C&C request from new poster - one short poem
Harper M. Willson
Somehow (despite urgings to the contrary) it just didn't seem right to
parachute into a thread, a complete unknown, with remarks of any kind.
While it may be no better to plop a first post into your group all newby-like
with a poem of my own, I've decided that I really ought to let you have a go at
me, before I have a go at any of you ;)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Down the Midway
There was first the obliging
woman homeless ragtied and fragile
beside the lump in the mummy bag
who was sleeping.
Complicit she smiled for the lovers
who came before the bandstand
after the one man
who with a paper map sat
crosslegged on a bath towel.
I was smiling too.
I liked how he held her how he sat while she lay
hiked her skirt to show her leg,
drew it up with his own.
In the lane skaters scraped painful on pavement
talked in knots making unshaven summer plans
for the mayhem of a senior year.
I passed through their plot to see a boy's foot
press effortful upon a pedal
braced teeth bite down on a lip exerted,
maroon as his shirt.
The loved girl lay undemanding
in hands blessed by squatters;
a paper map rolled like a wheel.
The lump rose to cruise
the map man's abandoned lunch,
trailing his bag like a royal.
------------
comments welcome
JAS Carter
Willson) spake unto the internet:
>I've dutifully read the aapc FAQ and (in the last week) many, many posts.
>Somehow (despite urgings to the contrary) it just didn't seem right to
>parachute into a thread, a complete unknown, with remarks of any kind.
>
>While it may be no better to plop a first post into your group all newby-like
>with a poem of my own, I've decided that I really ought to let you have a go at
>me, before I have a go at any of you ;)
I can't tell if the diction in your poem is odd, or if I'm just tired.
It may be a combination of both.
But since I'm sleepy, I won't make the mistake of attempting to string
two coherent thoughts together (not that I can when fully awake).
Welcome to aapc, Harper.
--
Julie Carter
Harper M. Willson
>I can't tell if the diction in your poem is odd, or if I'm just tired.
>It may be a combination of both
I suspect you're right, likely it's a bit of both!
>But since I'm sleepy, I won't make the mistake of attempting to string
>two coherent thoughts together (not that I can when fully awake).
When you're a little more refreshed, will you have another go? I would
appreciate it untellably. Like so many people who come here with their poems in
tow, I have received a whole lot of what I suspect is empty praise. I want to
improve; I want to come of age (eventually, I hope) as a poet.
>Welcome to aapc, Harper.
Thank you. Sleep well.
Harper
DRHarkness
image. I couldn't help thinking that it was meant to sound busier, but
instead came across as a bit disjointed? But that might just be me. Thanks
for the read.
Dean.
"Harper M. Willson" spake thus:
Harper M. Willson
wrote:
>Hello Harper. Nice to have you here!
Thank you very much! So many warm welcomes. What a great group!
Harper M. Willson
wrote:
>Hello Harper. Nice to have you here! I enjoyed this; it conjures a good
>image. I couldn't help thinking that it was meant to sound busier, but
>instead came across as a bit disjointed?
I meant also to say that yes, I have heard that for such a brief poem set in
the present moment and staying there, I've created a "difficult" read. You're
right, it's supposed to depict throng and bustle (as if I were walking the
midway with my video camera rolling), but I guess I've tossed together a
confusing hodgepodge of images instead. No, it's definitely not "just you." :-)
>Thanks
>for the read.
You're welcome, golly, thanks for reading.
If you if have a mind to -- could you tell me where the poem kind of, well,
goes afoul? I'd like to improve it and attempt (based on *serious* criticism) a
rewrite. I'm so used to it myself, everything about it seems (and sounds)
"inevitable." I could really use another point of view.
Thanks again, Dean :)
Harper
(here's my poem once again, for those of you reading mid-thread):
Tiniap
Hey there Harper,
I don't have a terrible lot of comments, but what few i have i'll
give.
There's a curious lack of punctuation for the first half or even
two-thirds of this poem that didn't worry me so much as I felt you
were trying something a la W.S. Merwin. But the more punctuated endind
made the thing look uneven -- where were those commas and semi-colons
in the beginning, or why are they there at the end?
By and large, i liked the story in the poem though by the end it
didn't completely come together for me - even after a couple re-reads.
Either it is a touch too obscure in places or more likely it's just my
island-boy failing to contextualize the scene accurate -- homeless
woman, skaters, students on break.
A few other comments below --
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>Down the Midway
>
>There was first the obliging
I love this linebreak
>woman homeless ragtied and fragile
you might not need 'homeless'. Ragtied is doing a lot of nice work in
this line.
>beside the lump in the mummy bag
>who was sleeping.
>Complicit she smiled for the lovers
i'm in two minds about 'complicit'
>who came before the bandstand
>after the one man
>who with a paper map sat
>crosslegged on a bath towel.
>I was smiling too.
on each read I was taken aback by the author's intrusion. I'm almost
certain it isn't necessary or done smoothly enough --- but at the same
time i confess this could be a personal bias. George Tolis recently
pointed out my own obvious hesitancy to include 'I's in my narrative.
Anyway, i'll run off now.
Thanks for the read, and welcome to aapc.
Regards
Andrew
Harper M. Willson
>Hey there Harper,
Hi Andrew. Thanks for contributing.
>I don't have a terrible lot of comments, but what few i have i'll
>give.
Every little bit is appreciated. I like this group because you folks seem
unlikely to pull your punches.
>There's a curious lack of punctuation for the first half or even
>two-thirds of this poem that didn't worry me so much as I felt you
>were trying something a la W.S. Merwin.
Wow. It conscious, but Merwin is a fave. Thank you.
>But the more punctuated endind
>made the thing look uneven -- where were those commas and semi-colons
>in the beginning, or why are they there at the end?
I agree. It needs to be punctuated uniformly throughout, one way or the other.
Excellent point.
>By and large, i liked the story in the poem though by the end it
>didn't completely come together for me - even after a couple re-reads.
Thank you. It doesn't quite "gell" for a lot of people (though nearly everyone
who reads it out loud likes the "sound").
>Either it is a touch too obscure in places or more likely it's just my
>island-boy failing to contextualize the scene accurate -- homeless
>woman, skaters, students on break.
I may be pulling in one too many diverse images. It may be too populace. It
might be just too obcure.
It's supposed to be a sort of "short film:" Walking the (carnival) midway,
"this" is what I saw.
I tried to make it roll right along from tight vignette to tight vignette: a
homeless woman on the sidelines watches the action. Her smiling "complicity" is
a benediction of sorts; clearly the lovers are less aware than the others, lost
in each other (her own counterpart in the sleeping bag is lost in himself), but
she feels affection for their youthful self-involvement. The map man is a
shadowy figure -- maybe a menace, maybe a innocuous businss man. Whoever he is,
he leaves his things behind (his map, his lunch).
The punk kids -- a highschool skateboarder's clique -- make unholy noise; a
younger kid on a bike, alone in his effort, makes a unlovely face. The map
man's map blows away. Movement and (deliberately ambiguous) change. Stasis too:
the homeless man, however "royal" dragging his bag, is a scavenger still.
With this character I tried to pull it full circle :he rises (like a "royal")
to help himself to the map man's discarded food. I wanted to give the anonymous
sleeping lump a moment of (albeit mixed, ironic) dignity. Perhaps it doesn't
work at all.
>>Down the Midway
>>
>>There was first the obliging
>
>I love this linebreak
>
Thanks. Me too :)
DRHarkness
"Harper M. Willson" spake thus:
<snip>
> You're welcome, golly, thanks for reading.
> If you if have a mind to -- could you tell me where the poem kind of,
well,
> goes afoul? I'd like to improve it and attempt (based on *serious*
criticism) a
> rewrite. I'm so used to it myself, everything about it seems (and sounds)
> "inevitable." I could really use another point of view.
>
> Thanks again, Dean :)
>
> Harper
>
> (here's my poem once again, for those of you reading mid-thread):
>
> >> Down the Midway
> >>
> >> There was first the obliging
I don't get the use of "first" here.
> >> woman homeless ragtied and fragile
> >> beside the lump in the mummy bag
> >> who was sleeping.
> >> Complicit she smiled for the lovers
> >> who came before the bandstand
> >> after the one man
> >> who with a paper map sat
> >> crosslegged on a bath towel.
I'm not sure about the inclusion of the narrator at this point iether.
> >> I was smiling too.
> >> I liked how he held her how he sat while she lay
> >> hiked her skirt to show her leg,
> >> drew it up with his own.
Because you have used descriptions of specific people, I don't get any sense
of hussle and bussle, but just the image of the three people you are seeing.
> >> In the lane skaters scraped painful on pavement
> >> talked in knots making unshaven summer plans
> >> for the mayhem of a senior year.
> >> I passed through their plot to see a boy's foot
> >> press effortful upon a pedal
> >> braced teeth bite down on a lip exerted,
> >> maroon as his shirt.
> >> The loved girl lay undemanding
> >> in hands blessed by squatters;
> >> a paper map rolled like a wheel.
> >> The lump rose to cruise
> >> the map man's abandoned lunch,
> >> trailing his bag like a royal.
There are some beatiful lines here. And although you've added the group of
youths, I'm still not seeing or sensing the whole scene that was before you.
Perhaps just a referance to the throngs of people would do. What was the
weather like, (or is that just my englishness) and what time of day was it?
Perhaps a reference to the landscape in general, (or specifically) too?
> >> ------------
> >> comments welcome
I'm learning to comment as much as to write poetry; hope this is some help.
Dean.
Harper M. Willson
>>Down the Midway
>>
>>There was first the obliging
>
>I love this linebreak
>
Ahem. Once again, thank you. In my three years on Usenet, I have never
experienced messages spontaneously sending themselves until just this week.
Odd. Anyhow --
>>woman homeless ragtied and fragile
>
>you might not need 'homeless'. Ragtied is doing a lot of nice work in
>this line.
>
Two questions -- 1. Read it the line again (if you would) as well as the line
that follows and tell me if I were to pull "homeless," would I improve my
rhythm, or will be missing two beats? I honestly cannot tell anymore. 2. Is it
clear, if the "homeless" were to go, that the woman and the "lump" in the mummy
bag are vagabonds?
>>who was sleeping.
>>Complicit she smiled for the lovers
>
>i'm in two minds about 'complicit'
>
Supposed to connote benediction, approval (although it's possible I have chosen
the wrong word for the job :-)
>>who came before the bandstand
>>after the one man
>>who with a paper map sat
>>crosslegged on a bath towel.
>>I was smiling too.
>
>on each read I was taken aback by the author's intrusion. I'm almost
>certain it isn't necessary or done smoothly enough --- but at the same
>time i confess this could be a personal bias.
Oh my. Me too! I was persuaded by a prof that I simply MUST insert myself in
there somewhere. It does jar the ear, doesn't it?
>Anyway, i'll run off now.
>Thanks for the read, and welcome to aapc.
Thanks very much, Andrew, for your insightful comments. Good stuff I can work
with!
Harper
gnarl
Willson) wrote:
>
>>> Down the Midway
>>>
>>> There was first the obliging
>>> woman homeless ragtied and fragile
Comma or other punctuation would help here.
>>> beside the lump in the mummy bag
>>> who was sleeping.
The whole sentence runs along in such a fasion that it blurs the sense
of the lines.
>>> Complicit she smiled for the lovers
>>> who came before the bandstand
>>> after the one man
>>> who with a paper map sat
>>> crosslegged on a bath towel.
Same thing here. Perhaps a division into stanzas might help?
>>> I was smiling too.
>>> I liked how he held her how he sat while she lay
>>> hiked her skirt to show her leg,
>>> drew it up with his own.
This seems a little awkward, though I can't quite pinpoint why.
>>> In the lane skaters scraped painful on pavement
>>> talked in knots making unshaven summer plans
>>> for the mayhem of a senior year.
A gain, though I can see you might have wanted to indicate a rushing,
the lack of pauses in this is distracting to me.
>>> I passed through their plot to see a boy's foot
>>> press effortful upon a pedal
>>> braced teeth bite down on a lip exerted,
>>> maroon as his shirt.
>>> The loved girl lay undemanding
>>> in hands blessed by squatters;
I didn't understand the previous line.
>>> a paper map rolled like a wheel.
>>> The lump rose to cruise
>>> the map man's abandoned lunch,
>>> trailing his bag like a royal.
The lump refers to the woman?
g.
Peter J Ross
removed the following benign growth from Harper M. Willson:
> I've dutifully read the aapc FAQ and (in the last week) many, many posts.
I've never quite lost my faith that one day somebody would do that
before blundering in. ;-)
> Somehow (despite urgings to the contrary) it just didn't seem right to
> parachute into a thread, a complete unknown, with remarks of any kind.
You're more likely to receive comments if you give some back than if
you merely ask persistently.
> While it may be no better to plop a first post into your group all newby-like
> with a poem of my own, I've decided that I really ought to let you have a go at
> me, before I have a go at any of you ;)
I'll see what I can do.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> Down the Midway
>
> There was first the obliging
"First" leads me to expect "second" and "third", or at least something
like "next", but nothing of the kind is even implied later in the
poem. It makes the structure unclear.
> woman homeless ragtied and fragile
The woman may be poor, but she's not short of adjectives. Four may be
one or two too many. "Homeless" could easily be left implicit, and
"fragile" is abstract - it conveys no sensory data at all.
> beside the lump in the mummy bag
> who was sleeping.
> Complicit she smiled for the lovers
"Complicit" looks journalistic to me; in fact the only reference
quoted in my dictionary is from a newspaper article. In any case,
isn't her complicity /shown/ adequately by the poem without having to
be /told/ to the reader too?
> who came before the bandstand
> after the one man
> who with a paper map sat
> crosslegged on a bath towel.
Most of these line breaks seem to be random.
> I was smiling too.
> I liked
Since the narrator is only an observer, there's rather too much about
his feelings here.
> how he held her how he sat while she lay
> hiked her skirt to show her leg,
It's unclear whether the subject of "hiked" is "he" or "she".
> drew it up with his own.
There are nine pronouns in three lines, if you include the
possessives. It's too many.
> In the lane skaters scraped painful on pavement
"Painful on pavement" is straight out of fourteenth-century
alliterative verse. It's not bad in itself, but it doesn't fit well
with the rest.
> talked in knots making unshaven summer plans
"Unshaven summer plans" is very good.
> for the mayhem of a senior year.
They tell me that a single word can't be a cliché, but if "mayhem"
isn't a cliché then it's at least a worn-out image.
> I passed through their plot to see a boy's foot
> press effortful upon a pedal
"Effortful" doesn't add anything that isn't fully communicated by the
next line.
> braced teeth bite down on a lip exerted,
> maroon as his shirt.
These two episodes have taken us a long way from the opening scene,
both in time and in distance, but now you return to it without any
indication of the narrator's having gone back.
> The loved girl lay undemanding
Who's to say that she's "loved"? The narrator can't be a human
observer (as above) and omniscient (as here) in the course of a single
poem.
> in hands blessed by squatters;
I'm unable to see either why the squatters should bless the hands or
whose hands they are - the squatters' or somebody else's.
> a paper map rolled like a wheel.
It's an almost surreal image, and, like the alliterative verse above,
it doesn't quite fit.
> The lump rose to cruise
> the map man's abandoned lunch,
> trailing his bag like a royal.
I think this is just the right kind of non-climax.
It's the detailed observation and (mostly) detached tone that make
this poem worth reading, but the total effect is of a jumble of
unconnected observations and nothing more. The scene presented at the
beginning and the end isn't integrated with the episodes of the
skaters and the cyclist. It's as if part of one poem has been inserted
rather clumsily into the middle of another. Perhaps the two episodes
could be moved to the beginning, where they'd be introductory instead
of distracting?
Good luck revising.
PJR :-)
Harper M. Willson
>On 06 Apr 2002 04:23:19 GMT, the surgeons of alt.arts.poetry.comments
>removed the following benign growth from Harper M. Willson:
>> I've dutifully read the aapc FAQ and (in the last week) many, many posts.
>I've never quite lost my faith that one day somebody would do that
>before blundering in. ;-)
Even I, who read the FAQ, blundered by being timid about making commentary but
still pestering folks for C&C on my own stuff. People who don't read the FAQ
and get no replies must be mystified!
>> Somehow (despite urgings to the contrary) it just didn't seem right to
>> parachute into a thread, a complete unknown, with remarks of any kind.
>You're more likely to receive comments if you give some back than if
>you merely ask persistently.
I've made a few stabs at it tonight. This forum is liberating. I find myself
saying things -- making (friendly, courteous) critical judgments -- that would
/never/ have flown in my so-called "developmental" poetry writing groups.
In fact every writing class or workshop I've attended has been largely useless
to me: by spoken or unspoken rule, no one would ever say, Ah, Herman, this
lovely, elegiac poem to your late great Uncle Martin hasn't a single concrete
image (but is choc-a-bloc with abstraction) ... and why oh why are you writing
in heroic couplets, anyway? I'm sure someone, somewhere, would have _loved_ to
take a mower to my hedgerows of adjectival excess (and other foibles), but they
simply couldn't. It wasn't "done."
>> While it may be no better to plop a first post into your group all
>newby-like
>> with a poem of my own, I've decided that I really ought to let you have a
>go at
>> me, before I have a go at any of you ;)
>I'll see what I can do.
Great. Thank you.
>> Down the Midway
>>
>> There was first the obliging
>"First" leads me to expect "second" and "third", or at least something
>like "next", but nothing of the kind is even implied later in the
>poem. It makes the structure unclear.
Is "next" not implied by the immediate advent of the lovers who came "before"
(the bandstand)"; "after" the "one man"?
I've completely loused up my compass (not to mention my clock), haven't I?
First a ragtied woman (before this but after that - god what a mess). Ok.
>> woman homeless ragtied and fragile
>The woman may be poor, but she's not short of adjectives.
:-) My bane.
Four may be
>one or two too many. "Homeless" could easily be left implicit, and
>"fragile" is abstract - it conveys no sensory data at all.
How does a woman "ragtied"-- all by it's lonesome -- strike you? Enough to
impart her toothless mouth, her dirty shirt -- in short, her shaky foothold on
the earth? What do you think?
>> beside the lump in the mummy bag
>> who was sleeping.
>> Complicit she smiled for the lovers
>"Complicit" looks journalistic to me; in fact the only reference
>quoted in my dictionary is from a newspaper article. In any case,
>isn't her complicity /shown/ adequately by the poem without having to
>be /told/ to the reader too?
Is it? Not that it matters what I meant, now that I know it's not working for a
number of people, but by "complicit," I meant to imply the older (perhaps
sexually "irrelevant") woman's conspiratorial wink at the young lovers. She's
"with them" in spirit. She's not bitter about her unhappy station in life;
she's pleased for them. There's something generous about her smiling for them.
But -- if it sounds funky, out it goes.
>> who came before the bandstand
>> after the one man
>> who with a paper map sat
>> crosslegged on a bath towel.
>
>Most of these line breaks seem to be random.
Ok, I'll double check myself on line breaks on revision.
>> I was smiling too.
>> I liked
>Since the narrator is only an observer, there's rather too much about
>his feelings here.
Right on. It was a professor who urged me to insert an "I" perspective in the
poem somewhere, and so I did, much to my displeasure. Until now I thought he
must have been right, but you and at least three others have remarked that it
is indeed intrusive. Thanks.
>> how he held her how he sat while she lay
>> hiked her skirt to show her leg,
>It's unclear whether the subject of "hiked" is "he" or "she".
Yep. It's a muddle.
>> drew it up with his own.
>There are nine pronouns in three lines, if you include the
>possessives. It's too many.
Hmmm. Right again. I've a lot of work to do, clearly.
Is it worth tinkering with do ya think?
>> In the lane skaters scraped painful on pavement
>"Painful on pavement" is straight out of fourteenth-century
>alliterative verse. It's not bad in itself, but it doesn't fit well
>with the rest.
That it was an incidental alliteration makes it no less painful to hear I'm
sounding like fourteenth-century /anything/ Yikes :)
>> talked in knots making unshaven summer plans
>"Unshaven summer plans" is very good.
Thank you.
>> for the mayhem of a senior year.
>They tell me that a single word can't be a cliché, but if "mayhem"
>isn't a cliché then it's at least a worn-out image.
Ok :)
>> I passed through their plot to see a boy's foot
>> press effortful upon a pedal
>"Effortful" doesn't add anything that isn't fully communicated by the
>next line.
The same prof who pressed me to toss in the "I" was also impressed with my
"effortful" (although he wanted me to change it to "effortfully," to make it
nice and grammatical).
>> braced teeth bite down on a lip exerted,
>> maroon as his shirt.
>These two episodes have taken us a long way from the opening scene,
>both in time and in distance, but now you return to it without any
>indication of the narrator's having gone back.
Time and distance: I wanted to make this poem a sort of cinematic experience --
cinema verite (lol). Instead I've got bedlam. Poet to your winnowing table,
tout suite! (I'll ask again, is it really worth messing with?)
>> The loved girl lay undemanding
>Who's to say that she's "loved"? The narrator can't be a human
>observer (as above) and omniscient (as here) in the course of a single
>poem.
Well, I was trying (and failing) to use "loved" as a verb. The boy was "loving"
her; she was a girl being "loved."
>> in hands blessed by squatters;
>I'm unable to see either why the squatters should bless the hands or
>whose hands they are - the squatters' or somebody else's.
The complicity of the ragtied woman comes in here: she is the squatter who
blessed the hands (by smiling her approval) of the man who held the girl. An
attempt to contrast different stages of a woman's life -- the "lover" and the
"crone," I guess. The point was, the blessing (her complicity) went without
notice, wasn't /intended/ to draw notice, and it came from an unlikely quarter
for benediction: a ("mere") homeless woman But that's kinda what made it
poignant for me. Or potent. Or both. I dunno.
>> a paper map rolled like a wheel.
>It's an almost surreal image, and, like the alliterative verse above,
>it doesn't quite fit.
An attempt to show that the "map man" had gone, leaving his things behind.
Also, just kinda interesting to me, a map on the loose, but ineffective, I
guess.
>> The lump rose to cruise
>> the map man's abandoned lunch,
>> trailing his bag like a royal.
>I think this is just the right kind of non-climax.
Good. Thanks.
>It's the detailed observation and (mostly) detached tone that make
>this poem worth reading, but the total effect is of a jumble of
>unconnected observations and nothing more. The scene presented at the
>beginning and the end isn't integrated with the episodes of the
>skaters and the cyclist. It's as if part of one poem has been inserted
>rather clumsily into the middle of another. Perhaps the two episodes
>could be moved to the beginning, where they'd be introductory instead
>of distracting?
I will try it.
>Good luck revising.
Thank you, Peter, for lending your attention to my little poem. Thanks also for
not scolding me for rather forcibly directing you here :) You've helped me
tremendously.
Harper
Peter J Ross
removed the following benign growth from Harper M. Willson:
> Peter J Ross p...@britishlibrary.net wrote:
> >On 06 Apr 2002 04:23:19 GMT, the surgeons of alt.arts.poetry.comments
> >removed the following benign growth from Harper M. Willson:
<snip>
> >You're more likely to receive comments if you give some back than if
> >you merely ask persistently.
>
> I've made a few stabs at it tonight.
You're doing an excellent job.
One or two further comments on this one:
<snip>
> >> Down the Midway
> >>
> >> There was first the obliging
>
> >"First" leads me to expect "second" and "third", or at least something
> >like "next", but nothing of the kind is even implied later in the
> >poem. It makes the structure unclear.
>
> Is "next" not implied by the immediate advent of the lovers who came "before"
> (the bandstand)"; "after" the "one man"?
No. It isn't clear that the lovers weren't present at the beginning,
and "first" seems like the beginning of a list rather than a reference
to the order of events.
> I've completely loused up my compass (not to mention my clock), haven't I?
> First a ragtied woman (before this but after that - god what a mess). Ok.
You have a huge cast of characters for such a small poem, and it isn't
easy in places to tell which is which. This is where clarification is
most needed.
<snip>
> How does a woman "ragtied"-- all by it's lonesome -- strike you? Enough to
> impart her toothless mouth, her dirty shirt -- in short, her shaky foothold on
> the earth? What do you think?
It strikes me as quite good enough, but if you can find /better/
adjectives than "homeless" and "fragile" they wouldn't seem as
superfluous.
> >> beside the lump in the mummy bag
> >> who was sleeping.
> >> Complicit she smiled for the lovers
>
> >"Complicit" looks journalistic to me; in fact the only reference
> >quoted in my dictionary is from a newspaper article. In any case,
> >isn't her complicity /shown/ adequately by the poem without having to
> >be /told/ to the reader too?
>
> Is it? Not that it matters what I meant, now that I know it's not working for a
> number of people, but by "complicit," I meant to imply the older (perhaps
> sexually "irrelevant") woman's conspiratorial wink at the young lovers. She's
> "with them" in spirit. She's not bitter about her unhappy station in life;
> she's pleased for them. There's something generous about her smiling for them.
> But -- if it sounds funky, out it goes.
That's a lot of meaning to try to put into one word. If it's important
for the poem, you'll have to say more.
<snip>
> Is it worth tinkering with do ya think?
If I thought it was unsalvageable I'd have said so. It might
eventually prove not to work, but it's certainly worth revision.
> >> In the lane skaters scraped painful on pavement
>
> >"Painful on pavement" is straight out of fourteenth-century
> >alliterative verse. It's not bad in itself, but it doesn't fit well
> >with the rest.
>
> That it was an incidental alliteration makes it no less painful to hear I'm
> sounding like fourteenth-century /anything/ Yikes :)
It's the omission of "the" that causes the problem.
<snip>
> >> in hands blessed by squatters;
>
> >I'm unable to see either why the squatters should bless the hands or
> >whose hands they are - the squatters' or somebody else's.
>
> The complicity of the ragtied woman comes in here: she is the squatter who
> blessed the hands (by smiling her approval) of the man who held the girl. An
> attempt to contrast different stages of a woman's life -- the "lover" and the
> "crone," I guess. The point was, the blessing (her complicity) went without
> notice, wasn't /intended/ to draw notice, and it came from an unlikely quarter
> for benediction: a ("mere") homeless woman But that's kinda what made it
> poignant for me. Or potent. Or both. I dunno.
The plural "squatters" is confusing, and very little of your intention
here is detectable in the text. If it's important, you'll have to put
more of it in.
> >> a paper map rolled like a wheel.
>
> >It's an almost surreal image, and, like the alliterative verse above,
> >it doesn't quite fit.
>
> An attempt to show that the "map man" had gone, leaving his things behind.
> Also, just kinda interesting to me, a map on the loose, but ineffective, I
> guess.
The meaning is clear enough. It's the difficulty of visualising the
simile that bothered me, since everything else in the poem is fairly
plain description.
<snip>
Again, good luck with this one. It's good to have you here.
PJR :-)
GeorgeTolis
news:20020405232319...@mb-ct.aol.com...
> I've dutifully read the aapc FAQ and (in the last week) many, many
posts.
Welcome, Mr. Wilson. Your presence so far has brightened an otherwise
cynical quadrangle of virtual existence.
> Somehow (despite urgings to the contrary) it just didn't seem right to
> parachute into a thread, a complete unknown, with remarks of any kind.
Generally, like you said elsewhere, people parachute in and parachute
out again without knowing why they received the remarks they did. I
admire your restraint thus far. It took me a while to stop wanting to
tell people what I think of them, but I still indulge from time to time.
I just don't click "send".
> While it may be no better to plop a first post into your group all
newby-like
> with a poem of my own, I've decided that I really ought to let you
have a go at
> me, before I have a go at any of you ;)
I hope you don't wish you'd never said that. You seem far too polite to
admit it.
The trouble I see with this poem is how it is line *bang* line *bang*
line *bang*. The flow is almost non-existent between each line, as I've
tried to demonstrate, by reversing the order of the lines to show you
just how much of it makes sense that way. I've changed the punctuation
a little in the redraft, though if you leave it all out and get a bit
more inventive than I did, you can see what I think is the problem.
For a poem that has a fairly, hmm, how do I say it? Restrained?
Mainstream? Boring? Subdued? - a fairly 'tea-party' tone, you're trying
to bring in something a bit more potent, political. The effect of this
tone is to leave it all pretty 'Midway', fairly rose-tinted, which you
may well have intended, but it left me, as you can guess, fairly
dismissive. Hence a delay in critting this.
Anyway, here's the reverse-ordered poem.
"Trailing his bag like a royal,
the map man's abandoned lunch;
The lump rose to cruise
a paper map rolled like a wheel.
In hands blessed by squatters
The loved girl lay undemanding,
maroon as his shirt.
Braced teeth bite down on a lip exerted,
press effortful upon a pedal.
I passed through their plot to see a boy's foot
for the mayhem of a senior year
talked in knots making unshaven summer plans -
In the lane skaters scraped painful on pavement -
drew it up with his own -
hiked her skirt to show her leg,
I liked how he held her how he sat while she lay,
I was smiling too.
Crosslegged on a bath towel
who with a paper map sat
after the one man
who came before the bandstand,
Complicit, she smiled for the lovers.
Who was sleeping
Beside the lump in the mummy bag?
Woman, homeless ragtied and fragile
there was first the obliging."
As you can see, a lot of it makes sense and I find this a lot more
interesting, even if it's purely on a technicality. I would call your
poem a 'hedging of the bets' and I think the redraft needs to involve a
drastic disorder before I can come back and give it line by line
critique.
Of course, you've got the skills here - imagery, good voice and tone.
Nothing that excites ***me***. Anyway, hope it helps a little.
G.
Harper M. Willson
>Welcome, Mr. Wilson. Your presence so far has brightened an otherwise
>cynical quadrangle of virtual existence.
Heya George! Thanks for the warm welcome. I should mention, I suppose, before
this common newsgroup misconception goes on much longer (not to be too
punchliney about it): I'm a chick. A gal. Fm. Can I still keep my beat creds?
:-)
>> Somehow (despite urgings to the contrary) it just didn't seem right to
>> parachute into a thread, a complete unknown, with remarks of any kind.
>Generally, like you said elsewhere, people parachute in and parachute
>out again without knowing why they received the remarks they did.
I felt crummy about Ross from Baltimore (Flames of Desire), until I read Tom
Woolery's repost of the dude's calling card on some swingers' ng: "WM, Prof,
Str8t, attractive and fun, is ready to bring a smile to your passionate female
face... Daytime love sessions are yours ..." Lol. Gotta be a dirtbag (or a bad
David Spade impressionist ;-)
>I admire your restraint thus far.
;-)
There's clearly a lot of earnest people writing largely untutored poetry and
posting it to this newsgroup for critique; some of it is almost impossible to
remark upon (and say anything encouraging). These are the folks who's posts
most often _do_ go without remark: what can one say, really? (A sentiment
doubtless you felt upon reading my first humdrum offering :)
OTOH, these are also the people who clearly could use the feedback. So. I'm in
a quandary. I'm afraid if I keep repeatin' myself (cliche, concrete image,
squirrely motif, yada yada) I'll start to sound like a magpie or a shrew (or in
any event, annoying), but I have a feeling the same fundamental (and yet
imminently overcomable) problems will continue to crop up among posters new to
poetry writing. JAS Carter has a great idea for assembling a poetry resource
(to be appended to the FAQ I assume), but since lot of people seem loath to
read the FAQ itself, I'm afraid it might prove equally, erm, under-resourced.
What to do? Well, I propose that no one should go without at least one reply: a
friendly (even lighthearted) "form letter" advising the poster that if they
have received no personal replies, here are the likely reasons (check your poem
for these common mistakes and repost). What do you think? (Who will write it,
how we'll all agree on its content, who should send it and when, are also
questions I put to you.)
>It took me a while to stop wanting to tell people what I think of them, but I
still indulge >from time to time. I just don't click "send".
You see, another two weeks of c&c and I'm gonna develop a bad case trigger
fingers. I never want to come off brusque (or god forbid, wearily knowing).
>> While it may be no better to plop a first post into your group all
newby-like
>>with a poem of my own, I've decided that I really ought to let you
have a go at
>> me, before I have a go at any of you ;)
>I hope you don't wish you'd never said that. You seem far too polite to
>admit it.
Thank you. I don't imagine I'll have any regrets. I'm not talentless, but I
have gobs to learn. I've been softballed (did I just say that?) all my life. I
was looking for a writing newsgroup with teeth. I think I've hit paydirt with
aapc.
>The trouble I see with this poem is how it is line *bang* line *bang*
>line *bang*. The flow is almost non-existent between each line, as I've
>tried to demonstrate, by reversing the order of the lines to show you
>just how much of it makes sense that way. I've changed the punctuation
>a little in the redraft, though if you leave it all out and get a bit
>more inventive than I did, you can see what I think is the problem.
I agree the lines go bang bang bang; that's how I wanted (for whatever
ill-conceived reason) the images to hit. But I see now it doesn't amount to
much more than a jumble of disconnected images (and a handful of merely dulcet
tones).
>For a poem that has a fairly, hmm, how do I say it? Restrained?
>Mainstream? Boring? Subdued? - a fairly 'tea-party' tone, you're trying
Lol. I can see you gritting your teeth. It's ok ;)
>to bring in something a bit more potent, political. The effect of this
>tone is to leave it all pretty 'Midway', fairly rose-tinted, which you
>may well have intended, but it left me, as you can guess, fairly
>dismissive. Hence a delay in critting this.
I'm glad you decided to comment after all, because this ...
>Anyway, here's the reverse-ordered poem.
_this_ is a revelation to me:
Astoundingly, it does. How is this possible? It makes the kind of sense I
strove to make in the first place: suggestive of the imagist tropes of film
director Wim Wenders (Wings of Desire).I really dig it this way.
>and I find this a lot more interesting,
So do I!
>even if it's purely on a technicality. I would call your poem a 'hedging of
the bets' and I >think the redraft needs to involve a drastic disorder
also recommended by Peter
>before I can come back and give it line by line critique.
Fair enough.
>Of course, you've got the skills here - imagery, good voice and tone.
Thank you.
>Nothing that excites ***me***.
I can see why not :-)
>Anyway, hope it helps a little.
It does. I am very grateful.
Fondly,
Harper
Tom
..hope you don't mind me injecting.. you bring up
some interesting ideas below..
"Harper M. Willson" <cinem...@aol.commoner> wrote
> "GeorgeTolis" catal...@ukonline.co.uk wrote:
>
> >Welcome, Mr. Wilson. Your presence so far has brightened an otherwise
> >cynical quadrangle of virtual existence.
>
> Heya George! Thanks for the warm welcome. I should mention, I suppose, before
> this common newsgroup misconception goes on much longer (not to be too
> punchliney about it): I'm a chick. A gal. Fm. Can I still keep my beat creds?
> :-)
Welcome Harper, your posts have been a pleasure, and
now find that you are a "gal".. how nice! ..a personal
favorite gender of mine.
<skip>
> OTOH, these are also the people who clearly could use the feedback. So. I'm in
> a quandary. I'm afraid if I keep repeatin' myself (cliche, concrete image,
> squirrely motif, yada yada) I'll start to sound like a magpie or a shrew (or in
> any event, annoying), but I have a feeling the same fundamental (and yet
> imminently overcomable) problems will continue to crop up among posters new to
> poetry writing. JAS Carter has a great idea for assembling a poetry resource
> (to be appended to the FAQ I assume), but since lot of people seem loath to
> read the FAQ itself, I'm afraid it might prove equally, erm, under-resourced.
I think it would be good to collect the information that Julie
gathers, and put it on a website. Although it is possible to
just access usenet postings on Google, pretty much forever.
> What to do? Well, I propose that no one should go without at least one reply: a
> friendly (even lighthearted) "form letter" advising the poster that if they
> have received no personal replies, here are the likely reasons (check your poem
> for these common mistakes and repost). What do you think? (Who will write it,
> how we'll all agree on its content, who should send it and when, are also
> questions I put to you.)
This sounds like a good idea to me.
A form letter of sorts that has some information,
and also useful pointers.
Clearly the appc FAQ site..
George's rec. to me was Ezra Pound's "Retrospective"
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/m_r/pound/retrospect.htm
..possible crazy question:
Is it feasible to have a number of categories of
problems, such as:
- overuse of cliche
- poor spelling
- poor grammer
- poor meter
- lacks originality
..etc. need a full list
..that (if desired) the AutoCritique poster could 'X', to indicate
in a simple, general way that might indicate the basic
reason a posting is not critiqued.
..another possibly crazy idea:
Suggest we might create a "virtual identity" that posts
such things, so that no person has to take the heat.
Then people assume that identity (email addr and name
could be setup in people's nntp readers) and post.
Like: Auto <AutoCr...@Poetry.Comments>
Seems that such responses should only post if the
original has gone uncommented for 2 days? ..3 days?
I would volunteer to help with this, since I am less
confident to dissect line by line, at this point.
I am new, and would be interested in good pointers,
such as this posting would provide.
<skip>
--
Oneness,
Tom - http://TomsPoems.Truly.Nu
GeorgeTolis
Harper M. Willson <cinem...@aol.commoner> wrote in message
> "GeorgeTolis" catal...@ukonline.co.uk wrote:
>
> >Welcome, Mr. Wilson. Your presence so far has brightened an otherwise
> >cynical quadrangle of virtual existence.
>
> Heya George! Thanks for the warm welcome. I should mention, I suppose,
before
> this common newsgroup misconception goes on much longer (not to be too
> punchliney about it): I'm a chick. A gal. Fm. Can I still keep my beat
creds?
> :-)
Thank you for clarifying, Harper. The few seconds I subliminally
alloted to guessing which you were went as far as "sounds like Hart
Crane, must be a geezer." And thank you for not pointing out that I'd
mispelt your surname. I think your beat creds are safe. What are beat
creds?
<snip>
Not everyone gives the same level of critique, but *anyone* can give
useful comments. That's something a lot of people are very scared of.
Simply saying, "I liked this" is well enough, but useful critique is no
more than saying the /why/. If a poem is reprehensible, I suppose it's
just luck that someone in the group hasn't written a critique for a crap
poem recently and is willing to give it the once over. The trouble with
the repetition is that /so much/ could be fixed if these people read the
FAQ, all the way down to the links and so on. There is a huge amount
just beyond the gateway of the site. Then you need to lurk here for a
week or two at least, like the FAQ says. But from a single reply it's
possible to see the people who don't even proofread, let alone read the
suggested links.
And, OTOH, sometimes it's not possible to comment on poems because they
are of a certain nature that the writer's style is beyond you. I can't
comment on Walter Alter's poetry, as I think he's built a way writing up
that I've not been broken into. Same with a few of the well-versed
(ahem) poets; their styles are very developed, their voices are well
thought out so that if I wander up and start prodding it with my yellow
paintbrush, their blue poem will turn green and no longer look like they
painted it with a blue paintbrush. Sorry, don't know where all that came
from.
> What to do? Well, I propose that no one should go without at least one
reply: a
> friendly (even lighthearted) "form letter" advising the poster that if
they
> have received no personal replies, here are the likely reasons (check
your poem
> for these common mistakes and repost). What do you think? (Who will
write it,
> how we'll all agree on its content, who should send it and when, are
also
> questions I put to you.)
I don't know... It kind of keeps a few posters happy. I mean, when a
webtv-er slaps up one of those angeldozer nightsky-backed html poems
with the whiny-midi signature tunes, the ensuing bloodbath is a kind of
ritual.
Part of what you're saying involves recognising that below a certain
standard there are universal methods for improving poetry. Generally, I
like to call this information "A Retrospect" by Ezra Pound (see Tom's
post). Not everyone would agree with me and it's nigh on impossible to
convince a lot of new posters here to proofread, let alone read
something about poetry.
Have a look at these two links:
http://www.poetrysociety.org.uk/cafe/surgery.htm
http://www.poetrysociety.org.uk/info/prescrip.htm
Of special note on the second link is the wonderful description:
"The critical service includes an appraisal of your work by a chosen
poet and a prescription of further reading material and information on
organisations to widen your experience and appreciation of poetry."
Maybe that link should be posted to newcomers when they get stroppy.
But ok, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a revolution, that we
shouldn't rally the 'Bartleby's etc. etc. but I think this dystopia is
more fun than utopian visions can ever bring.
But.... If you really do think an automated response would be helpful, I
vote for jr sherman drafting the letter.
<snip>
> >The trouble I see with this poem is how it is line *bang* line *bang*
> >line *bang*. The flow is almost non-existent between each line, as
I've
> >tried to demonstrate, by reversing the order of the lines to show you
> >just how much of it makes sense that way. I've changed the
punctuation
> >a little in the redraft, though if you leave it all out and get a bit
> >more inventive than I did, you can see what I think is the problem.
>
> I agree the lines go bang bang bang; that's how I wanted (for whatever
> ill-conceived reason) the images to hit. But I see now it doesn't
amount to
> much more than a jumble of disconnected images (and a handful of
merely dulcet
> tones).
I tend to type my reactions to poems and I often don't acknowledge that
it might be a conscious decision on the poet's part. It's a habit
because I'm still in the learning process. If you meant it, see how you
can use it to the effect you want.
Sheer coincidence? I'm glad it helped though.
> It makes the kind of sense I
> strove to make in the first place: suggestive of the imagist tropes of
film
> director Wim Wenders (Wings of Desire).I really dig it this way.
Hmm. I looked it up and it looks like something I should really watch at
some point. Anyway, if you're into imagists I recommend HD above all
else. She experimented a lot with trying to get moving images into
poetry and prose, what with the outbreak of cinema as she was writing.
<snip>
Anyway, good luck with the real work.
Rgds,
G.
Harper M. Willson
>Harper M. Willson <cinem...@aol.commoner> wrote in message
>news:20020409010106...@mb-fz.aol.com...
>> "GeorgeTolis" catal...@ukonline.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> >Welcome, Mr. Wilson. Your presence so far has brightened an otherwise
>> >cynical quadrangle of virtual existence.
>>
>> Heya George! Thanks for the warm welcome. I should mention, I suppose,
>before
>> this common newsgroup misconception goes on much longer (not to be too
>> punchliney about it): I'm a chick. A gal. Fm. Can I still keep my beat
>creds?
>> :-)
>
>Thank you for clarifying, Harper. The few seconds I subliminally
>alloted to guessing which you were went as far as "sounds like Hart
>Crane,
Lol. That's an improvement on what I usually hear: Harper Valley PTA (was that
a TV show or something? like you should be expected to know). I was named after
Harper Lee.
>must be a geezer."
geezette
>And thank you for not pointing out that I'd
>mispelt your surname
Np. I didn't even notice (nah, I did, but nobody ever catches that superfluous
l )
>I think your beat creds are safe. What are beat
>creds?
street credibility - or in this case "beat" creds - bad pun :P
>> There's clearly a lot of earnest people writing largely untutored
>poetry and
>> posting it to this newsgroup for critique; some of it is almost
>impossible to
>> remark upon
[snip me yammering about ways to Utopianize aapc, cut to chase]
>I don't know... It kind of keeps a few posters happy. I mean, when a
>webtv-er slaps up one of those angeldozer nightsky-backed html poems
>with the whiny-midi signature tunes, the ensuing bloodbath is a kind of
>ritual.
>
Let's go with the bloodbath, then. Seriously.
>Have a look at these two links:
>
>http://www.poetrysociety.org.uk/cafe/surgery.htm
>
>http://www.poetrysociety.org.uk/info/prescrip.htm
>
I will, thank you.
>Maybe that link should be posted to newcomers when they get stroppy.
>But ok, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a revolution, that we
>shouldn't rally the 'Bartleby's etc. etc. but I think this dystopia is
>more fun than utopian visions can ever bring.
Agreed. Revolution retracted.
>But.... If you really do think an automated response would be helpful, I
>vote for jr sherman drafting the letter.
;-) He'd be the one!
as for my poem
>I tend to type my reactions to poems and I often don't acknowledge that
>it might be a conscious decision on the poet's part. It's a habit
>because I'm still in the learning process. If you meant it, see how you
>can use it to the effect you want.
>
Thank you. I've been squirrling around with it a little today; nothing much
doing. I'm afraid it's a dud. Think I'll concentrate on the other one currently
in the works here, "A Certain Finitude."
>Hmm. I looked it up [Wim Wender's film "Wings of Desire"]
>and it looks like something I should really watch at
>some point.
If you do, I'd love to hear what you think of it. It's pretty much cinema's
answer to poetry (or at least, its best answer).
>Anyway, if you're into imagists I recommend HD above all
>else. She experimented a lot with trying to get moving images into
>poetry and prose, what with the outbreak of cinema as she was writing.
I loved HD when I was a teen. Dunno why I let myself lose track of her. Thanks
for reminding me.
>Anyway, good luck with the real work.
Thanks, George. You're terrific.
Best,
Harper :-)
CasualTee
>instead came across as a bit disjointed?
I was glad to know it wasn't just me, I can't help thinking that a bit of
punctuation might help. On a side note, I was hung up on the word "Complicit"
for a bit, even wondering if the way you're using it here is gramatically
correct. Maybe it's a lack of punctuation. Anyway, welcome, just thought I'd
put in my two cents.
~Cas :)