Systematic
Chevyfreak
Systematic
From corporate greed comes incessant need
to progress at any cost.
On consumers' steed, with diminishing lead,
we ride to retrieve what was lost.
Attorneys gather to share some notes
and discuss their fees at hand.
Judges render a verdict based
on facts they don't understand.
This is the way of the system today,
red-tape-clogged chapters of Glory.
Then into the 'morrow, ignoring new sorrow
without understanding the story.
© Skip Eggers 11-18-98
gga...@excite.com
wrote:
A word for you to look up:
doggerel
gg
take a walk, describe the trees
anything
Chevyfreak
<gga...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3ae6505d....@news.supernews.com...
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 23:27:24 GMT, "Chevyfreak" <chevy...@cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> A word for you to look up:
>
> doggerel
>
> gg
> take a walk, describe the trees
> anything
>
Skip
Mike Billard
Chevyfreak <chevy...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dC2F6.79149$fs3.13...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> Thank you, gg, for your time.
>
> Skip
Skip, the best thing you can do right now is abandon the big messages. I've
read a few of the pieces you've posted and each one seems to take a didactic
approach. Your poems are constantly preaching to the reader and that puts
the reader off. People are looking for poems and you're providing sermons.
Work more on sensory elements--sharp description of concrete objects, vivid
portrayal of recognizable events, etc. And of course always mind the sounds
of your poem. While it's nice to describe in detail the dandelions and
goldfinches in your front yard, it takes on another dimension when you say
it like this:
Spring, and the first full crop of dandelions gone
to smoke, the lawn lumpish with goldfinches,
hunched in their fluffs, fattened by seed,
alight in the wind-bared peduncular forest.
That's the beginning of "Afterlife" by Robert Wrigley, and can be found in
his book Reign of Snakes. I grabbed that example only because I've been
reading that book today and it was handy. Anyway, you probably get the
point. Sure there are successful poems with political, moral, or even
religious messages. But they're not easy to do. You're obviously early in
the game and need to work on the fundamentals first, before you try to
tackle the tough stuff.
--
Mike Billard
The Alsop Review
http://www.alsopreview.com
Chevyfreak
idea of what a poem should do; create a picture, tell a story, describe an
emotion, or simply take the reader somewhere new. My poems, apparently, take
you nowhere and that's ok. My point is that each reader will perceive at a
different level. You feel that my writing is at ground level. So be it. I
don't agree with you but will take your advice and continue to write and
post and, hopefully, show some improvement.
Skip
"Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9c4pai$i7s$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Margaret
> Thank you, Mike, for the reply and reading my poems. Everyone has their
own
> idea of what a poem should do; create a picture, tell a story, describe an
> emotion, or simply take the reader somewhere new.
I don't think everyone has their own idea about this at all. There may be
various schools of thought, but to suggest that the function of poetry is
purely an individual choice, and that maybe we could have five billion
different poetics for each of the world's five billion people, is rather
silly. It's also a retreat from one's responsibility as a poet, since it
lets you off the hook from any standards if you can simply aim to please one
or two people and ignore the rest.
My poems, apparently, take
> you nowhere and that's ok. My point is that each reader will perceive at a
> different level.
No, there are some poems that no reasonable, sensitive and intelligent
reader will perceive favorably. Again, you've conceived of a poetics that
doesn't let you admit the possibility of failure. If this makes you happy,
bless you. But I don't see how you aren't simply fooling yourself.
You feel that my writing is at ground level. So be it. I
> don't agree with you but will take your advice and continue to write and
> post and, hopefully, show some improvement.
That's the spirit! I think Mike Billard was simply suggesting that poetry
should do more that endorse a political candidate in rhyme or meter, and
that poems containing specific political messages (as opposed to a broader,
more humanistic sense of the word political) can turn into sermons. In
fact, if that's what he was saying he's obviously correct. Can you point to
any well-known poems that are political in the sense that your poem is
political? Good poems can and often do have political implications --that's
part of why totalitarian regimes like to send their poets off to Siberia--
but poems of quality are rarely a collection of billboard slogans. (I'm not
sure I agree with Mike Billard in general that didactic poetry should be
avoided at all costs, though in your case it might be so.
Politicall/didactic is a special case, though. Someone like Walt Whitman
was often very didactic, but not in a political sense. He was more like a
great prophet with a vastly developed spiritual didacticism that you have to
be a great prophet to pull off...and boy did he ever!)
Don Jones
--
I agree with you totally. Not all readers are alike and some of us are
looking for poetry that reflects on what it is happening in the world
today. Now I don't understand the higher elements of writing poetry and
I respect those who were more critical because they offer me,
personally, knowledge of what better poetry is supposed to be about. I
enjoyed reading your poem so you reached at least one reader and that
should count for something.
Don Jones
Sussex, NB Canada
"Success and failure are never final."
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/thailand/955/
Margaret
"Don Jones" <sus...@fundy.net> wrote in message
news:3AE73080...@fundy.net...
> I agree with you totally. Not all readers are alike and some of us are
> looking for poetry that reflects on what it is happening in the world
> today.
I'd like to think that *all* readers are looking for poetry that reflects on
what is happening in the world today. That's part of the reason many of us
love Shakespeare, for example. In Shakespeare, among so many other things,
we see political power struggles, misunderstanding, vanity, reflection,
ambition, and countless other elements that are still what's happening in
the world today. But we don't find position papers on bills before the
English Parliament. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind at all if you are
looking for poems that actually take specific stands on specific partisan
issues, such as free trade and corporate greed (though I've yet to see a
good one myself), but I guess I do mind your implication that the rest of us
ivory tower eggheads prefer poems that have nothing to do with what's
happening in the world today. For current events and facts relating to
global warming, I prefer essays and newspapers. But I want poetry to be
relevant to my life at all times even if I don't want it to contain
editorials.
Now I don't understand the higher elements of writing poetry and
> I respect those who were more critical because they offer me,
> personally, knowledge of what better poetry is supposed to be about.
I've seen enough of your posts to reject this "aw shucks I'm just simple
folk" kind of pose. The mere fact that you choose to hang out on this board
and weigh in on discussion of poetry suggests that you have views and that
your disclaimers are just a way of avoiding a true defense of them.
I
> enjoyed reading your poem so you reached at least one reader and that
> should count for something.
I don't think anyone doubts it counts for something. The question is what
it counts for. This is, after all, a discussion group about poetry. One
can enjoy reading doggerel, but it doesn't make it into literature, just as
one can enjoy a good pulp detective story without confusing it with Dickens.
It would be more useful, perhaps, if you explained what you mean when you
say the poem "reached" you. Do you mean simply that you enjoyed it? That
it parroted back your political views? That you learned something from it?
Or would you make claims for the poem as literature or "better poetry," to
use your phrase?
Chevyfreak
I'm not sure I'd admit that you enjoyed reading my poem just yet. The jury's
still out and I fear a bad verdict.
Thanks for the reply,
Skip
"Don Jones" <sus...@fundy.net> wrote in message
news:3AE73080...@fundy.net...
>
>
Chevyfreak
If I were constructing a painting, would I craft it after a famous painter;
copy his style, so to speak? Not me. I know poetry is not painting but the
two closely coincide as 'art'. And every artist is aware of the fact that
some will like what they've done and some will not. But the act of creation
is as individualistic as the way one brushes their teeth each morning.
On a commercial level, a poet (any poet) should be learned enough to avoid
recreating, duplicating, and being just plain dull to readers who have read
all the famous poems. I'm not selling my poems, only curious as to what
others think about them. You comments are welcome anytime.
Skip
"Margaret" <a...@def.com> wrote in message
news:ywoF6.4430$%y5.2...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
Catalephsis
> Margaret,
>
> If I were constructing a painting, would I craft it after a famous
painter;
> copy his style, so to speak? Not me. I know poetry is not painting but the
> two closely coincide as 'art'. And every artist is aware of the fact that
> some will like what they've done and some will not. But the act of
creation
> is as individualistic as the way one brushes their teeth each morning.
This is wrong. Completely wrong. Pretty much every poet or artist who had
anything worthwhile in their work has LEARNT their trade firstly by
imitating. You need to know the rules to break them. If you start by reading
and imitating, then you learn all the tools of the trade. Poetry is a skill,
with devices, such as form, meter, imagery, etc. that can be picked up by
just reading and practising. Then you can break form and find an individual
voice. If you haven't done this, then it shows in your work to anyone with
the know how.
> On a commercial level, a poet (any poet) should be learned enough to avoid
> recreating, duplicating, and being just plain dull to readers who have
read
> all the famous poems. I'm not selling my poems, only curious as to what
> others think about them. You comments are welcome anytime.
Sure, once they've learned how to write first. Until you do this, you won't
know how to maximise what you are trying to say. For example, if you write a
poem about being inside a coffin, you might just splatter some free verse on
the page, but if you want a sense of claustrophobia, or confinement, then
you might know that a sonnet form would help achieve this, or the knocking
rhythms of Anglo Saxon verse, etc.
Mike Billard
> Thank you, Mike, for the reply and reading my poems. Everyone has their
own
> idea of what a poem should do; create a picture, tell a story, describe an
> emotion, or simply take the reader somewhere new. My poems, apparently,
take
> you nowhere and that's ok.
Your poems take me nowhere because your poems go nowhere. They address the
broadest issues in the most superficial of ways. At no time do your poems
try to analyze or examine these complex themes. Nor do they strive to
establish a deeper understanding. All they do is regurgitate the same old
cliches and slogans that have been around for decades (if not longer).
That's so simple any high school sophomore could do it. Hell, a fellow named
Nipsy Russell (sp?) used to do what you're doing in the above poem
spontaneously on TV. Someone would give him the topic and he'd simply blurt
out the poem.
> My point is that each reader will perceive at a
> different level. You feel that my writing is at ground level.
I base that feeling on the decades of study I've put into the art, and on
the million plus poems I've read in that time. Trust me, Skip, I've read
probably ten thousand or more poems remarkably similar to yours. You aren't
doing anything new and there's nothing secret or exciting hidden in your
work. If you spread your work around enough, sure, you're going to find a
few people willing to offer you gratuitous praise. If that makes you feel
good and if that's all you're looking for then great! Go find those people.
But trust me, you aren't going to improve by dismissing out of hand (and
you've done it already a few times on this newsgroup that I've seen) any and
all comments criticical of your work.
> So be it. I
> don't agree with you but will take your advice and continue to write and
> post and, hopefully, show some improvement.
I don't think you will take my advice. You disagree with my assessment,
which is fine btw. I suspect your next poems will look strangely similar to
your last poems. We'll have to wait and see.
Margaret
> Margaret,
>
> If I were constructing a painting, would I craft it after a famous
painter;
> copy his style, so to speak? Not me.
I'm not sure what I said that this is responding to, but never mind. No,
you wouldn't go ahead and copy a famous painter. But you also wouldn't try
for the sake of originality to avoid all influence. Picasso did dozens of
paintings based on his take of various parts of Velazquez's "Las Meninas."
It was part tribute, part "I can do better," but no one can really accuse
Picasso of not being "original" or having his own style just because his
paintings were expressly based on or derived from Velazquez's painting. In
poetry, I think Harold Bloom coined the phrase "the anxiety of influence" to
mean that every poet must, of necessity, write as part of a tradition and
under the influence of predecessors, but also must be original and new.
I know poetry is not painting but the
> two closely coincide as 'art'. And every artist is aware of the fact that
> some will like what they've done and some will not. But the act of
creation
> is as individualistic as the way one brushes their teeth each morning.
And how many ways are there to brush one's teeth in the morning? When all
is said and done, just about everyone will push the brush around the surface
of their teeth, make the toothpaste foam up, then rinse and spit. Yes, some
will start at the back and move forward, some will go the reverse, but
anyone who sticks the brush up his butt is not brushing his teeth. The same
with writing poems. There are acceptable variations, then there's shoving
the brush up your butt.
> On a commercial level, a poet (any poet) should be learned enough to avoid
> recreating, duplicating, and being just plain dull to readers who have
read
> all the famous poems.
I agree (except I'm not sure what you mean by "commercial level"). No one
wants to be dull. And, as Sy Syms might say, an educated consumer is a
poet's best customer. A well read reader is in some ways harder to please
than a poorly read reader, just as an experienced wine drinker is harder to
please with Gallo or Manischevitz, but is also more worth pleasing. A wine
lover can also appreciate a wine more because he is reminded of the flavors
in wines that went before, and a poetry lover can enjoy echoes and
influences in new poems and not find them dull but affirmatively exciting.
Again, it shouldn't be a copy but something new. But being something new
doesn't exclude influence. Picasso's variations on Las Meninas are
strikingly original yet one's enjoyment is enhanced, not diminished, by
knowing the original painiting.
Chevyfreak
> I don't think you will take my advice. You disagree with my assessment,
> which is fine btw. I suspect your next poems will look strangely similar
to
> your last poems. We'll have to wait and see.
I haven't written much in the last year, hence my dated postings. You have
offered advice, which I appreciate and will attempt to incorporate. Thank
you for your time, Mike.
Skip
"Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9c91a8$56n$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Tiniap
Of course I know Mike, you've got loads of experience teaching the craft,
but
each time i read advice like the above one, I wonder . . .
In prose-writing, a kind of similar advice given to young writers who are
too
ambitious and bundling themselves by trying to handle some grandiose theme,
is
'just write what you know about.' And that's crappy advice. The truth is, we
write what we *like* - We write what we read and enjoy thorouhly.
So yeah - the young writer will produce effort after effort that amounts to
crap. But that's ok. He/she'll do that regardless of what theme/style he is
attempting. So in my mind, fine -- tell them(us?) what they need to
incorporate in their work to get better. I don't know see why the advice is
so
often.. well try this.. but abandon that! If we in the same breath
ackowledge
that 'that' can be done well, with practice.. why abandon? Why ask someone
to
kill his muse?
Andrew
I've
>read a few of the pieces you've posted and each one seems to take a didactic
>approach. Your poems are constantly preaching to the reader and that puts
>the reader off. People are looking for poems and you're providing sermons.
>
>Work more on sensory elements--sharp description of concrete objects, vivid
>portrayal of recognizable events, etc. And of course always mind the sounds
>of your poem. While it's nice to describe in detail the dandelions and
>goldfinches in your front yard, it takes on another dimension when you say
>it like this:
>
>Spring, and the first full crop of dandelions gone
>to smoke, the lawn lumpish with goldfinches,
>hunched in their fluffs, fattened by seed,
>alight in the wind-bared peduncular forest.
>>--
>Mike Billard
>The Alsop Review
>http://www.alsopreview.com
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
So mek dem send one big word after me
I ent serving no jail sentence
I slashing suffix in self-defense
I bashin future wit present tense
and if necessary
I making de Queen's English accessory/ to my offence.
(John Agard)
Margaret
"Tiniap" <Tin...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3AEC...@MailAndNews.com...
> >Skip, the best thing you can do right now is abandon the big messages.
>
> Of course I know Mike, you've got loads of experience teaching the craft,
> but
> each time i read advice like the above one, I wonder . . .
>
> In prose-writing, a kind of similar advice given to young writers who are
> too
> ambitious and bundling themselves by trying to handle some grandiose
theme,
> is
I don't think the advice to "abandon the big messages" or to "write what you
know" is meant to guide the writer to produce trivial or unimportant work
with small messages. On the contrary, the advice is paradoxically aimed at
the opposite. It's like the advice they give athletes to "play within
yourself," which is the case of a field-goal kicker, for example, might
involve not trying to kick the ball as hard as you can but trying to kick it
maybe 90% as hard as you can. The ball often goes further and straighter
because the whole enterprise wasn't poisoned by convulsive and jittery
footwork. Poets, in particular when they are young, are more likely to
write good poems if they write "within themselves" and don't presume on a
body of wisdom and spiritual maturity that sometimes one acquires later in
life. And writing what you know doesn't limit you to your own exact
circumstances. You may know about love or betrayal because of your job or
your friends, but if you want to make them space monsters from the planet
Brkmyltvqxx you can do that while making them interact in the loving or
treacherous ways you know from your own life. The key is don't try to kick
the ball farther than you can. Make sure you kick it as far as you can each
time your try. Pardon me as my metaphor gets mangled. I've advised outside
myself.
Tiniap
>"Tiniap" <Tin...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>news:3AEC...@MailAndNews.com...
>> >Skip, the best thing you can do right now is abandon the big messages.
>>
>> Of course I know Mike, you've got loads of experience teaching the craft,
>> but
>> each time i read advice like the above one, I wonder . . .
>>
>> In prose-writing, a kind of similar advice given to young writers who are
>> too
>> ambitious and bundling themselves by trying to handle some grandiose
>theme,
>> is
>> 'just write what you know about.' And that's crappy advice. .
>
>I don't think the advice to "abandon the big messages" or to "write what you
>know" is meant to guide the writer to produce trivial or unimportant work
>with small messages. On the contrary, the advice is paradoxically aimed at
>the opposite. It's like the advice they give athletes to "play within
>yourself," which is the case of a field-goal kicker, for example, might
>involve not trying to kick the ball as hard as you can but trying to kick it
>maybe 90% as hard as you can. The ball often goes further and straighter
>because the whole enterprise wasn't poisoned by convulsive and jittery
>footwork. Poets, in particular when they are young, are more likely to
>write good poems if they write "within themselves" and don't presume on a
>body of wisdom and spiritual maturity that sometimes one acquires later in
>life.
By young writers, I don't mean young in age, but young at the craft. So this
is precisely my point - the 'body of wisdom and spiritual maturity' as you
call it, is not out of their reach. It is their ability to incorporate it
effectively in their writing which is in question.
My problem is telling a writer what he may not or may write about, and in
the
next breath acknowledging that what he 'may not' is in fact possible and has
been done effectively. Why not allow him to write about it, fail, fail and
fail again - until he learns how to do it well.
Better advice, in my opinion, is to direct him to those writers who have
been
successful at what he is attempting and telling him what fails about the
piece.
Andrew
Mike Billard
Tiniap <Tin...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3AEC...@MailAndNews.com...
Andrew,
There are a few reasons for the advice above, and some caveats to it and a
few exceptions and one or two clauses and an addendum and so on. One of the
problems with the BIG message approach is that it tends to lead to very
vague writing. Poet A decides to write on world peace. He knows that poems
are usually relatively short and so he writes twenty, maybe fifty lines. How
does one cover such a big topic in such a short form? By speaking in as
broad of terms as possible. Of course we all know that politicians, speech
writers, commercials, and telemarketers use these broad terms to pitch their
causes and so the poet ends up using the same words and phrases that we see
every day. The end product is a cliched, uninteresting poem that never
really addresses the topic in any serious manner. Poet B spends the
afternoon at the park and watches a group of children playing a game. He
writes a twenty, maybe fifty line poem on the interaction between the
children, how they resolve issues, come to consensus and get along to make
the game a success. Maybe he never once mentions world peace, but by the end
he's addressed it in a more convincing and intimate way than Poet A. I know
I mention the book about once a week (because it says so many relevant
things), but Hugo says in The Triggering Town that when faced with too large
a topic the mind tends to shrink, to withdraw under the burden of too many
choices. Just like in any endevour, such as pianists beginning with scales
or gymnasts with cartwheels and not backflips, the beginning poet needs to
start relatively small.
Which brings me to my second point. And one of the reasons why I advocate
the "write what you know" advice. The beginning poet has a lot of things he
needs to concentrate on, things the experienced poet has learned and can
rely on as second nature. If the beginning poet is distracted by the topic
he's chosen he will not be paying as much attention to the things he should
be, like sound and tone and pace and so forth. This is why cliches slip into
these poems so easily, I think. Even if a beginning gymnast is able to pull
off a back flip, one cannot expect her to also pay attention to the position
of her feet and arms, the landing, the height and rotation, etc. she starts
with moves "she knows", like cartwheels and roundoffs and somersaults. She
can perform these basic moves almost naturally and therefore can focus on
the details of her craft (so to speak). Once she has better control she can
work on the backflip. If a poet writes about what he knows, he's free to
focus more completely on other aspects of the poem. That is not to say he
shouldn't be exploring other topics (the gymnast is always secretly
attempting a back flip behind her coach's back), but that he needs to work
early in ways that will make those more difficult topics more managable.
Does that make sense? Tackle small things and learn to concentrate on the
details. Later, learn how to assemble those details to convey important
things.
gnarl
g.
"Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9cd3mu$77k$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Tiniap
Makes perfect sense Mike. I'll still, for the sake of stubborness, hold to
my
point that we can say all this to a young writer without asking him to
abandon
the reason why he writes. 'You didn't address the theme at all' 'the poem
doesn't say much.' 'you need to pay a lot more attention to the actual
ellements of poetry' all seem like reasonable critical responses in my mind.
Still.. I think I was chipping the surface on a bigger question I have,
having
read a lot of the responses on this and other boards - and that is <for
total
lack of a better term> a sort 'atheistic dogma' on poetry: that poetry is
written for its own sake and any other kind of 'higher' purpose is
completely
heretic and bound to failure. This has been said in almost as many words,
and
I frankly can't agree with it.
This is for certain a function of the kind of literature that I am attracted
to, where there isn't and cannot be a great distinction between craft and
message. I'm talking for instance about the poetry of Edward Kamau
Braithwaite
or the prose of Toni Morrison, where writing becomes a means to an end and
not
an end in itself. It makes me a firm adherent of 'sure.. preach your big
messages.. but do it well! Because it can be done.'
In fact, it occurs to me that whenenever, for instance, we compliment a poem
for being 'powerful' it usually is a validation that the writer has combined
craft and message well. So tell the writer to be more minimalistic in his
attempt.. tell him his poem was shit and didn't say anything.. but i'm
unwilling to tell anyone to abandon their message.
Andrew
Margaret
"Tiniap" <Tin...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> In fact, it occurs to me that whenenever, for instance, we compliment a
poem
> for being 'powerful' it usually is a validation that the writer has
combined
> craft and message well.
Can you give any famous examples? I can't think of any great poems that are
great because of their messages. For example, there are horrible love poems
and great love poems that share the "I love you" message. There are good
and bad poems saying "war sucks," too. The good and the bad poems are
equally successful in conveying their messages. That is, we know the poet
loves the woman and hates the war regardless of whether the poem is good or
bad. Which doesn't mean you shouldn't write love poems or anti-war poems,
but does mean that ultimately what counts for success in a poem in not the
message but the poem itself. (And it also means that a defense of a poem
that simply says "it conveyed something to me" or "got across its message"
is really no defense at all, or else even a bad line of prose condemning
global warming would be a poem if divided up into line breaks that made it
look like a poem on the page).
So tell the writer to be more minimalistic in his
> attempt.. tell him his poem was shit and didn't say anything.. but i'm
> unwilling to tell anyone to abandon their message.
>
I think I agree that no one should be required to abandon their message.
But since message alone doesn't carry a poem (as I commented above), it does
seem that many poets may find it to be a very useful exercise to cut back on
"message" because for many message-driven poets the message gets in the way
and blinds them to the primary requisites of a poem, which are many and have
little to do with message per se. (Theme is different, of course. All
poems should have themes, attitudes and thoughts and feelings, but to apply
those to a political). Maybe a good analogy is "lazy eye," in which one eye
doesn't do enough work. What the doctor does is put a patch over the good
eye to force the lazy eye to work. If your good eye is message, perhaps
it's wise to put a patch over it (i.e., avoid it for a while) in order to
strengthen your other eye. Mike is a teacher, apparently, and I think his
advice to abandon message might be just a way of teaching how to strengthen
the non-message aspects of poetry writing, which are many.
mike jones
civilization.