lei...@NOSPAMdecisionresearch.org> warbled:
>> It's tempting to interpret your conclusion as a claim that the poem
>> would only be better if it were reworked to be *your *poem - i.e.
>> to conform to your preferences - even if that isn't what you meant.
>
>One editor said to me that he edits other people's work to make it sound
>like he, the editor, had written it. "Isn't that what we all do?" he
>asked. But I felt that his approach was superficial. A good editor
>challenges us to refine what we are saying and keeps their red pen off
>our voice.
Hi, Leisha.
Well, I'll be honest. I don't know if editors can keep their red pens
off our voices. Because "voice" is a pretty fragile thing, and any
changes or suggested changes can muck about with it.
And, more importantly, none of us can know when we're skewing our
reading/writing/editing in a purely Julie-direction, or a purely
Leisha-direction. Which makes it triply important for a writer to
have an audience in mind and then to say, "Well, Julie said X, but
she's not my audience. I can safely ignore her. Leisha said Y and
she is my audience. What does she say? Are her concerns significant
or silly?"
--
Julie
Julie Carter
Gwyneth Box <gwy...@patchword.com> warbled:
>> > It's tempting to interpret your conclusion as a claim that the poem
>> > would only be better if it were reworked to be *your *poem - i.e.
>> > to conform to your preferences - even if that isn't what you meant.
>>
>> One editor said to me that he edits other people's work to make it sound
>> like he, the editor, had written it. "Isn't that what we all do?" he
>> asked.
>
>A poetry editor?
>If he edits a magazine, I imagine that the whole publication would
>end up rather bland after a while.
It explains so much!
>I am less surprised, though, by what he does, than by the fact he
>recognises he does it and admits to it.
I think this is the real crux of the matter. As we develop as
readers, I would hope we're gaining awareness not only of how things
work, but of how they work *on us*.
Why, for example, don't I like Jim's linebreak but you do? I have no
explanation, but the knowledge that I don't but you do alerts me that
I'm working with a peculiarity of perception rather than something
universal.
--
Julie
Gwyneth Box
Julie Carter wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 20:09:42 +0200, in alt.arts.poetry.comments
> Gwyneth Box <gwy...@patchword.com> warbled:
>
> >> > It's tempting to interpret your conclusion as a claim that the poem
> >> > would only be better if it were reworked to be *your *poem - i.e.
> >> > to conform to your preferences - even if that isn't what you meant.
> >>
> >> One editor said to me that he edits other people's work to make it sound
> >> like he, the editor, had written it. "Isn't that what we all do?" he
> >> asked.
> >
> >A poetry editor?
> >If he edits a magazine, I imagine that the whole publication would
> >end up rather bland after a while.
>
> It explains so much!
>
> >I am less surprised, though, by what he does, than by the fact he
> >recognises he does it and admits to it.
>
> I think this is the real crux of the matter. As we develop as
> readers, I would hope we're gaining awareness not only of how things
> work, but of how they work *on us*.
>
> Why, for example, don't I like Jim's linebreak but you do?
I don't know, but it was the one thing that struck me as definitely
memorable in the poem. It may be all that I'm left with in a week's time.
Well, that and the pine cones.
> I have no
> explanation, but the knowledge that I don't but you do alerts me that
> I'm working with a peculiarity of perception rather than something
> universal.
This ties in with what you just said about audience. And in a group like
this, if you know who is reacting and how, you've got a potentially far
more powerful tool than anonymous criticism, or one to one mentoring.
The frustrating thing is when two of your hoped for audience are at
complete odds, of course, but hopefully if enough people comment
there will be a consensus.
g.
>
> --
>
> Julie
Julie Carter
Gwyneth Box <gwy...@patchword.com> warbled:
>The frustrating thing is when two of your hoped for audience are at
>complete odds, of course, but hopefully if enough people comment
>there will be a consensus.
Easily solved through pistols at dawn!
--
Julie
Chuckk Hubbard
There is the notion of beauty, too. That's not at all dependent on
what others will think. I've spent long minutes (not hours) building
cardhouses, trying to get them just right. Eventually I might take a
picture of it, but the joy of a carefully refined artwork is largely
internal. I also take far longer on my compositions than I have to,
knowing no one will miss that interesting turn if it's not there, but
knowing I want to hear it. That's also called being "crazy".
You also get a more complete understanding of something someone else
did by going over and over it, even if it's a work finished hundreds
of years ago.
The Law of Pragnanz- incoming stimuli are organized into the simplest
possible figure according to prevailing conditions. I love it when I
find layers and layers of patterns; the first thing I notice is the
broadest, then with more exposure some of the elements and their
relations to each other come out more.
I guess that's mostly visual art, but it works for lots of things.
Someone did a study with fighting fish couples; a male and female
raising young were put in a small tank. They knew exactly what visual
stimuli caused the fighting response- gill flapping, certain stripes,
ramming- and produced these stimuli artificially in the tank. Both
mom and pop charged the dummy, which was removed... checking their
environment, each saw the exact same stimulus in the other's posture.
They made immediate aggressive motions, but stopped short. So, while
instinct can't be unlearned, it can be overridden by conditioning.
The same experiment with Egyptian geese results in a mad brawl, but
then geese are mean fuckers to start with.
I also think the "whole" may elicit contrary feelings to the "parts"
and create conflict. Maybe this is a part of tragedy.
Speaking of whole vs. parts, I just read Frankenstein for Modernism
class. I thought it was horrid. The story's great, the moral is
great, the tragic hero is great, but the parts, the actual sentences
and their rhythms, did nothing to add to my experience. Damn slow
read. Then the actual terror-inspiring parts, after all the buildup,
are thrown away: And there was the fiend. Had to be intentional, but
I hated it. The main character was an irrational moron, too, I had no
sympathy for him.
-Chuckk
Chuckk Hubbard
> Dale wrote:
>
> >> My idea is that it's far more interesting to put time into the
> >> creative process itself, than in the revisionist process which is a
> >> rational and mobpleasing sort of process. People rewrite poems because
> >> they care what others will say about them - it's the Blob listening
> >> out there, and conformity is right around the corner.
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps it is true many (if not most) writers rewrite so as to please an
> > audience, but I can inform you - from my own experience - that it is not
> > invariably so, and that rewriting can be as much a creative act as the
> > initial writing itself.
>
> Maybe. The problem, however, is that the process of revision is by
> nature a rational process. It's like you sit down and listen to what
> your intellect says about the poem. And of course, the intellect will
> object if it feels threatened by anything in the poem itself.
http://www.sidis.net/Unconscious%20Intelligence.htm
Sidis suggests that perhaps what is perceived and known unconsciously
does not happen by a different process than the conscious stuff, but
merely is not recalled as explicitly. I don't think intellect is
something that gets turned off. Interesting theory anyway.
I like to use my intellect- consciously- to try to discover why I have
my immediate perceptions. That's really, really fun for me.
I do really respect the school of mastery followed by unbridled
inspiration, though. That's jazz, and it's conversation.
-Chuckk
Josh Hill
You're sounding more and more like the crazy guy on the corner.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:24:10 -0700, Leisha
>> <lei...@NOSPAMdecisionresearch.org> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>I like how you said you can't make a diamond of cubic zirconium. I think
>>>of my collection of poems as gems--I take them out & polish them.
>
>Poems as gems? What a ludicrously insulting concept. If you thought of
>them as Porshes in your three-story, Jerry-Seinfeld-style garage which
>you took out once in a while for a spin, I could understand somewhat.
>What value does a diamond have? It's only got a big price because it's
>scarce and women want it for foolish reasons.
> But this is exactly how
>modern western poetry's valuation mechanism works. Cerebral poems full
>of tricks and gimmics, even though they're intrinsically worthless, are
>valuable because people with high IQ value them.
I believe you've just said "smart, educated people like this stuff and
I don't understand it so it's worthless you're a doody so there."
>>>Far-apart drafts? Presently I am going back 15-20 years and looking at
>>>what I wrote then, because the situation in the early 80s seems so
>>>similar, so relevant to today.
>>
>>
>> Heh, I've done that too, with the poems I wrote as a teenager.
>
>Gawd.
You seem to forget, Chandra, that not all of us share your
intellectual limitations. You would not be able to identify the poetry
I wrote as a teenager as the work of a child.
M.H.Benders
Gwyneth Box wrote:
> I believe I have read revisions by Martijn on aapc. I know that
> he's been very open to criticism of odd turns of phrase caused
> by translation or non-standard English.
Most language nits are usually correct. However, I do feel one should
try to embed the revision proces in the process of creation. I thought
about it today and I think my poems already get two revisions before
they appear on paper: one revision on an idea level when I write them in
my head, one revision on language level when I write them down. Usually
poems that need much more revision than that are poems that are
failures, since if two revisions don't salvage the thing what's the
point of maintaining it? And if you revise Dale-Style you just end up
with a completely different poem, which means you might as well not have
revised at all.
> I'm also not entirely sure what value the discussion of the two
> Frost poems has on the question of why you think this specific
> poem by Martijn is unfinished.
He means that, in his opinion, it is not a work of genius but a
forgettable work. A finished poem, in his mind, is the work of someone
whose IQ is higher than the rest of us. I have never seen anyone who has
such need of postering with meaningless numbers as P.Hill - he really
believes that every writer that's in the canon is there because he was
recognised by a fellowship of geniusses, and, this is even more sick, he
thinks he's one of those geniusses that determine who will be canonized
in the future and who will not.
Let's just say that the guy got out of touch with reality in some point
of his life. I don't feel any urge to flame him anymore now I read what
is really the psychoanalyst basis for his need to get humiliated in public.
>>My thesis here is that Martijn's poetry lacks the depth and effect
>>that revision can provide. His poetry is, if one makes allowances for
>>the wretched translations and the periodic clunker,
>
> I have no reason to believe that the piece in question is anything other
> than an original English poem.
It is an English poem. I don't translate poems anymore since the
translation process is even much worse than that of revision -
translating ppoetry is a nightmare. I can think of no harder task.
>>fairly effective,
>>if one doesn't go beyond a reading or two; but then, so was Frost's
>>original, and it wasn't anything like it could have been.
>
> I have read poems of Martijn's that are among the most memorable
> contemporary poetry that I know.
It's nice to hear that - this is actually the first poem I've written
since a year or so. I have been so busy with my company that even know I
have hardly time to sleep. I am rather tired of business life sometimes,
writing poetry is much more fullfilling but I have to stick to the
masterplan.
> It's tempting to interpret your conclusion as a claim that the poem
> would only be better if it were reworked to be *your *poem - i.e.
> to conform to your preferences - even if that isn't what you meant.
There just isn't any real honesty in Josh. I used to flame with Chandra
too but he is an honest person - he said he liked my poetry a lot in
spite of the flames. Josh is the sort of guy that sticks feathers in
your ass and when you don't return the favor he, as a revenge, doesn't
like your work anymore. I don't mind about that, but he does seem to
think his opinion is somehow very relevant.
M.H.Benders
Gwyneth Box wrote:
>>But do you have the IQ of a genius?
>
> Could I be head of the mhb fanclub if I didn't?
Ah, but are you a genius that's recognised by the Genius Comittee
as installed by Josh's Highschool Professor? Or are you one of those
illegal, self-proclaimed geniusses that roam around usenet and randomly
praise the unsanctified and unworthy?
Ask yourself this question: are you loyal to Keats and Frost, or do you
rather think that Jackson Pollock was actually entitled to not have a
sketchbook as an artist?
Dale
M.H.Benders wrote:
>
>
> Dale wrote:
>
>>> My idea is that it's far more interesting to put time into the
>>> creative process itself, than in the revisionist process which is a
>>> rational and mobpleasing sort of process. People rewrite poems
>>> because they care what others will say about them - it's the Blob
>>> listening out there, and conformity is right around the corner.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps it is true many (if not most) writers rewrite so as to please
>> an audience, but I can inform you - from my own experience - that it
>> is not invariably so, and that rewriting can be as much a creative act
>> as the initial writing itself.
>
>
> Maybe. The problem, however, is that the process of revision is by
> nature a rational process. It's like you sit down and listen to what
> your intellect says about the poem. And of course, the intellect will
> object if it feels threatened by anything in the poem itself.
I think that revision - for many writers - is a rational process, and I
don't see anything inherently wrong with that either, although it is NOT
what I do. Intellect - if the writer's intellect is a finely tuned one -
can be a marvelous thing.
>
> There might be some way to turn it again into a creative process, but
> the problem with that is that you're basically writing a new poem.
Certainly that's true, but it's also true that if one makes as VERY bad
chair (missing a leg, a flimsy back) and then decides to remake it, one
is making an entirely new chair, but what is wrong with that? Unless -
of course - you are attempting to make not a functional chair but an art
"statement" about the nature of "chair." And that's okay also, I suppose.
>As
> such it comes very close to my position: not revising at all.
It now seems to be a very, very thin distinction though. Whether or not
one is merely revising or totally rewriting isn't really the question at
any rate: it's whether or not the experience (whatever it was) was worth
it the first, second and third time. If it is, there isn't any upper
limit on rewriting but boredom.
>Or, to
> make it more absurd: to revise the one poem you're writing for the rest
> of your life. I like that image: every poet basically writes just one
> poem in different versions.
There's a lot of truth to that. Or - more specifically - one is
basically writing on the same long poem the whole time. different
sections of the same sensibility.
There is no doubt a lot of people revise horribly, and many in the
direction you have identified, TOWARD an acceptance. But - if I am any
indication - others do it because - frankly - it feels good. And one can
think of it in sculptural terms: the paring down of inessentials so as
to reveal some elusive beauty. Sometimes all you're left with is a big
pile of marble chips and a merely pretty thing. That's probably good
enough for many.
There are poems that come out all at once, quite good enough as they
are. It's happened enough times to me. But other times, there is
actually the feeling that this "interfering" intellect you mention got
in the way as the process moved along, and that revision is another
attempt to avoid this rank consciousness. So, I think rewriting may
actually allow the writer to escape the intellect, which - after all -
is pernicious enough to intrude at even the earliest steps.
dmh
Chandra P. Das
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:40:30 GMT, Chandra P Das <vze1...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:24:10 -0700, Leisha
>>><lei...@NOSPAMdecisionresearch.org> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>>I like how you said you can't make a diamond of cubic zirconium. I think
>>>>of my collection of poems as gems--I take them out & polish them.
>>
>>Poems as gems? What a ludicrously insulting concept. If you thought of
>>them as Porshes in your three-story, Jerry-Seinfeld-style garage which
>>you took out once in a while for a spin, I could understand somewhat.
>>What value does a diamond have? It's only got a big price because it's
>>scarce and women want it for foolish reasons.
>>But this is exactly how
>>modern western poetry's valuation mechanism works. Cerebral poems full
>>of tricks and gimmics, even though they're intrinsically worthless, are
>>valuable because people with high IQ value them.
>
>
> I believe you've just said "smart, educated people like this stuff and
Listen, Disneyboi: even if we were to measure 'smart and educated' by
IQ, SAT scores and academic credentials, I'd come out WAY ahead of you.
> I don't understand it so it's worthless you're a doody so there."
>
>
>>>>Far-apart drafts? Presently I am going back 15-20 years and looking at
>>>>what I wrote then, because the situation in the early 80s seems so
>>>>similar, so relevant to today.
>>>
>>>
>>>Heh, I've done that too, with the poems I wrote as a teenager.
>>
>>Gawd.
>
>
> You seem to forget, Chandra, that not all of us share your
> intellectual limitations. You would not be able to identify the poetry
> I wrote as a teenager as the work of a child.
If you wrote like a child now, it would be an improvement.
>
Josh Hill
<gwy...@patchword.com> wrote:
Quite possibly: I think one can only make an educated guess at Frost's
motives. Not being much of a gardener, I wasn't familiar with the term
"prunella" myself, and so didn't have the strong associations you do
(I did assume it was a flower) . OTOH, poets have to be sensitive not
just to the literal meaning of a word, but to secondary associations.
>It does, however, seem to highlight one of the problems - we
>are bringing our own cultures, experience and prejudices to the
>interpretation and criticism of the poetry posted here (and
>presumably all that we read). I'm definitely a European, and
>I think we've seen that there is a big generally US/European
>divide on many issues in the group.
I agree that, on average, those who are closest to the culture and
time and, perhaps, habits of an author will most closely gauge his
intent. But in part for that reason, I don't think one can or should
expect a perfect analysis. Even scholars will disagree on some
particulars.
As to the trans-Atlantic divide, well, yes, I think national
differences affect, to some extent, the kind of art we favor, although
the US and the UK are close enough to share a common body of work and
I don't see any evidence that, say, people in the UK are more apt to
appreciate Dylan Thomas or people in the US to appreciate Frost --
despite the fact that some elements of Frost's poetry are lost to
those who don't know New Englanders, and, I suspect, vice-versa.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they are more apt to
affect the kind of art that we create than the kind that we enjoy.
Anyway, as far as I know, the divisions here on matters relating to
poetry -- as opposed to politics -- have little to do with culture,
despite the efforts of a couple here to frame them that way. For
example, I share Martijn's belief that the American poetry scene has
become excessively academic, and Chandra's distaste for the current
fashion for overstuffed metaphors. Conversely, Martijn criticized Jim
Sheard for polishing his works, and I have to assume that Jim feels
otherwise.
>I have neither time nor inclination to discuss Frost's two
>poems, I'm afraid; interesting though the discussion could be,
>it wasn't what I asked - I was talking about a specific poem
>of Martijn's, not asking for a justification of the revision
>process.
I mentioned it only as a counterexample to Martijn's argument
regarding the merits of revision.
>> So do you see what I'm getting at? Martijn believes, like many
>> beginning poets, that revision and polish are somehow antithetical to
>> poetry, that a poem ought somehow to be a divine revelation from the
>> muse. But that's a naive view. For all that the treasures that drop
>> into our laps, most good poets revise, and that revision can, in the
>> right hands, make the difference between a gemstone and a gem.
>
>I believe I have read revisions by Martijn on aapc. I know that
>he's been very open to criticism of odd turns of phrase caused
>by translation or non-standard English.
>
>I do think that you are being unrealistic in citing revisions of a
>sonnet or other formal verse in reference to Martijn's writing.
>I know that poetry should be the best words in the best order and
>nothing superfluous, or some inadequate definition along those lines,
>but the forced discipline of a sonnet makes choices much more limited
>and, I think, sometimes does allow for a clear and undisputed
>'this is better' judgment, certainly for individual lines, sometimes
>for the whole piece. It is often less obvious in free verse.
>
>I'm also not entirely sure what value the discussion of the two
>Frost poems has on the question of why you think this specific
>poem by Martijn is unfinished.
>
>So far as I can see, you've only cited one phrase as not being poetry.
>For me, the sheer flatness of that line added to the validity of the
>narrator's voice.
I cited it only as an example. In fact, I think virtually every line
in the poem could be improved, but that in itself is a problem, since
the possibilities are almost infinite.
I would argue that in a poem, even something like flatness of voice
should be achieved in such a way that it doesn't stop being a poem.
But the problem here is deeper, I think:
"I tell him, and this time I slightly raise my voice, that my name is
not really Muhammed. I tell him the media are fooling him. I tell him
he should drop the mobile phone he has clenched between his fingers."
Question: if you saw that on a generic crit group, would you think it
a poem, or mediocre present-tense prose? Can you put the line breaks
back in without looking at the original?
That's not entirely fair, because Martijn does use the line breaks to
establish a rhythm of sorts and to achieve some basic effects, e.g.,
in
And taking my relief in the dark
I feel how the plane takes a dive
and lands, just like my pen lands
the enjambment and blank space dramatize the dive. But it's close
enough.
>> My thesis here is that Martijn's poetry lacks the depth and effect
>> that revision can provide. His poetry is, if one makes allowances for
>> the wretched translations and the periodic clunker,
>
>I have no reason to believe that the piece in question is anything other
>than an original English poem. And if I didn't know Martijn was not a
>native speaker, I would not have known it was not a first-language
>poem. There were a couple of niggling prepositions that I pointed out,
>but I honestly think a skilled English writer could have included them
>deliberately to add to the credibility of the voice.
I don't know whether it's a translation or not; I treated it as such
because it is so prosaic and because at some point Martijn said he had
shifted back from writing poems in English to writing them in Dutch
and posting translations.
>> fairly effective,
>> if one doesn't go beyond a reading or two; but then, so was Frost's
>> original, and it wasn't anything like it could have been.
>
>I have read poems of Martijn's that are among the most memorable
>contemporary poetry that I know.
>
>I am aware that I am favourably prejudiced about his work because
>of past experience, but I read, read aloud and re-read anything
>before I c&c it here. This particular piece touched me enough to
>warrant a posted comment, which is saying a great deal in the
>current state of aapc.
I've been impressed by some of Martijn's poems, and have said so. But,
interestingly enough, I don't remember them. I remember Jim's Fat
Helmie and Mikel's mountains, Dale's red on white and Gary's cars,
Julie's father and the smell of Joy's tumor clinic, but I don't
remember Martijn's poems as individual entities. And I think that's
because they lack depth, because they're glib and superficial. They
have some interesting metaphors and they convey basic emotion and
sometimes humor, but I sense little more, little by way of thought,
sonics, rhythm, rhetoric, beauty -- of the multilayered subtleties
that create profound effect and keep a poem alive in our minds and
through repeated readings.
>> Martijn will no doubt point to those poets who revise carefully and
>> accomplish little with the revision, because they've reached the
>> limits of their gift. But it's wrong to conclude that such poets fail
>> because of the revision; they fail because no matter how carefully one
>> cuts zirconia it never becomes diamond, not because diamond needn't be
>> cut.
>
>Personally, I believe in revision. But I also know I have pieces
>which I've revised the life out of.
Sure.
>One problem with revision for some of Martijn's poetry is that
>it is to some extent topical.
>
>If I take four years to reach a passable description of seeing a
>lizard in the city, it hardly matters. If I take even four days to
>polish a poem about my reaction to a news item, the relevance
>is lost. That is not to say that I won't try to do the best I can with
>the latter poem, but I will find the objective distance hard to obtain,
>and may be satisfied with a less than perfect version.
>
>If I later find that there is something that transcends the topicality
>- which I would hope there was - I will rewrite it when I can distance
>myself from it enough. The original may still exist in its own right,
>though. And it stands as a valid cultural statement of the times in
>which it was written.
>
>Anyway, whether Martijn revises or not, is of little relevance. He
>posts poetry and it's up to the rest of us if we want to comment on it.
>If he, or anyone else, consistently ignores our comments, or obviously
>makes no progress in the direction we think they should be moving, we
>may do better to stop bothering.
>
>Alternatively, we need to look at *why* we are critiquing in the first
>place. Personally, I think I learn a lot from the close reading that a
>detailed c&c requires; if the writer gets something out of my comments,
>even better, but the time has been well spent anyway, in exploring the
>poem and seeing what works or doesn't work for me.
I critiqued Martijn's poem (if one can call that a critique) because I
was bored, and because I'd just read this remark of his:
"Let's face the music: even a more respectable fellow like Jim Sheard,
who got some recognition for his work in England - his work looks like
carefully crafted wordpuzzles that wouldn't entertain even the most
scrutinious scrabble fethisist. Polish, polish, polish - a sure sign
the untalented sculptor, and they bloody well know it."
And I thought it would be amusing to see how he reacted to an equally
in-your-face comment about his own poetry, one which expressed my
opinion that his poetry was not polished enough.
>> I could make lots of suggestions, help him to clean up the bad English
>> and otherwise play copy editor, nanny, and nurse, but I can't improve
>> the poem in any genuine sense without the sort of rewrite that would
>> turn it into my poem, and that's not what it's about -- he has to
>> improve it himself.
>
>It's tempting to interpret your conclusion as a claim that the poem
>would only be better if it were reworked to be *your *poem - i.e.
>to conform to your preferences - even if that isn't what you meant.
Nah. There are lots of good ways of writing poems, and there are lots
of people who can write poems better than I can. What I was saying is
that I could make something better out of this, and I did that purely
to tweak Martijn's nose.
Josh Hill
<lei...@NOSPAMdecisionresearch.org> wrote:
>> It's tempting to interpret your conclusion as a claim that the poem
>> would only be better if it were reworked to be *your *poem - i.e.
>> to conform to your preferences - even if that isn't what you meant.
>
>One editor said to me that he edits other people's work to make it sound
>like he, the editor, had written it. "Isn't that what we all do?" he
>asked. But I felt that his approach was superficial. A good editor
>challenges us to refine what we are saying and keeps their red pen off
>our voice.
I heard an editor say once that he prides himself on his ability to
make corrections that are faithful to the author's voice, even when he
feels his own style would be better. That seems to me an admirable
skill. It's certainly not one that I have, and I've seen many
instances here of critiquers "improving" the poetry of others by
unintentionally turning it into their own.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>Gwyneth Box wrote:
>> I'm also not entirely sure what value the discussion of the two
>> Frost poems has on the question of why you think this specific
>> poem by Martijn is unfinished.
>
>He means that, in his opinion, it is not a work of genius but a
>forgettable work. A finished poem, in his mind, is the work of someone
>whose IQ is higher than the rest of us. I have never seen anyone who has
>such need of postering with meaningless numbers as P.Hill - he really
>believes that every writer that's in the canon is there because he was
>recognised by a fellowship of geniusses, and, this is even more sick, he
>thinks he's one of those geniusses that determine who will be canonized
>in the future and who will not.
While I doubt that someone with a low IQ is going to write much good
poetry, it's fairly obvious that most people with high IQ's don't
write good poetry either. Intellignece is just one of the tools of the
trade. And, of course, you've misunderstood what I said about the
canon as thoroughly as you misunderstood Design -- and, given that no
one is asking my opinion and that entry into the canon occurs with
time, it's fairly silly to assume that my feelings will have anything
to do with which works become part of the canon.
That being said, yes, I've found that I can tell the good from the
indifferent and that, given sufficient exposure, I'm much better than
chance would suggest at telling the great from the good. And despite
your suggestion to the contrary , I'm far from alone in that: many
here will tell you of their love for T S Eliot or Robert Frost or
Dylan Thomas. Which, really, is as it should be. You and Chandra like
to tear things down because you don't happen to get them, or because
you're trolling, or for reasons that are essentially political. But
that's not what it's about. It's about sharing, enjoying, and
appreciating what's good.
>Let's just say that the guy got out of touch with reality in some point
>of his life. I don't feel any urge to flame him anymore now I read what
>is really the psychoanalyst basis for his need to get humiliated in public.
Uh, right. Next . . .
>There just isn't any real honesty in Josh. I used to flame with Chandra
>too but he is an honest person - he said he liked my poetry a lot in
>spite of the flames. Josh is the sort of guy that sticks feathers in
>your ass and when you don't return the favor he, as a revenge, doesn't
>like your work anymore. I don't mind about that, but he does seem to
>think his opinion is somehow very relevant.
You know damn well that I've praised poems of yours even when we were
arguing, and you know damn well that you have never been equally
honest.
Josh Hill
<vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:40:30 GMT, Chandra P Das <vze1...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:24:10 -0700, Leisha
>>>><lei...@NOSPAMdecisionresearch.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>> I believe you've just said "smart, educated people like this stuff and
>
>Listen, Disneyboi: even if we were to measure 'smart and educated' by
>IQ, SAT scores and academic credentials, I'd come out WAY ahead of you.
Erm, no.
>> I don't understand it so it's worthless you're a doody so there."
>>
>>
>>>>>Far-apart drafts? Presently I am going back 15-20 years and looking at
>>>>>what I wrote then, because the situation in the early 80s seems so
>>>>>similar, so relevant to today.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Heh, I've done that too, with the poems I wrote as a teenager.
>>>
>>>Gawd.
>>
>>
>> You seem to forget, Chandra, that not all of us share your
>> intellectual limitations. You would not be able to identify the poetry
>> I wrote as a teenager as the work of a child.
>
>If you wrote like a child now, it would be an improvement.
Dude, you're in dire need of a humor transplant.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>
>
>Gwyneth Box wrote:
>
>>>But do you have the IQ of a genius?
>>
>> Could I be head of the mhb fanclub if I didn't?
>
>Ah, but are you a genius that's recognised by the Genius Comittee
>as installed by Josh's Highschool Professor? Or are you one of those
>illegal, self-proclaimed geniusses that roam around usenet and randomly
>praise the unsanctified and unworthy?
>
>Ask yourself this question: are you loyal to Keats and Frost, or do you
>rather think that Jackson Pollock was actually entitled to not have a
>sketchbook as an artist?
Have you ever had even one cogent thought in that addled brain of
yours?
Josh Hill
<gwy...@patchword.com> wrote:
>
>
>"M.H.Benders" wrote:
>
>> Gwyneth Box wrote:
>>
>> > I wish you hadn't snipped the rest - this makes it look like I just
>> > posted a fan crit, which it wasn't supposed to be!
>>
>> Hee, come on now, just confess you're the head of my fanclub!
>
>And I bask in reflected glory.
>
>> >>So, you don't agree with Josh that 'it never transcends the forgettable.
>> >
>> > absolutely not.
>>
>> But do you have the IQ of a genius?
>
>Could I be head of the mhb fanclub if I didn't?
>
>(snip)
>
>> Save it to say that the intolerance exhibited
>> here by certain newsgroup participants, either on a poetry level or a
>> political, is alarming.
>
>What worries me most is the lack of humour.
You think this is funny?
"The motives of Hitler, or Nietzsche, for disliking jews are perfectly
understandable. I don't like Jews as a race either."
Chandra P. Das
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 21:24:34 GMT, "Chandra P. Das"
> <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:40:30 GMT, Chandra P Das <vze1...@verizon.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:24:10 -0700, Leisha
>>>>><lei...@NOSPAMdecisionresearch.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I believe you've just said "smart, educated people like this stuff and
>>
>>Listen, Disneyboi: even if we were to measure 'smart and educated' by
>>IQ, SAT scores and academic credentials, I'd come out WAY ahead of you.
>
>
> Erm, no.
Erm, yes.
>
>
>>>I don't understand it so it's worthless you're a doody so there."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Far-apart drafts? Presently I am going back 15-20 years and looking at
>>>>>>what I wrote then, because the situation in the early 80s seems so
>>>>>>similar, so relevant to today.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Heh, I've done that too, with the poems I wrote as a teenager.
>>>>
>>>>Gawd.
>>>
>>>
>>>You seem to forget, Chandra, that not all of us share your
>>>intellectual limitations. You would not be able to identify the poetry
>>>I wrote as a teenager as the work of a child.
>>
>>If you wrote like a child now, it would be an improvement.
>
>
> Dude, you're in dire need of a humor transplant.
How did you learn to become so funny all of a sudden?
Mikel
(in article <41663c5a...@News.individual.de>):
An 80's style disco dance off would be more effective. Guns only make people
polite (or dead). The fear of disco could accomplish world peace (or
Armageddon)
Josh Hill
<vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 21:24:34 GMT, "Chandra P. Das"
>> <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:40:30 GMT, Chandra P Das <vze1...@verizon.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:24:10 -0700, Leisha
>>>>>><lei...@NOSPAMdecisionresearch.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I believe you've just said "smart, educated people like this stuff and
>>>
>>>Listen, Disneyboi: even if we were to measure 'smart and educated' by
>>>IQ, SAT scores and academic credentials, I'd come out WAY ahead of you.
>>
>>
>> Erm, no.
>
>Erm, yes.
My dear Watson, if you didn't max out the test, you're not in the
running -- and if you maxed out the test, you can't claim that you're
way ahead of me.
>>>>I don't understand it so it's worthless you're a doody so there."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Far-apart drafts? Presently I am going back 15-20 years and looking at
>>>>>>>what I wrote then, because the situation in the early 80s seems so
>>>>>>>similar, so relevant to today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Heh, I've done that too, with the poems I wrote as a teenager.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gawd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You seem to forget, Chandra, that not all of us share your
>>>>intellectual limitations. You would not be able to identify the poetry
>>>>I wrote as a teenager as the work of a child.
>>>
>>>If you wrote like a child now, it would be an improvement.
>>
>>
>> Dude, you're in dire need of a humor transplant.
>
>How did you learn to become so funny all of a sudden?
By thinking about Martijn's dick size . . .
Chandra P. Das
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:05:16 GMT, "Chandra P. Das"
> <vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 21:24:34 GMT, "Chandra P. Das"
>>><vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:40:30 GMT, Chandra P Das <vze1...@verizon.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:24:10 -0700, Leisha
>>>>>>><lei...@NOSPAMdecisionresearch.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe you've just said "smart, educated people like this stuff and
>>>>
>>>>Listen, Disneyboi: even if we were to measure 'smart and educated' by
>>>>IQ, SAT scores and academic credentials, I'd come out WAY ahead of you.
>>>
>>>
>>>Erm, no.
>>
>>Erm, yes.
>
>
> My dear Watson, if you didn't max out the test, you're not in the
> running -- and if you maxed out the test, you can't claim that you're
> way ahead of me.
Just like you do these days in your fifties, Josh, in my teens I used to
brag about maxing out all kinds of standardized intelligence tests
--until I got to Caltech, that is, and thereafter it seemed as silly as
bragging about having a six inch penis.
You're no shark in these waters, Josh, get out before you get it.
Julie Carter
>>> The frustrating thing is when two of your hoped for audience are at
>>> complete odds, of course, but hopefully if enough people comment
>>> there will be a consensus.
>>
>> Easily solved through pistols at dawn!
>
>An 80's style disco dance off would be more effective. Guns only make people
>polite (or dead). The fear of disco could accomplish world peace (or
>Armageddon)
That goes way beyond an acceptable level of violence. You think we're
monsters or something?
--
Julie Carter
Mikel
(in article <9pa9m017kujqt8uof...@4ax.com>):
Well yes, but cute fuzzy ones. Somethings, that is.
How about we give the spectators free milk and cookies? That should limit the
carnage to the dance floor.
> --
>
> Julie Carter
Josh Hill
<vze1...@verizon.net> wrote:
So you were one of those kids who got to Caltech and discovered he
wasn't as smart as he'd thought he was, eh? Let's just say I've never
had that problem, and leave it at that.
Chandra P. Das
Right, I couldn't dick it out through Caltech, hence some crazy
irrational people thought they'd teach me a lesson by giving me a
fellowship to enter into the best doctoral finance program in the
country. Oh dear, what a nightmarish disappointment!
What about you, Josh? Care to illustrate upon your career as a boyband
manager? How did you prove yourself to be so damn worthless and stupid
at Yale that you had to be relegated into the MTV business?
>Let's just say I've never
> had that problem,
I'm sure you've never had any real 'problems' because you worship cash
more than any fuckheaded Hindu fundamentalist worships his cow-dung
patties.
M.H.Benders
Josh Hill wrote:
>>>>Listen, Disneyboi: even if we were to measure 'smart and educated' by
>>>>IQ, SAT scores and academic credentials, I'd come out WAY ahead of you.
(...)
> My dear Watson, if you didn't max out the test, you're not in the
> running -- and if you maxed out the test, you can't claim that you're
> way ahead of me.
Hee Josh, does this sort of shit work when you stalk young boys in
Cetral Park or was promising them a career on MTV just more effective?
M.H.Benders
> Just like you do these days in your fifties, Josh, in my teens I used to
> brag about maxing out all kinds of standardized intelligence tests
> --until I got to Caltech, that is, and thereafter it seemed as silly as
> bragging about having a six inch penis.
>
> You're no shark in these waters, Josh, get out before you get it.
Josh lost the discussions a long, long time ago, like he did so in all
other newsgroups he 'participates' in. It doesn't matter to him that
independant people come to the same conclusion: that his need to
emberass himself in public (and anyone that flaunts IQ numbers does so)
stems from a sexual, masochist desire. This is not some sort of biased
conclusion as several posters in different newsgroups came to the same
set of conclusions after dealing with P.Hill for seome time, which makes
it a scientific diagnosis.
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
>>He means that, in his opinion, it is not a work of genius but a
>>forgettable work. A finished poem, in his mind, is the work of someone
>>whose IQ is higher than the rest of us. I have never seen anyone who has
>>such need of postering with meaningless numbers as P.Hill - he really
>>believes that every writer that's in the canon is there because he was
>>recognised by a fellowship of geniusses, and, this is even more sick, he
>>thinks he's one of those geniusses that determine who will be canonized
>>in the future and who will not.
>
> While I doubt that someone with a low IQ is going to write much good
> poetry, it's fairly obvious that most people with high IQ's don't
> write good poetry either. Intellignece is just one of the tools of the
> trade.
Intelligence is not a tool. Nor is poetry a trade. IQ is just one's
ability to solve certain types of puzzles. The ability to solve puzzles
is just a very small and insignificant aspect of intelligence. You
compare to a real poet as a crossword puzzler compares to a real writer:
both are occupied with words, that's true, but you think your ability to
solve puzzles is an ingredient in the art of writing, as you call such a
'tool' - this is an insult to the art of writing, but you will never get
that fact, being a crossword puzzle specialist who thinks crosswords are
literature.
>>There just isn't any real honesty in Josh. I used to flame with Chandra
>>too but he is an honest person - he said he liked my poetry a lot in
>>spite of the flames. Josh is the sort of guy that sticks feathers in
>>your ass and when you don't return the favor he, as a revenge, doesn't
>>like your work anymore. I don't mind about that, but he does seem to
>>think his opinion is somehow very relevant.
>
> You know damn well that I've praised poems of yours even when we were
> arguing, and you know damn well that you have never been equally
> honest.
You really think the three frost hacks you've written entitle you
to call yourself a poet, don't you? Of course I never praised any of
your laughable attempts to produce something worth reading. You're a
lousy flamer, a lousy writer, a lousy thinker and a lousy poet. The only
reason you're here is plain masochism.
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
>>You're no shark in these waters, Josh, get out before you get it.
>
> So you were one of those kids who got to Caltech and discovered he
> wasn't as smart as he'd thought he was, eh? Let's just say I've never
> had that problem, and leave it at that.
"The European public feels differently, but then, they are remarkably
naive, with 70% believing, among other silly-season things, that the
United States is invading Iraq to get its oil, or that Iraq isn't
hiding WMD's -- charges, I should note, that not even Jacques Chirac
agrees with."
Joshua P.Hill, 2003
M.H.Benders
>>How did you learn to become so funny all of a sudden?
>
> By thinking about Martijn's dick size . . .
"And I have always believed them: it's ridiculous to suppose that
Saddam Hussein would have gone through 12 years of crippling sanctions
if he /hadn't/ had this stuff, nor did Iraq ever account for the vast
quantities of chemical and biological arms which, according to the UN
inspectors, were present at the time of the Gulf War."
Joshua P.Hill
Julie Carter
<mikel...@gci.net> warbled:
>>>> Easily solved through pistols at dawn!
>>>
>>> An 80's style disco dance off would be more effective. Guns only make
>>> people
>>> polite (or dead). The fear of disco could accomplish world peace (or
>>> Armageddon)
>>
>> That goes way beyond an acceptable level of violence. You think we're
>> monsters or something?
>
>Well yes, but cute fuzzy ones. Somethings, that is.
>
>How about we give the spectators free milk and cookies? That should limit the
>carnage to the dance floor.
And face lawsuits for ignoring someone's lactose intolerance.
How about we take their keys and likker 'em up?
--
Julie
Mikel
(in article <41654f0f...@News.individual.net>):
Too many mean drunks in the world. How about a compromise.
Irish coffee and donuts.
Julie Carter
<mikel...@gci.net> warbled:
>> How about we take their keys and likker 'em up?
>>
>Too many mean drunks in the world. How about a compromise.
>
>Irish coffee and donuts.
I don't like doughnuts. Croissant?
--
Julie