[revised poem]
necklace
surreal
> >> >> because, all too often reality is shown to us only to be illusion.
So
> >> much
> >> >> of our lives are driven by intangible feelings and emotions.
> >> >i think you're right.
> >> but the intangiable lacks power on the page.
> >not if it's well-expressed. the problem here is 50% the images chosen and
> >50% the words you'll use to express them, to show them to the reader and
> >make the intangible look understandable.
> I don't agree with this poetic dualism, ie having a) the image and b) the
> words expressing the image, because words used will impact upon the nature
> of the image and vice versa.
yes, they interact. it proves that words and images are inseparable from one
another and therefore that they are equally important in poetry.
> >> All life, of course, is driven
> >> by emotion, it's our console for interaction, along with physical
sense.
> >In
> >> ways, life is dialectical process between sense and sensation.
> >we knew that already. i can't see how it proves your point.
> Perhaps I got off the point for a second. Anyway, the intangiable
expressed
> with the intangiable is doomed to fail, in my experience and opinion,
which
> is basically my point.
well, in my experience and opinion, it can sometimes make an image/concept
stand out more efficiently than with tangible words, make everything more
visual.
>Ironically, in many cases the more descriptors
> (adjectives) you use, the more intangiable you make your words for the
> reader. That was my second point.
agreed.
> My third was that, unless you think you
> can define your own school of viable poetry as a teenager (yes, assuming
> you're not Rimbaud), it's best to align yourself with an existing 'type'
in
> some sense, just to make sure you're not digging your own grave with your
> pen.
it's pretty restrictive since it would allow me to write according to
certain rigid principles and therefore reduce my freedom, when i am actually
too inexperienced to be up to the standards of any existing 'type' of
poetry, and not even willing to put my writing into a box. yet i agree that
my writing could be easily labelled, even though i don't want it to be
labelled since what i'm writing now is very different from the kind of
poetry i want to write and will maybe write one day, when i have went
through all the different stages that make a poet and picked things i like
out of all the 'types' of poetry i am currently discovering and will
discover in the future.
> >> Unless you can indentify your poems with an existing breed of
> contemporary
> >> poetry, you're probably on the road to failure.
> >are you referring to my poetry or to sloan's?
> Yours, I haven't read Sloan's.
hm. :\
--
|necklace|
-unready.
Aidan Tynan
>yes, they interact. it proves that words and images are inseparable from
one
>another and therefore that they are equally important in poetry.
Words comprise images, they are the rubble to its mountain.
), it's best to align yourself with an existing 'type'
>in
>> some sense, just to make sure you're not digging your own grave with your
>> pen.
>it's pretty restrictive since it would allow me to write according to
>certain rigid principles and therefore reduce my freedom,
well, would rather be free and writing bad verse?
when i am actually
>too inexperienced to be up to the standards of any existing 'type' of
>poetry,
type, not standard.
and not even willing to put my writing into a box. yet i agree that
>my writing could be easily labelled, even though i don't want it to be
>labelled since what i'm writing now is very different from the kind of
>poetry i want to write and will maybe write one day, when i have went
>through all the different stages that make a poet and picked things i like
>out of all the 'types' of poetry i am currently discovering and will
>discover in the future.
Well, a lot of times one needs to find a formula in order to evince certain
freedoms, to become as free as he needs to be requires, paradoxically, a
fitting in, the way a swimmer is only free in the ocean, or something like
that ...
>
>> >> Unless you can indentify your poems with an existing breed of
>> contemporary
>> >> poetry, you're probably on the road to failure.
>> >are you referring to my poetry or to sloan's?
>> Yours, I haven't read Sloan's.
>hm. :\
:P
-Aidan
>
>
>--
>|necklace|
>-unready.
>
>
>
necklace
> one
> >another and therefore that they are equally important in poetry.
> Words comprise images, they are the rubble to its mountain.
> ), it's best to align yourself with an existing 'type'
> >in
> >> some sense, just to make sure you're not digging your own grave with
your
> >> pen.
> >it's pretty restrictive since it would allow me to write according to
> >certain rigid principles and therefore reduce my freedom,
> well, would rather be free and writing bad verse?
i'd rather be free and write bad verse in the beginning and then evolve
until i find my style.
> when i am actually
> >too inexperienced to be up to the standards of any existing 'type' of
> >poetry,
> type, not standard.
what?
> and not even willing to put my writing into a box. yet i agree that
> >my writing could be easily labelled, even though i don't want it to be
> >labelled since what i'm writing now is very different from the kind of
> >poetry i want to write and will maybe write one day, when i have went
> >through all the different stages that make a poet and picked things i
like
> >out of all the 'types' of poetry i am currently discovering and will
> >discover in the future.
> Well, a lot of times one needs to find a formula in order to evince
certain
> freedoms, to become as free as he needs to be requires, paradoxically, a
> fitting in, the way a swimmer is only free in the ocean, or something like
> that ...
maybe. what's your formula?
> >> >> Unless you can indentify your poems with an existing breed of
> >> contemporary
> >> >> poetry, you're probably on the road to failure.
> >> >are you referring to my poetry or to sloan's?
> >> Yours, I haven't read Sloan's.
> >hm. :\
> :P
grr. don't stick out your tongue after insulting me.
--
[necklace]
-plah.
Aidan Tynan
>> >hm. :\
>> :P
>grr. don't stick out your tongue after insulting me.
I wasn't insulting you, I was giving you my opinion of your poetry ...
-Aidan
>
>
>--
>[necklace]
>-plah.
>
>
>
necklace
> >> :P
> >grr. don't stick out your tongue after insulting me.
> I wasn't insulting you, I was giving you my opinion of your poetry ...
--
|necklace|
-unready.
Firedancer
"Aidan Tynan" <aty...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:LK9s6.495$_W2...@news.indigo.ie...
>
> Robert Sloan wrote in message <98r672$76e$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> >I actually enjoy that "rift", I enjoy the play on real versus surreal
>
> real than real) in the wrong way here. I prefer to deal with the
> indentifiable to stack like sandbags against the incoming surge of the
> abstract, and aftermath is usual quite beautiful.
>
>
> -Aidan
>
Super Real???
Dictionary.com:
surreal adj 1: characterized by fantastic imagery and incongruous
juxtapositions; "a great concourse of phantasmagoric shadows"- J.C.Powys;
"the incongruous imagery in surreal art and literature"; " [syn:
phantasmagoric, phantasmagorical, surrealistic] 2: resembling a dream;
"night invested the lake with a dreamlike quality"; "as irrational and
surreal as a dream" [syn: dreamlike]
sur斟e戢l (s-rl)
adj.
Having qualities attributed to or associated with surrealism: "grim, surreal
political critiques" (Lloyd Rose).
Having an oddly dreamlike quality.
?
Super Real is from where? I'd never heard that connotation to the word
before.
REDX
James Mitchelhill
<fire...@theparade.com> wrote:
>?
>
>Super Real is from where? I'd never heard that connotation to the word
>before.
So long as we're arguing over definitions, you mean "denotation", not
"connotation".
--
James A. Mitchelhill
http://www.dreamingbutterflies.com/james/
ja...@dreamingbutterflies.com
Aidan Tynan
>
>Super Real is from where? I'd never heard that connotation to the word
>before.
Well, that's where the word comes from, first used by Guillaume Apollinaire
in 1917, when he described a production of Cocteau's ballet Parade as
revealing a 'truth beyond the real, a kind of sur-realism'. Andre Breton
then appropriated the phrase, and the rest is history. The word surrealism
has been sullied with many inaccurate meanings, so be mistrustful of any
established points of view you may have of surrealism and start anew.
-Aidan
>
>REDX
>
>
Aidan Tynan
Btw:
The Manifesto establishes Surrealism as a movement in literature first and
foremost. Breton claims as the poet Apollonaire as the movement's main
inspiration -- the poet having coined the phrase "super-realism," which
Breton shortened to surrealism. Another important feature of the Manifesto
was the inclusion of automatic methods of generating poetry grounded in
Freudian ideas as the exploration of the unconscious mind. Breton also
mentioned the primacy of metaphor and what he thought of as "image:" "the
one that has the highest degree of arbitrariness, takes the longest time to
translate into functional language, whether because of the quality of
apparent contradiction, or because one of its terms is curiously secret..."
you can find the rest of this articule, along with some good links, at
http://www.iup.edu/~mmmbsxa/co281.htm
Check it out.
-Aidan
necklace
> The Manifesto establishes Surrealism as a movement in literature first and
> foremost. Breton claims as the poet Apollonaire as the movement's main
> inspiration -- the poet having coined the phrase "super-realism," which
> Breton shortened to surrealism.
french word is and has always been 'surréalisme'. 'superréalisme' never
existed in french. for example, you english-speaking people call
'surnaturel' 'supernatural'. you can therefore easily guess that 'super' is
the english equivalent of 'sur'. 'surréalisme' has therefore never been
shortened.
--
|necklace|
-unready.
Aidan Tynan
>hm. the word surrealism hasn't been shortened by breton, seeing that the
>french word is and has always been 'surréalisme'. 'superréalisme' never
>existed in french. for example, you english-speaking people call
>'surnaturel' 'supernatural'. you can therefore easily guess that 'super' is
>the english equivalent of 'sur'. 'surréalisme' has therefore never been
>shortened.
But the word surrealism didn't exist before it was coined, correct? Anyway,
I don't think it really matters, as long we all understand that surreal
means super-real.
-Aidan
>
>--
>|necklace|
>-unready.
>
>
necklace
> >french word is and has always been 'surréalisme'. 'superréalisme' never
> >existed in french. for example, you english-speaking people call
> >'surnaturel' 'supernatural'. you can therefore easily guess that 'super'
is
> >the english equivalent of 'sur'. 'surréalisme' has therefore never been
> >shortened.
> But the word surrealism didn't exist before it was coined, correct?
> Anyway, I don't think it really matters, as long we all understand that
surreal
> means super-real.
my point was, no one and not even andré breton has ever shortened the word
'superréalisme' to 'surréalisme'.
as you said, it doesn't really matter, but you were wrong and i wanted to
prove you wrong. :p
--
|necklace|
-unready.
Aidan Tynan
>my point was, no one and not even andré breton has ever shortened the word
>'superréalisme' to 'surréalisme'.
Then how did it get from super-real to surreal?
>
>as you said, it doesn't really matter, but you were wrong and i wanted to
>prove you wrong. :p
Or rather the page from which I was quoting.
-Aidan
>
>
>--
>|necklace|
>-unready.
>
>
Firedancer
"James Mitchelhill" <ja...@dreamingbutterflies.com> wrote in message
news:3ab4b9d...@news.ntlworld.com...
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 19:37:38 +0800, "Firedancer"
> <fire...@theparade.com> wrote:
>
>
> >?
> >
> >Super Real is from where? I'd never heard that connotation to the word
> >before.
>
> So long as we're arguing over definitions, you mean "denotation", not
> "connotation".
Oh sorry, I always get those two mixed up. :)
REDX
necklace
word
> >'superréalisme' to 'surréalisme'.
> Then how did it get from super-real to surreal?
'superabundance' -> 'surabondance'; 'superhuman' ->'surhumain', etc.
maybe english people decided to use an english word for it, which would be,
if you follow the rule that says 'sur' shall be translated as 'super',
superrealism. then someone decided it should sound more french, because it
comes from french, so they chose to use the word surreal instead. *shrugs*
> >as you said, it doesn't really matter, but you were wrong and i wanted to
> >prove you wrong. :p
> Or rather the page from which I was quoting.
of course.
--
|necklace|
-unready.