Poetic vocabulary
Ricardo Carducci
Some words are more given to prose or common speech, and others more to
poetry. Or was this more a situation when archaisms were allowable? So,
does the "modern" (very general sense here) approach to poetry completely
open up the doors to more common or unusual diction, or is there still a
sort of 'poetic vocabulary'? Of cource, some words have more 'poetic'
atmosphere to them than their synonyms.
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments squeezed the following precious droplets from
"Ricardo Carducci" <ric....@ebrt.se>:
Come back and try again when you've actually read some poems, OK?
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
marg gold star
http://www.pjr-online.co.uk/
Ricardo Carducci
"Peter J Ross" <heres...@meow.org> wrote in message
news:mk87qukibvhcu2o8t...@4ax.com...
Come now, I am the best poet here.
And I've read more poetry than all of you combined.
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments squeezed the following precious droplets from
"Ricardo Carducci" <ric....@ebrt.se>:
>Come now, I am the best poet here.
>
>And I've read more poetry than all of you combined.
You're a troll.
Welcome.
M.H.Benders
Ricardo Carducci wrote:
> Come now, I am the best poet here.
Even Google never heard of you!
M.H.Benders
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.kannibaal.nl/
De enige echt gezellige literaire website op het net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dennis M. Hammes
An' maybe some-a day you be-a da Pope.
--
------(m+
~/:o)_|
The only way to elevate zeros
is to negate oneself.
http://scrawlmark.net
Paul Heslop
Nah, I think he's just looked around and seen what will get a
reaction... At least he's done his home work.
--
Paul. (I'd like to clip your wings so you can't fly...)
___________________________________________________________
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Paul Heslop
'pends one whether your into poetry in the classic sense or you're one
of the many who think they've broken the mold. I guess we all have to
use poetic words/phrases sometimes.
Tom Bishop
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote in message news:3DA3D4DA...@arvig.net...
Trade an o for an e
and he be-a
da Poop.
And everyone knows
that's deserving of a throne.
--
[..email response best, Tnx]
Tom Bishop ,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,
http://Poetry.Here.Nu - Poetry web hosting, with audio.
(email me for a custom sub-domain, like MyPoetry.Here.Nu)
Dale Houstman
Paul Heslop wrote:
> Ricardo Carducci wrote:
>
>>Do poets still adhere to the idea of a poetic vocabulary? The idea being:
>>Some words are more given to prose or common speech, and others more to
>>poetry. Or was this more a situation when archaisms were allowable? So,
>>does the "modern" (very general sense here) approach to poetry completely
>>open up the doors to more common or unusual diction, or is there still a
>>sort of 'poetic vocabulary'? Of cource, some words have more 'poetic'
>>atmosphere to them than their synonyms.
>
>
> 'pends one whether your into poetry in the classic sense or you're one
> of the many who think they've broken the mold. I guess we all have to
> use poetic words/phrases sometimes.
I don't know. One of the great efforts of modern poetry (starting back
at least as far as the Symbolists) was to move away from such things.
The Cubists, Dadaists, Surrealists, and the Futurists, etc. all were
dedicated to illuminating the "poeticism" of ANY word or phrase,
including street signs and the common blather. I don't know that there
is such a thing as a "poetic" word - unless one is speaking in the realm
of cliché or oppressive forms. I don't see (thankfully) very much of
what we might label "poetic language" (the pre-packaged commodity of
poetry) in modern poetry. It seems to me the Poetry lies elsewhere all
in all. Of course, one can argue endlessly avout such things as whether
"airplanes" or "trains" are more poetic as words, and I must say that
I've usually only found airplanes poetic when they're crashing. But -
all in all - I find "refrigerator" as apt to be poetic as "twilight."
dmh
Bruce Tindall
>I don't know. One of the great efforts of modern poetry (starting back
>at least as far as the Symbolists) was to move away from such things.
If we're being prescriptive, then yeah, most of us today would
probably say "specifically 'poetic' diction BAD BAD BAD!!!"
But if you look descriptively at poems being written today --
not by teen-angsters or archaizing sonnetteers, but by real
contemporary poets -- you do notice a few words that show up in
contemporary poems a lot more often than they appear in, say,
the newspaper or street-corner conversation, such as "thrum"
and "cerulean." It's gotten to the point where I'm surprised
to finish reading a new book of poetry without having encountered
something thrumming.
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
Tom Bishop
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:3DA4328F...@citilink.com...
Ragnarok is a poetic word, isn't it... ;-)
Dale Houstman
Yes, I suppose you're right, although I've made it my habit to avoid
such words as "cerulean": I tend to use such oddities as "blue." It's
not that I'm against such rare usages (I've used the word "cadaverine"
in more than one poem, and I love the word "slinkveal" which I
discovered in the book "Melmoth the Wanderer." And I'm certainly not
against making up words: "axisquat" for instance. It may be that I tend
not to think of them as "poetic" so much as view the world - in general
- as being depleted.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Sounds like a terrible 80s heavy metal band. On a bill with
Gotterdamung, Apokalips, and ArmyGettiton.
Ragnarok
Rags to riches
I joined the band
To get me bitches
I play guitar
But not real well
Mother says I'm gonna
Fry in Hell
Oh well
Ragnarok
Rock and Roll
We don't care
Cause we don't know
We're kinda stupid
But that's okay
We're gonna make a million dollars anyway!
(And there ain't nothing you can do about it)
[ugly five minute guitar thrashing]
[followed by tender part]
Oh Pamela I know I've been gone so long
The road's a lonely place and you know I'm not that strong
I tried to resist all those pretty young girls
But they don't mean nothing to me cause you're my pearl
Oh oh oh oh oh oh
Ragnarok
Rock the joint
Musicianship's
Not quite the point
Dad's disowned me
But he'll feel a cluck
When I return
With a million bucks
Loaded up in trucks
Ragnarok
Rock and Roll
We don't care
Cause we don't know
We're kinda stupid
But that's okay
We're gonna make a million dollars anyway!
(And there ain't nothing you can do about it)
......
dmh
Ricardo Carducci
""Bruce Tindall"" <tin...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ao1fom$nrl$1...@panix1.panix.com...
Ah, okay, I think this is what I'm getting at. Even though various
movements have contributed to throwing off the 'tyranny' of the prescribed
form and diction, there might be a tendency to an unspoken acceptable
vocabulary. Or at least an unofficial sense that certain words are good and
poetic at the time, and others not, especially if these words are found more
often in poetry and almost never in prose or speech or signs or what have
you. Not that there is any official vocabulary one must use to be
considered a serious poet, but among serious poets who use such diction, an
unspoken sense of what is timely and good in poetry may exist. (Perhaps
limiting the acceptability of others' work.)
Dale Houstman
It's happened before. But if such an "accpetable" standard exists
(thrumming or resonating or merely evanescent) I would certainly do my
best to subvert it!
dmh
>
>
Zinc
> It's happened before. But if such an "accpetable" standard exists
> (thrumming or resonating or merely evanescent) I would certainly do my
> best to subvert it!
When the campgrounds are full
and the outhouse is hot
I stipple the dappled earth.
Dale Houstman
Ha!
As the crepuscular midget deigned to ruminate
Upon veritginous heights of alpine rotogravure
I oscillated the deckled sheets, and swooned
Inapt to fescue, etal, (albedo commingle)
Bruce Tindall
>It's happened before. But if such an "accpetable" standard exists
>(thrumming or resonating or merely evanescent) I would certainly do my
>best to subvert it!
M3 t()0!!!! But I doubt that there's a conscious consensus among
poets that "thrum" and the like are "acceptable"; rather, I think
those exquisitely Poetic (with capital P) words sneak into their
poems despite what would be their stated belief, if you asked them,
that there's no distinction between "poetic" and any other kind of
diction.
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
Dennis M. Hammes
and that cerulean
on the matter
asked Tom lightly
socking his thrum
Tom Bishop
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote in message news:3DA49C00...@arvig.net...
> Bruce Tindall wrote:
> >
> > Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> > >I don't know. One of the great efforts of modern poetry (starting back
> > >at least as far as the Symbolists) was to move away from such things.
> >
> > If we're being prescriptive, then yeah, most of us today would
> > probably say "specifically 'poetic' diction BAD BAD BAD!!!"
> >
> > But if you look descriptively at poems being written today --
> > not by teen-angsters or archaizing sonnetteers, but by real
More likely that kf-fodder
has the angst..
clearly has the strope on me.
> > contemporary poets --
Blessed are they that can't find their pud,
their stones will be their rock, and no hard place.
>> you do notice a few words that show up in
> > contemporary poems a lot more often than they appear in, say,
> > the newspaper or street-corner conversation, such as "thrum"
> > and "cerulean." It's gotten to the point where I'm surprised
> > to finish reading a new book of poetry without having encountered
> > something thrumming.
Flatulence.
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
>
> and that cerulean
> on the matter
> asked Tom lightly
> socking his thrum
Instant gator.
--
[..email response best, Tnx]
Tom Bishop ,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,
http://Poetry.Here.Nu - Poetry web hosting, with audio.
(email me for a custom sub-domain, like MyPoetry.Here.Nu)
Paul Heslop
> I don't know. One of the great efforts of modern poetry (starting back
> at least as far as the Symbolists) was to move away from such things.
> The Cubists, Dadaists, Surrealists, and the Futurists, etc. all were
> dedicated to illuminating the "poeticism" of ANY word or phrase,
> including street signs and the common blather. I don't know that there
> is such a thing as a "poetic" word - unless one is speaking in the realm
> of cliché or oppressive forms. I don't see (thankfully) very much of
> what we might label "poetic language" (the pre-packaged commodity of
> poetry) in modern poetry. It seems to me the Poetry lies elsewhere all
> in all. Of course, one can argue endlessly avout such things as whether
> "airplanes" or "trains" are more poetic as words, and I must say that
> I've usually only found airplanes poetic when they're crashing. But -
> all in all - I find "refrigerator" as apt to be poetic as "twilight."
>
> dmh
But you do use certain words deliberately in poetry, rather than
carelessly slapping down words which fit. Even I find myself thinking,
no that won't do, and looking for something else, simply because the
word isn't poetic, it doesn't fit the poem, whereas it would look fine
in any normal essay or story.
Yes, i accept that surrealists wish to destroy the theory of high art
and writing, but that is their aim, yes? Even though i'm not a fan of
poncey poetry as such i can see the difference between a deliberately
antagonistic work which intends to be anti-poetry and a real poem. In
fact I would go so far as to say that because the surrealists were so
intent on being anti that they can't even be classed as true poets. Of
course that puts me in a bind because I love surrealism, but I do hate
contrary for contrary's sake.
Paul Heslop
I think Peter's poetry fits this perfectly. Words which you would almost
never see in any other place can spring to life in his stuff and it can
look and feel great, though it also can look totally false.
GeorgeTolis
Ricardo Carducci <ric....@ebrt.se> wrote in message
news:xpJo9.1508$1L7...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Do poets still adhere to the idea of a poetic vocabulary?
As in, you have to use words to be a poet? No ok, you elaborate some...
> The idea being:
> Some words are more given to prose or common speech, and others more
to
> poetry.
Completely the wrong take on it. Words don't gain an affinity with
poetry, people gain an affinity with words that they then think have an
affinity with poetry.
> Or was this more a situation when archaisms were allowable?
Erm. It's this kind of statement that will make you look like a monkey
in a wolf convention.
> So,
> does the "modern" (very general sense here) approach to poetry
completely
> open up the doors to more common or unusual diction, or is there still
a
> sort of 'poetic vocabulary'? Of cource, some words have more 'poetic'
> atmosphere to them than their synonyms.
According to who?
To answer the question that I think you've failed to recognise (i.e.
certain words crop up for the appearance of being poetic according to
people who haven't read much poetry) there are words that trigger alarm
bells - darkling, myriad, evanescent, sparkling, bright, scintillating,
etc. etc. but these words once had an effect on certain poets that any
word can take.
E.g. PJR - "I still use grey too much" - or Villon's use of grey as
well. Or one poet I know who has an obsessive return to describing the
colour of sunlight in different contexts.
You can pick out the recurrence of 'blood' in Plath, or the recurrence
of colour in Keats, or the specific use of the word 'perinaeum' by
Ballard and Self.
Personally I think you're talking about descriptive words without
realising it and I think description in poetry a waste of time because
it is rarely made relevant.
GT
Zinc
A bantam retiarius beheld the obnubilated
Oracle's mantle, bought asylum in spirit-
Cisterns and atomic cafes until sieves
Failed and Finners whaled.
Dale Houstman
I'd guess so. I have found however that there appears to be a widely
acceptable manner of reading: I listen to poets give readings on the
radio and it is usually in this earnestly pathetic voice that - frankly
- gets under my skin.
dmh
Dale Houstman
Paul Heslop wrote:
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know. One of the great efforts of modern poetry (starting back
>>at least as far as the Symbolists) was to move away from such things.
>>The Cubists, Dadaists, Surrealists, and the Futurists, etc. all were
>>dedicated to illuminating the "poeticism" of ANY word or phrase,
>>including street signs and the common blather. I don't know that there
>>is such a thing as a "poetic" word - unless one is speaking in the realm
>>of cliché or oppressive forms. I don't see (thankfully) very much of
>>what we might label "poetic language" (the pre-packaged commodity of
>>poetry) in modern poetry. It seems to me the Poetry lies elsewhere all
>>in all. Of course, one can argue endlessly avout such things as whether
>>"airplanes" or "trains" are more poetic as words, and I must say that
>>I've usually only found airplanes poetic when they're crashing. But -
>>all in all - I find "refrigerator" as apt to be poetic as "twilight."
>>
>>dmh
>
>
> But you do use certain words deliberately in poetry, rather than
> carelessly slapping down words which fit.
Obviously, but I don't think of them as being "poetic" words.
>Even I find myself thinking,
> no that won't do, and looking for something else, simply because the
> word isn't poetic, it doesn't fit the poem, whereas it would look fine
> in any normal essay or story.
But I don't think the question is whether or not specific words fit
better in this or that poem: that's blatantly true. The question appears
to be about a "secret warehouse" of words that are more poetic in and of
themselves. I don't see it.
> Yes, i accept that surrealists wish to destroy the theory of high art
> and writing, but that is their aim, yes?
Part of it, yes. But only so as to unchain imaginations by revealing new
connections.
>Even though i'm not a fan of
> poncey poetry as such i can see the difference between a deliberately
> antagonistic work which intends to be anti-poetry and a real poem. In
> fact I would go so far as to say that because the surrealists were so
> intent on being anti that they can't even be classed as true poets. Of
> course that puts me in a bind because I love surrealism, but I do hate
> contrary for contrary's sake.
They aren't contrary for contrary's sake: that describes more nearly
the Dadaists (even though that is also a simplification): surrealism -
love it or loathe it - is a positive movement. As for whether or not an
"anti-poem" is a "true poem," this isn't a question of much importance
to my mind. After all, who is defining the poetic here? The surrealists
would say who ever it is, THEY BETTER QUIT IT OR ELSE! But surrealism
certainly has its own comprehension of poetic potential, which wouldn't
find the dichotomy of "anti-poetic" and "poetic" to be of much use to
them, except as they see that all those who would confine language via
convention are anti-poetic. This is probably not the place to discuss
surrealism's take on aesthetics and on art itself, but suffice to say
the Poetic is an entirely different thing than a poem. Art itself is
only seen as a tool for larger aims.
dmh
Ricardo Carducci
I read with all the fervor and passion of an inspired Shakespearean actor.
You would like hearing me read, dmh.
Tom Bishop
"Ricardo Carducci" <ric....@ebrt.se> wrote in message news:dS5p9.339$xM5.19...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
My poetry site is audio enabled.
Feel free, /it is/. see sig
Zinc
Most read like bad actors really. They used to be too melodramatic. Then there
were the quirky, angry reads. Now it's more of a sigh-as-you-read as though
someone had just died (I like Dai's reads though because he can project pretty
well). We probably /hear/ certain voices for different poems. It would do the
poems justice, I think, to be read by the intended voice. Even if they were
hired and coached. I think James Earl Jones, Julie Andrews, Jason Robards, Emma
Thompson, or even Sean Connery (as long as there weren't too many S's) could
consummate the right work.
Horatio
And couldn't we all go a lifetime without /ever/ seeing the word "verdant"
in another poem.
Regards
-Horatio
Horatio
I think the opposite is true. If you happen across a word often in reading
poetry, it seems overt, and you almost wince when you read it. Good
language to be found in poetry is language that surprises you, often common
words used to a different effect. If you feel there are words that are more
"poetic", I would say avoid them when writing poetry, they are probably over
used.
Regards
-Horatio
>
>
Dale Houstman
Verdant rump thrumming amidst a cerulean investiture of liquescent
efflorescence, O!
dmh
Paul Heslop
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
> >
> > But you do use certain words deliberately in poetry, rather than
> > carelessly slapping down words which fit.
>
> Obviously, but I don't think of them as being "poetic" words.
>
> >Even I find myself thinking,
> > no that won't do, and looking for something else, simply because the
> > word isn't poetic, it doesn't fit the poem, whereas it would look fine
> > in any normal essay or story.
>
> But I don't think the question is whether or not specific words fit
> better in this or that poem: that's blatantly true. The question appears
> to be about a "secret warehouse" of words that are more poetic in and of
> themselves. I don't see it.
Ah, you mean like a book of poetic words? Nope, I don't think so either.
It's all down to the occasion, what fits once may never fit again.
>
> > Yes, i accept that surrealists wish to destroy the theory of high art
> > and writing, but that is their aim, yes?
>
> Part of it, yes. But only so as to unchain imaginations by revealing new
> connections.
I love surrealism.
>
> >Even though i'm not a fan of
> > poncey poetry as such i can see the difference between a deliberately
> > antagonistic work which intends to be anti-poetry and a real poem. In
> > fact I would go so far as to say that because the surrealists were so
> > intent on being anti that they can't even be classed as true poets. Of
> > course that puts me in a bind because I love surrealism, but I do hate
> > contrary for contrary's sake.
>
> They aren't contrary for contrary's sake: that describes more nearly
> the Dadaists (even though that is also a simplification): surrealism -
> love it or loathe it - is a positive movement. As for whether or not an
> "anti-poem" is a "true poem," this isn't a question of much importance
> to my mind. After all, who is defining the poetic here? The surrealists
> would say who ever it is, THEY BETTER QUIT IT OR ELSE! But surrealism
> certainly has its own comprehension of poetic potential, which wouldn't
> find the dichotomy of "anti-poetic" and "poetic" to be of much use to
> them, except as they see that all those who would confine language via
> convention are anti-poetic. This is probably not the place to discuss
> surrealism's take on aesthetics and on art itself, but suffice to say
> the Poetic is an entirely different thing than a poem. Art itself is
> only seen as a tool for larger aims.
>
> dmh
When you write a surrealist poem and post it it either gets no response
or a very bad response. Odd lines will be picked out for being very good
or even brilliant, but rarely will they become a whole work which is
admired.
Personally I'd love to be able to put the old cut-ups into action, but I
doubt that anyone would find them good. It works much better in prose
form.
I do agree with your views, but I can't think of any good examples of
surrealist poetry. Was cummings a surrealist?
--
Paul. (I'm not content to be with you in the daytime ...)
___________________________________________________________
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Dale Houstman
Paul Heslop wrote:
>
>
> When you write a surrealist poem and post it it either gets no response
> or a very bad response. Odd lines will be picked out for being very good
> or even brilliant, but rarely will they become a whole work which is
> admired.
> Personally I'd love to be able to put the old cut-ups into action, but I
> doubt that anyone would find them good. It works much better in prose
> form.
> I do agree with your views, but I can't think of any good examples of
> surrealist poetry. Was cummings a surrealist?
No. Although he has an admirable posture of anti-conventionality as per
his message, and his cavalier manner with arrangements, he is
essentially a conventional romantic poet, who dips far too often into
the merely sentimental for most surrealists tastes. I like him of
course, but that's a personal predilection: he was one of my first great
role models, and I composed quite a few very bad cummings-like pieces.
I think the problem here lies (as it used to for myself) in attempting
to judge surrealist poetics by literary conventions, when the main
thrust of surrealism is not aesthetic. So to be a "good example" of
surrealist poetry isn't necessarily to be what is thought of generally
as a good poem, because the aim of a surrealist poem may be partly to
put into question your assumptions about the role of poetry, and the
employment of language for merely "reasonable" or expressive ends.
This dichtotomy comes into view clearest - I suppose - when dealing with
the poems of Benjamin Peret, and he comes to mind precisely because the
surrealists thought him the purest surrealist poet. So - from a
conventional standard of "poetic value" what can one say about such
lines as...
REFORM
By sleigh on the Neva
I'm sliding translucent
surrounded by white sea horses
Pale little ass
what are you doing here
the nutcrackers have closed their ears
the mushrooms are growing on the thawing snow
We alone still think of erasers.
Yet - from within the surrealist stance - this "refusal to settle" for
mere expression, or even the eloquent ambiguity of a Mallarmé is
ethical; it is not so much "what" is being said, but the affront that
counts.
That said - and for my "money" - I think there are quite few surrealist
poems more easily "accessed" by even those who don't find such
non-literary approaches interesting, as I do. Much of that "branch"
arises from the surrealists' more Romantic-influenced side, and from
Symbolism and Rimbaud. Breton, Eluard, and Desnos come to mind
immediately. Then there are many poems that partake of various sorts of
humor, either "wicked" or absurdist. Arp springs forward.
Breton - excerpt from SUNFLOWER...
The traveler who passed through Les Halles as summer fell
Walked upon tiptoes
Despair rolled its big beautiful arums toward the sky
And in her handbag was my dream that flask of smelling-salts.
Desnos - excerpt from STARTLED...
On the road back from the summits met by crows and chestnuts
Jealousy and the pale flatterer greeted
Finally the disaster disaster foretold
Why turn pale why shiver?
Jealousy and the animal kingdom greeted with fatigue confusion jealousy
A sail unfurling over bare heads
I've never spoken of my dreams of straw
As for surrealist poetry (whatever you might mean by that designation)
getting only little or negative attention: probably. But one who is set
out to evoke by ambiguity or to affront with rude imagery and humor
cannot honestly expect open arms at all convenient times. Still, I've
received interesting responses over the years, plus a bit of "what the
hell" and "you're fucking crazy." Part of the job description!
dmh
Paul Heslop
This strikes as more poetic than the Peret... though it seems almost
quaint to see the word 'handbag' in a poem.
>
> Desnos - excerpt from STARTLED...
>
> On the road back from the summits met by crows and chestnuts
> Jealousy and the pale flatterer greeted
> Finally the disaster disaster foretold
> Why turn pale why shiver?
> Jealousy and the animal kingdom greeted with fatigue confusion jealousy
> A sail unfurling over bare heads
> I've never spoken of my dreams of straw
again, and even making some vague sense.
>
> As for surrealist poetry (whatever you might mean by that designation)
> getting only little or negative attention: probably. But one who is set
> out to evoke by ambiguity or to affront with rude imagery and humor
> cannot honestly expect open arms at all convenient times. Still, I've
> received interesting responses over the years, plus a bit of "what the
> hell" and "you're fucking crazy." Part of the job description!
>
> dmh
Stroll on. :O) I guess I am more of a Dali man, in that I prefer a
little structure to my chaos.
if we believe in surrealism in writing then surely we should never
rewrite? does reworking a poem or essay not remove the urgency? Am i
failing myself in reworking my poetry or in taking Word's grammar
corrections etc on board? Why am i asking so many questions?
You have managed to rekindle thoughts on surrealism which I have largely
forgotten over the years (my interests began way back in the early 70s).
I'm curious... would you class William Burroughs as a surrealist or is
he simply a 'Beat' writer?(whatever the hell one of those is?)
--
Paul. (And with the sea I did abide...)
___________________________________________________________
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Ricardo Carducci
"Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3DA5BB76...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> I'm curious... would you class William Burroughs as a surrealist or is
> he simply a 'Beat' writer?(whatever the hell one of those is?)
Most would say Burroughs was not really a 'Beat' writer, I think, though
influential in that group of individuals. Also, the Beats admired surrealist
artists such as Morris Graves, so if Burroughs seems to be a surrealist
writer, or if one argues that his writings are Beat, there is a connection
to surrealism in both categories.
On Morris Graves:
http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2001-July/010928.htm
l
''Graves was committed to the surrealist credo that art
should reveal the creator's subconscious and serve as a
means of psychic exploration,'' the museum said. ''Eastern
influences inspired Graves to paint natural and recognizable
forms that carried spiritual meaning, drawing on their
potent symbolic power as well as their intrinsic beauty.''
This theme is seen in much Beat writing.
Dale Houstman
Ricardo Carducci wrote:
>>
>
>>I'm curious... would you class William Burroughs as a surrealist or is
>>he simply a 'Beat' writer?(whatever the hell one of those is?)
>
>
> Most would say Burroughs was not really a 'Beat' writer, I think, though
> influential in that group of individuals. Also, the Beats admired surrealist
> artists such as Morris Graves, so if Burroughs seems to be a surrealist
> writer, or if one argues that his writings are Beat, there is a connection
> to surrealism in both categories.
Most people WOULD say (quite correctly) that Burroughs was a "beat"
writer. His involvement (intimate in many ways) with the group and its
individuals simply won't admit of any other conclusion.
As for morris Graves: he wasn't a "surrealist painter." Having a
knowledge of surrealism doesn't make one a surrealist. I think Burroughs
is one of the most interesting Beats (by far) and his "chance"
techniques (such as the cut-ups) make him interesting from a surrealist
perspective: sort of like a latter-day De Sade in his use of aggressive
humor and shock to the system, but he's not a surrealist.
>
> On Morris Graves:
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2001-July/010928.htm
> l
>
> ''Graves was committed to the surrealist credo that art
> should reveal the creator's subconscious and serve as a
> means of psychic exploration,'' the museum said. ''Eastern
> influences inspired Graves to paint natural and recognizable
> forms that carried spiritual meaning, drawing on their
> potent symbolic power as well as their intrinsic beauty.''
>
> This theme is seen in much Beat writing.
True: but that doesn't in and of itself make anyone a surrealist. Many
people define surrealism rather loosely, but Morris' (and many other
Beats) adherence to "spiritualist" values (no matter how benevolent)
help to keep them as far outside the circle as necessary to find them
not surrealists. Of the american Beats, Philip Lamantia was the one
chosen to be recognized by Breton, and his early work and "
posture" place him firmly within that category. His later work is
tainted by a growing "mystical" bend, and thus shows him moving away
from a pure surrealist position.
dmh
dmh
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments squeezed the following precious droplets from
Paul Heslop <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>Peter J Ross wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 03:57:17 GMT, the heavy rollers of
>> alt.arts.poetry.comments squeezed the following precious droplets from
>> "Ricardo Carducci" <ric....@ebrt.se>:
>>
>> >Come now, I am the best poet here.
>> >
>> >And I've read more poetry than all of you combined.
>>
>> You're a troll.
>>
>> Welcome.
>
>Nah, I think he's just looked around and seen what will get a
>reaction... At least he's done his home work.
That's what makes him a troll - and quite a good one.
--
PJR :-)
mhm34x8
marg gold star
http://www.pjr-online.co.uk/
Dennis M. Hammes
Miss Muffet ate something so curdant,
A spider slid down and unburdened:
"My Dear, that high stink
Is not what you think,"
And frightened her tits from their girdant.
Dennis M. Hammes
...
> I love surrealism.
...
O, you meant "ceruleanism," certainly.
Horatio
Is nothing so piquant as death?
Perhaps your thick verdant breath.
From your mouth comes a river
of fried onions and liver
you must brush your teeth in the Lethe.
GeorgeTolis
Horatio <qwer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uqcrm6l...@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
> > Miss Muffet ate something so curdant,
> > A spider slid down and unburdened:
> > "My Dear, that high stink
> > Is not what you think,"
> > And frightened her tits from their girdant.
>
> Is nothing so piquant as death?
> Perhaps your thick verdant breath.
> From your mouth comes a river
> of fried onions and liver
> you must brush your teeth in the Lethe.
Hah! This is excellent, except for the spurious opening line. I'd
switch it to a "There was a <x> from <y>" or even "There once was a
<something> chef" and change accordingly. The last three lines were
great!
GT
Paul Heslop
> > I'm curious... would you class William Burroughs as a surrealist or is
> > he simply a 'Beat' writer?(whatever the hell one of those is?)
>
> Most would say Burroughs was not really a 'Beat' writer, I think, though
> influential in that group of individuals. Also, the Beats admired surrealist
> artists such as Morris Graves, so if Burroughs seems to be a surrealist
> writer, or if one argues that his writings are Beat, there is a connection
> to surrealism in both categories.
>
> On Morris Graves:
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/pipermail/counterpunch-list/2001-July/010928.htm
> l
>
> ''Graves was committed to the surrealist credo that art
> should reveal the creator's subconscious and serve as a
> means of psychic exploration,'' the museum said. ''Eastern
> influences inspired Graves to paint natural and recognizable
> forms that carried spiritual meaning, drawing on their
> potent symbolic power as well as their intrinsic beauty.''
>
> This theme is seen in much Beat writing.
interesting... I need to read more... but I'm only just getting back
into the swing. i'm back up to about six books a week though :O)
--
Paul. (It's coming sometime and maybe...)
___________________________________________________________
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Paul Heslop
:O) You know, I got only one response when i googled that
Ricardo Carducci
"GeorgeTolis" <catal...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ao2ena$igpdc$1...@ID-137423.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Ricardo Carducci <ric....@ebrt.se> wrote in message
> news:xpJo9.1508$1L7...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> realising it and I think description in poetry a waste of time because
> it is rarely made relevant.
>
Mr. Tolis,
Mmm. No, I'm actually talking about the period in time, say up until the
20th century, when there was an idea of a developed poetic vocabulary. This
means poetic diction as opposed to prose diction. It might include the
shortened form of words, e'er, morn', etc. This was supposedly eschewed by
the 20th century, but I was inquiring as to what folks might think-- These
forms are now obviously regarded as archaic, but might there be a definite
class of words that are regarded as being the poetic vocabulary, by their
common usage in poetry, and not because of any dictum that certain classes
of words are or are not poetic?
I did a search on Google and basically answered the question for myself.
This link seems to provide what I was thinking about:
http://65.107.211.206/previctorian/tech/diction.html
Apologies for lack of clarity in the original question.
-RICC-