Abstractions- a question
CAB
a lot about poetry just looking at the critiques. Thank you all for
sharing your knowledge.
However, I'm having trouble with one concept: abstractions. They
seem to be anathema here at aapc, but I'm having trouble spotting
them. Can anyone give a good example of A) a well used abstraction
and B) a poorly used one? I would be most appreciative.
Thanks in advance,
CAB
Peter J Ross
news:c45ac6e5.01062...@posting.google.com...
> First of all, I've been lurking here for a few weeks, and I've
learned
> a lot about poetry just looking at the critiques. Thank you all for
> sharing your knowledge.
Welcome. I hope you've seen a link to http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/
> However, I'm having trouble with one concept: abstractions. They
> seem to be anathema here at aapc,
Only when used incompetently, I hope.
> but I'm having trouble spotting
> them. Can anyone give a good example of A) a well used abstraction
> and B) a poorly used one? I would be most appreciative.
Here are two poems, one incomplete, both of which use an abstraction
or two (which I've marked with an asterisk).
The Humanist
--------------
The Venice portrait: he
Broods, the achieved guest
Tired and word-perfect
At the Muses' table.
Virtue* is virtů. These
Lips debate and praise
Some rich aphorism,
A delicate white meat.
The commonplace hands once
Thick with Plato's blood
(Tasteless! tasteless!) are laid
Dryly against the robes.
Geoffrey Hill
[In this poem, a woolly modern abstraction is immediately defined in
terms of a precise Italian-renascence practicality.]
The Famous Tay Whale
------------------------
[...]
Then the whale began to puff and to blow,
While the men and the boats after him did go,
Armed well with harpoons for the fray,
Which they fired at him without dismay*.
And they laughed and grinned just like wild baboons,
While they fired at him their sharp harpoons:
But when struck with the harpoons he dived below,
Which filled his pursuers' hearts with woe*:
[...]
William McGonagall
[In this poem (available in its hilarious completeness at
http://www.taynet.co.uk/users/mcgon/taywhale.htm), abstractions are
used to *tell* the reader something ultimately forgettable rather than
to *show* him something immediately significant.]
Actually, not only misuse of abstractions, but also almost every other
fault a poem can have, are illustrated in the McGonagall example,
while the Hill poem is perhaps (imho) an example of a perfect poem for
Julie's "perfect poems" thread.
These are obviously extreme examples. There are also borderline cases.
And there are people in this newsgroup more capable of explaining this
subject to you than I am.
One further example, which applies as well to prose as to poetry:
"There was universal hilarity" uses an abstract noun; "Everybody
laughed" doesn't. The latter is almost always better.
PJR :-)
--
If they don't give Geoffrey Hill the Nobel, posterity [an abstraction]
is going to laugh at them.
Chris Keelan
In "The Western Wind, An Introduction to Poetry", John Frederick Nims has
the following to say on the subject:
===
An image is anything presented to consciousness as a bodily
sensation. We call such images *concrete* (from the Latin word for
solid), as opposed to ideas that may be *abstract* (Latin,
withdrawn)--stripped, that is, of physical detail. Such words as
"violet", "bread", "sunlight", "surf", and "blond" are concrete; such
words as "entity", "nutrition", "meteorology", "recurrence", and
"coloration" are abstract.
Poetry is immediately concerned with the concrete, the specific, the
particular, with the *bread* and *sunlight* of our life; it has only
occasional use for *nutrition* and *meteorology*. The great English
poet William Blake reacted as any poet would when he once read a
sentence in praise of abstraction and generality: against it in the
margin he wrote, in indignant capitals, "To Generalize is to be an
Idiot. To Particularize is the Alone Distinction of Merit... ." A few
pages later he added another marginal comment: "Singular & Particular
detail" --or what we are calling sense imagery--"is the Foundation of
the Sublime." The twentieth-century Spanish poet Federico Garcia Lorca
put the matter even more directly when he said, "The poet is a
professor of the five bodily senses." A nineteenth-century canon of
St. Paul's Cathedral in London might have been speaking of a bad poet
when he spoke of someone as having "Not body enough to cover his mind
decently with; his intellect is improperly exposed".
The importance of the concrete is not only esthetic. Elias Cantetti,
the winner of the 1981 Nobel prize for literature, has declared that
"Among the most sinister phenomena in intellectual history is the
avoidance of the concrete." He means that in ignoring what is the
"closest and most concrete" of realities we are endangering the future
of humanity...
"We think in generalities," said the mathematician and philosopher
Alfred North Whitehead, "but we live in detail." It is these details,
these things of this world, that poets choose from to create their own
world of poetry. Ezra Pound, one of the great innovators of modern
literature, insisted that "The artist seeks out the luminous detail
and presents it. He does not comment." There is no piece of advice
young writers need to hear more frequently than "Show, don't tell."
*Show* us the world as you see it, thy are advised; do not--unless you
are an editorial writer--give us your comments on it. So Pound, when
he wishes to convince us of the beauty of a Chinese girl named Rafu,
does not simply *tell* us she is beautiful; he *shows* us the effect
her beauty has on men who see her:
And when men going by look on Rafu
They set down their burdens,
They stand and twirl their moustaches...
===
Of course, as Peter pointed out, you *can* use abstractions effectively,
but that's like saying you *can* jump over 3 schoolbuses with your dirt
bike. You might want to get a feel for riding straight and level first.
- Chris
LonWolve
However:
1. There are others who do not agree. I am sure that if you really want
to look in another direction you will find different opinions of equal
weight.
2. Why should we agree to what these guys said. Creation needs freedom.
By adhering to established norms and rules (especially in art) all you
do is become predictable and all you achieve is repetition and a sad
iterative exhaustion of your creative energy.
Respect tradition and established ways enough to break them in the first
chance. Poetry written like that is the poetry I like to read and try to
write.
BTW, abstraction is the way to our true nature. Our true nature is
mentalistic. Mind abstracts.
Later,
LW
Chris Keelan
> Thanks for the interesting read.
>
> However:
This does not bode well.
>
> 1. There are others who do not agree. I am sure that if you really want
> to look in another direction you will find different opinions of equal
> weight.
Like who? Can you post some of their poems or critical essays? I thought we
were discussing the use of abstractions in poetry and that Nim's essay was
directly on point.
>
> 2. Why should we agree to what these guys said.
Well, in the case of Garcia Lorca, his work is widely translated and just
as widely regarded. Ditto Pound. Blake spent his lifetime working out his
theories and left a legacy of verse that's still being discussed today.
Cantetti was recognized by the Nobel committee for "writings marked by a
broad outlook, a wealth of ideas and artistic power" which must have arisen
through prolonged and intense study (the true "freedom", I would argue).
All these "guys" mentioned by Nims might know something that you don't.
Instead of dismissing them out of hand, why not try putting their
suggestions into practice and disproving them that way (if you can).
> Creation needs freedom.
According to what/whom? And what are you trying to connote with the
abstract "freedom" in the context of this specific discussion?
At the most reductionist level, demonstrate creativity in a verbal artform
without awareness of and sensitivity to grammar, syntax, connotation,
denotation... and the other "game rules" of language. Try that in any
artistic field -- I mean encode an artistic experience without being
hampered by any form of human symbolic communication and its
"traditionalist" encumberances. This is a non-binary newsgroup, but I think
we could look the other way if you were to attach your experiment to a post.
> By adhering to established norms and rules (especially in art) all you
> do is become predictable and all you achieve is repetition and a sad
> iterative exhaustion of your creative energy.
Well, I'd like to see your proof of that. My experience has been that those
who scream loudest about the need for freedom seem to produce the most
hackneyed, derivative works. I've argued this position before, in this
newsgroup and even invoked Korzybski's ghost. I think you can find that
post on Google.
> Respect tradition and established ways enough to break them in the first
> chance. Poetry written like that is the poetry I like to read and try to
> write.
>
> BTW, abstraction is the way to our true nature.
"Abstraction"..."true"..."nature"... How about proving that statement. If
you're going the semantic route, I might play along, but you'll probably
lose me around "true".
>Our true nature is
> mentalistic. Mind abstracts.
Yes, and great minds particularize. Some neurolinguists might agree,
narrowly, with your over-arching point, but they use the term "abstract"
with acute specificity.
-Chris
JAS Carter
yodeled:
>Of course, as Peter pointed out, you *can* use abstractions effectively,
>but that's like saying you *can* jump over 3 schoolbuses with your dirt
>bike. You might want to get a feel for riding straight and level first.
>
>- Chris
Chris!
Good to see, hear from, or read you, whichever is most appropriate.
--
Julie Carter
LonWolve
> >Our true nature is
> > mentalistic. Mind abstracts.
>
> Yes, and great minds particularize.
Mind abstracts.
Nature particularizes.
LW
Chris Keelan
And poetry specifies.
My aphorisms can beat up your aphorisms. (heh!)
--
Registered Linux user #219465
Chris Keelan
[dutifully trimming posts]
> Good to see, hear from, or read you, whichever is most appropriate.
Thanks. Good to be seen/heard/read/whatever.
I'm like that character in the Caine Mutiny. People at parties snigger and
whisper "ask him about the abstractions".
- C
LonWolve
rufm...@home.com says...
> LonWolve wrote:
>
> >
> >> >Our true nature is
> >> > mentalistic. Mind abstracts.
> >>
> >> Yes, and great minds particularize.
> >
> > Mind abstracts.
> > Nature particularizes.
> >
> > LW
>
> And poetry specifies.
>
> My aphorisms can beat up your aphorisms. (heh!)
>
Yes. You probably have a faster car too.
LW
Michael Snider
rufm...@home.com wrote:
> LonWolve wrote:
>
> >
> >> >Our true nature is
> >> > mentalistic. Mind abstracts.
> >>
> >> Yes, and great minds particularize.
> >
> > Mind abstracts.
> > Nature particularizes.
> >
> > LW
>
> And poetry specifies.
>
> My aphorisms can beat up your aphorisms. (heh!)
Mind is not different from the body nor from nature -- our minds are the
result of of our evolutionary history, including the nature of our
senses, the things we eat, and the way we move through space. Read
Lakoff and Johnson's Philosophy in the Flesh, and Antonio Damasio's
Descartes' Error. Both have extensive references to other significant
work.
Peter J Ross
news:_3w_6.47789$Mf5.12...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
<Martijnesque snip>
Chris Keelan's in aapc.
All's right with the world.
PJR, rejoicing :-)
--
"see, the mean people know who they are. the problem is the stupid
people don't know who they are, so it's the job of the mean people
(who know who they are) to make sure the stupid people are aware that
they're stupid. see?"
j r sherman
LonWolve
msn...@mindspring.com says...
It all depends on how you define the terms.
Would you argue that:
Nature abstracts.
Mind Particularizes.
or that they both, for instance, abstract?
We don't care here what nature and mind are or how they are related. We
are only discussing what they do. Their roles.
Get it?
Then again it may be that you have it all figured out already:
> Mind is not different from the body nor from nature
WOW! If I write a best-seller that says "you are dead!", and you read
it, I suppose you will then jump off a window or something. I mean,
books (and especially best-sellers) can't be wrong? Right?
LW
Michael Snider
fot...@altavista.net wrote:
>
> Would you argue that:
>
> Nature abstracts.
> Mind Particularizes.
>
Both statements are meaningless piffle -- simulations of thought rather
than real thinking.
> or that they both, for instance, abstract?
no better
>
> We don't care here what nature and mind are or how they are related. We
> are only discussing what they do. Their roles.
>
Who is "we"? And even a simulation of thought should convince you that
roles can only be defined in a context -- that is, that how things are
related is part of their respective roles.
> Get it?
You don't.
>
> Then again it may be that you have it all figured out already:
>
I'm trying to think, anyway, to learn from those who have worked on the
problem, and to point to sources. What about you? (BTW, I'm more than
half in sympathy with what you've said about cliches)
> > Mind is not different from the body nor from nature
>
> WOW! If I write a best-seller that says "you are dead!", and you read
> it, I suppose you will then jump off a window or something. I mean,
> books (and especially best-sellers) can't be wrong? Right?
Try thinking without a body, instead of having a body without thinking.
tblac...@cix.compulink.co.uk
p...@britishlibrary.net (Peter J Ross) wrote:
<snip>
> PJR :-)
> --
> If they don't give Geoffrey Hill the Nobel, posterity [an abstraction]
> is going to laugh at them.
>
>
Sir,
I believe that Mr Hill should *not* be given
the Nobel prize.
The man is a bad influence
(& him with a copper for a father).
Worser than Berryman,
Worser than Cummings,
almost as bad as Plath.
I blame him for the baddest badnesses
of my baddest teenage poems
(writ in the days before bad meant good).
& Caanan & Triumph of Love
might not be so dreadful
but for the influence
of G Hill.
Mike Billard
news:_3w_6.47789$Mf5.12...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
> > First of all, I've been lurking here for a few weeks, and I've learned
> > a lot about poetry just looking at the critiques. Thank you all for
> > sharing your knowledge.
> >
> > However, I'm having trouble with one concept: abstractions. They
> > seem to be anathema here at aapc, but I'm having trouble spotting
> > them. Can anyone give a good example of A) a well used abstraction
> > and B) a poorly used one? I would be most appreciative.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > CAB
>
> In "The Western Wind, An Introduction to Poetry", John Frederick Nims has
> the following to say on the subject:
<snipped Nims's comments>
Hi Chris. Good to see you here again. I have a deep regard for Nims and find
this brief quote you've provided very much dead on. We could add a hundred,
probably a thousand, more observations from major poets throughout history
to support Nims's assertions. From WCW's "No ideas but in things!" to T.S.
Eliot's objective correlative. I find it perplexing whenever someone
counters such a detailed argument with "Why should I believe those guys?" It
indicates that no real research into the accuracy and applicability of
Nims's ideas was done. But such a comment, as vapid as it is, brings us to
what I think is the most important, and often the least applied, method for
proving or disproving an idea (at least an idea presented
here)--observation. Conversations like these tend to turn needlesslly toward
discussions of neurologial processes, silly and inaccurate aphorisms,
arguments over intellect, etc, but they seem to almost religiously avoid
looking toward the poems themselves. The simple, and best, answer to
LonWolve's "Why should I believe these guys?" is "Look at poetry and see if
it applys." Which, of course, it does. From Homer's "wine dark sea" to
Robert Hass's "I won't say much for the sea / except that it was, almost, /
the color of sour milk." we have a body of work that so consistently chooses
concrete imagery over abstraction one would have to intentionally turn a
blind eye to miss it.
Now, that is not to say there are not successful poems that deal mostly in
abstractions, because there are. Nor does the existence of these poems
invalidate the overall notion that concrete imagery works better and more
often than abstraction. This is not, no matter how much people try to argue
to the contrary, an exact science. No one (to my knowledge) has worked out a
mathematical formula that predicts the motions of poems, so that when one
poem comes flying in fast, highly elliptical and retrograde the theory has
to be abandoned. And that is because these are not (again despite what some
try to argue) rules governing how poems should be written, but explanations
for how poems have already been written. And the vast majority of successful
poems throughout history have owed much of their effectiveness to the
strength and power of their images.
Why should we believe those guys? Not because recent breakthroughs in
neurological science have revealed an asociation between blah blah blah . .
., but because we have read thousands and thousands (and thousands) of poems
and we have observed this principle in practice.
Frances Kwong
Here is an poorly/well used *abstract*? for you. Or, could that be two
abstract ideas?
FK
A) and B) ??
Dragon-flies through
the air transparent,
one in a million.
Also:
Sitwell, Dame Edith
===============
Sitwell, Dame Edith, 1887-1964, English poet and critic, English art critic.
Edith Sitwell, a noted eccentric and wit, wrote critical essays,
biographies, and poetry influenced by the French symbolists, which appeared
in many volumes, including Collected Poems (1954). Her Façade, an
entertainment in abstract, rhythmic verse, with music by William Walton, was
first read in 1922.
CAB wrote in message ...
Aidan Tynan
>
>Edith Sitwell, a noted eccentric and wit, wrote critical essays,
>biographies, and poetry influenced by the French symbolists, which appeared
>in many volumes, including Collected Poems (1954). Her Façade, an
>entertainment in abstract, rhythmic verse, with music by William Walton,
was
>first read in 1922.
>
I think you'll find that Sitwell's poems, although often referred to as
'abstract' , are mostly grounded in concrete imagery :
The Fan
by Edith Sitwell
Lovely Semiramis
Closes her slanting eyes:
Dead is she long ago.
From her fan, sliding slow,
Parrot-bright fire's feathers,
Gilded as June weathers,
Plumes bright and shrill as grass
Twinkle down; as they pass
Through the green glooms in Hell
Fruits with a tuneful smell,
Grapes like an emerald rain,
Where the full moon has lain,
Greengages bright as grass,
Melons as cold as glass,
Piled on each gilded booth,
Feel their cheeks growing smooth.
Apes in plumed head-dresses
Whence the bright heat hisses,--
Nubian faces, sly
Pursing mouth, slanting eye,
Feel the Arabian
Winds floating from the fan.
-Aidan
Frances Kwong
But aren't there abstract words in all but four lines?
Wouldn't that make Stillwell an *abstract* writer?
Now I'm lost in the wilderness.....!!
follow me down...
---FK---
Aidan Tynan wrote in message ...
>>Edith Sitwell, a noted eccentric and wit, wrote critical essays,
>>biographies, and poetry influenced by the French symbolists, which
appeared
>>in many volumes, including Collected Poems (1954). Her Façade, an
>>entertainment in abstract, rhythmic verse, with music by William Walton,
>was first read in 1922.
>I think you'll find that Sitwell's poems, although often referred to as
>'abstract' , are mostly grounded in concrete imagery :
>
>The Fan
>by Edith Sitwell
>
>Lovely Semiramis
>Closes her slanting eyes:
>Dead is she long ago.
>From her fan, sliding slow,
>Parrot-bright fire's feathers,
>Gilded as June weathers,
>Plumes bright and shrill as grass
>Twinkle down; as they pass
>Through the green glooms in Hell
>Fruits with a tuneful smell,
1)Grapes like an emerald rain,
2)Where the full moon has lain,
>Greengages bright as grass,
>Melons as cold as glass,
>Piled on each gilded booth,
>Feel their cheeks growing smooth.
3)Apes in plumed head-dresses
>Whence the bright heat hisses,--
>Nubian faces, sly
>Pursing mouth, slanting eye,
4)Feel the Arabian
Aidan Tynan
Frances Kwong wrote in message
<3b3b5847$0$25464$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>...
>Help, CAB, PJR, Steve or Philip......someone??
>
>But aren't there abstract words in all but four lines?
Nope. Apes, grapes, rain, Arabian winds ... those are all concrete words.
>Wouldn't that make Stillwell an *abstract* writer?
-Aidan
LonWolve
this is an impressive mini essay and everything but only seemingly so.
Here is the resume as I see it:
> The simple, and best, answer to
> LonWolve's "Why should I believe these guys?" is "Look at poetry and see if
> it applys." Which, of course, it does.
> Now, that is not to say there are not successful poems that deal mostly in
> abstractions, because there are. Nor does the existence of these poems
> invalidate the overall notion that concrete imagery works better and more
> often than abstraction.
> Why should we believe those guys? Not because recent breakthroughs in
> neurological science have revealed an asociation between blah blah blah . .
> ., but because we have read thousands and thousands (and thousands) of poems
> and we have observed this principle in practice.
For me there are obvious logical errors here (check comment 3). Also,
there are psychological issues that emerge. I don't mean anything
abnormal, just an "unwillingness" to let go of your pre-established
convictions.
Comments:
1.
> the most important, and often the least applied, method for
> proving or disproving an idea (at least an idea presented
> here)--observation.
Observation does not prove anything. It is merely the first phase in
what we call scientific method. Look:
a. Observe
b. Propose a hypothesis
c. Test your hypothesis
d. Formulate a theory
e. (optional) Watch the theory collapse.
2.
> The simple, and best, answer to
> LonWolve's "Why should I believe these guys?" is "Look at poetry and see if
> it applys." Which, of course, it does.
Would that be the whole of poetry? And how could I do that? I mean, see
if it applies to the whole of poetry?? From the little I have read I see
it applying to some poems and not applying to some others. I like those
some others.
3.
> "Look at poetry and see if
> it applys." Which, of course, it does.
> Now, that is not to say there are not successful poems that deal mostly in
> abstractions, because there are.
--> Which means that it obviously does not apply sometimes. Now, what is
it that you said here? I mean, really?
Here is your whole mini essay for easy reference:
Mikel Potts
(in message <3b3b5847$0$25464$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>):
> Help, CAB, PJR, Steve or Philip......someone??
>
> But aren't there abstract words in all but four lines?
> Wouldn't that make Stillwell an *abstract* writer?
>
It would be fairly close to impossible to write a poem
with no abstract words, it is the preponderance of
concrete imagery, not just the existence of a few
words, one way or the other that creates a concrete
poem.
In the quoted poem most of the lines create images,
concrete little pictures, smells, tastes, etc.
Abstract words and abstract poems are not the same thing.
An abstract poem is much like an abstract painting, it is
the relationships of the objects in the painting that
are abstract, not their existence.
Mikel
Chris Keelan
> Hi Chris. Good to see you here again. I have a deep regard for Nims and
> find this brief quote you've provided very much dead on.
Is this regard just based on "Western Wind"? I love that book but can't
seem to find out anything more about him.
[snip]
> Conversations like these tend to turn
> needlesslly toward discussions of neurologial processes, silly and
> inaccurate aphorisms, arguments over intellect, etc, but they seem to
> almost religiously avoid looking toward the poems themselves.
I've noticed in all the time that I've lurked and posted here (over two
years now) that you've never received satisfaction with that argument.
Whether it's Don(ny Mnemonic) H., or stargazer or even Kenny, there is no
poetic argument for the "hearts" crowd. There's no poetic support for the
"abstractions rule" or "cliches are okay" jihad. In my response to
LoneWolve, I asked him to name poems or cite essays. I'm not surprised that
he didn't.
[snip]
>... we have a body of work that so consistently chooses concrete imagery
>over abstraction one would have to intentionally turn a blind eye to miss
>it.
Well said.
[snip more execellent explication of an auncient arguemente]
I have a whole harddrive stuffed with excerpts from aapc. I
suggest that this dialogue: "what makes effective poetry", as played out
between the "read some poetry" and "I gotta be meeee!" crowds, *is* the
central discussion of this newsgroup.
On another note, do you read s-f, Mike? In *Science Fiction 101*, Robert
Silverberg has an introductory essay called "The Making of a
Science-Fiction Writer". It's strewn with gems such as this quote from
James Blish: "We know...that there is a huge body of available technique in
ficiton writing, and that the competence of a writer--entirely aside from
the degree of his talent--is determined by how much of this body of
technique he can use."
As I read the essay I couldn't help but mumble "swap 'poetry' for 's-f' and
I could post this on aapc".
- Chris
-----
"When another well-known writer used a complete sentence as a "said"
substitute and I objected, he showed me where Hemingway had done the same
thing. Well, I said, even if Hemingway did it, it's still a dumb thing to
do. Besides, you're not Hemingway."
~Robert Silverberg
Adam Vieira
>decently with; his intellect is improperly exposed"
I had assumed that this was the mark of a _good_ poet, but that's just me.
im sure it was a good read, but I stopped reading after this. I am a child
of the MTV generation, what can I say but... what was I saying?
by the way, I don't type "<snip>" because it would be "a waste of
bandwidth", but explaining my conservation of bandwidth is a waste of
bandwidth. Catch-22, its a hell of a catch.
CAB
"Peter J Ross" <p...@britishlibrary.net> wrote in message news:<9he0md$d7ild$1...@ID-76477.news.dfncis.de>...
<snip>
> Here are two poems, one incomplete, both of which use an abstraction
> or two (which I've marked with an asterisk).
>
<snip>
> Virtue* is virtů. These
<more snippage>
> Which filled his pursuers' hearts with woe*:
>
<snippity snip snip snip>
> PJR :-)
Many, many thanks for going to the trouble of posting these examples.
The concept is becoming much more clear to me. Hopefully I'll be able
to put the knowledge to good use.
CAB
CAB
Chris Keelan <rufm...@home.com> wrote in message news:<_3w_6.47789$Mf5.12...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>...
<snip>
> In "The Western Wind, An Introduction to Poetry", John Frederick Nims has
> the following to say on the subject:
Sounds like a book I should read...
<major snip>
> - Chris
A thousand thank-you's for going through the trouble to post all of
that material on abstractions. It helped tremendously. I think I'll
be able to locate the beasties now. Tame them? We'll see.
Thanks again,
CAB
Mike Billard
> Mike Billard wrote:
> > Hi Chris. Good to see you here again. I have a deep regard for Nims and
> > find this brief quote you've provided very much dead on.
>
> Is this regard just based on "Western Wind"? I love that book but can't
> seem to find out anything more about him.
Actually, no. I've read a number of essays by him, most recently in the book
"Meter In English - A Critical Engagement." That's an interesting book, btw.
A fellow named Robert Wallace wrote an essay aptly titled "Meter in
English." It was distributed to a dozen or so poets and critics for comment.
The essay and those responses comprise the book. We're talking some major
names here, people like Robert Hass, Charles O. Hartman, Dana Gioia, Lewis
Putnam Turco, Timothy Steele, and Eavan Boland. The originating essay
addresses such topics as naming conventions for metrical devices, whether or
not syllabics and quantities are really meters (in English) and an argument
stating that there is only *one* true meter (in English), whixh of course is
iambic.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Conversations like these tend to turn
> > needlesslly toward discussions of neurologial processes, silly and
> > inaccurate aphorisms, arguments over intellect, etc, but they seem to
> > almost religiously avoid looking toward the poems themselves.
>
> I've noticed in all the time that I've lurked and posted here (over two
> years now) that you've never received satisfaction with that argument.
> Whether it's Don(ny Mnemonic) H., or stargazer or even Kenny, there is no
> poetic argument for the "hearts" crowd. There's no poetic support for the
> "abstractions rule" or "cliches are okay" jihad. In my response to
> LoneWolve, I asked him to name poems or cite essays. I'm not surprised
that
> he didn't.
That's because he can't. He made some comment about how we'd probably find
different opinions of equal value if only we'd look in another direction.
Well, the simple truth is I've looked in every direction I could. I've read
literally hundreds of books on poetry, prosody, and the like, from different
centuries and different countries in fact. And those different opinions of
equal value just don't exist. Sure, I can find different opinions here in
the newsgroup, from people who haven't spent more than a little while
studying poetry, but to pretend those opinions are of equal value to
anything Pound or Blake or Lorca said is just silly.
>
> [snip]
> >... we have a body of work that so consistently chooses concrete imagery
> >over abstraction one would have to intentionally turn a blind eye to miss
> >it.
>
> Well said.
>
> [snip more execellent explication of an auncient arguemente]
>
> I have a whole harddrive stuffed with excerpts from aapc. I
> suggest that this dialogue: "what makes effective poetry", as played out
> between the "read some poetry" and "I gotta be meeee!" crowds, *is* the
> central discussion of this newsgroup.
>
> On another note, do you read s-f, Mike?
Sure do. My wife just recently bought me the two Earth Clan trilogies by
David Brin. Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, Bradbury, (and others of course) have
all found a place on my bookshelves.
> In *Science Fiction 101*, Robert
> Silverberg has an introductory essay called "The Making of a
> Science-Fiction Writer". It's strewn with gems such as this quote from
> James Blish: "We know...that there is a huge body of available technique
in
> ficiton writing, and that the competence of a writer--entirely aside from
> the degree of his talent--is determined by how much of this body of
> technique he can use."
Exactly. When people stop looking a them as rules and instead see them as
tools they'll be well on their way.
But it;s just like the old joke: "How many social workers does it take to
change a lightbulb? One, but the lightbulb has to want to change." You can't
teach or convince someone who absolutely refuses to learn or hear.
All the talk of freedom and creativity is just a smoke screen for blind
ignorance.
LonWolve
> that
> > he didn't.
>
> That's because he can't. He made some comment about how we'd probably find
> different opinions of equal value if only we'd look in another direction.
> Well, the simple truth is I've looked in every direction I could. I've read
> literally hundreds of books on poetry, prosody, and the like, from different
> centuries and different countries in fact. And those different opinions of
> equal value just don't exist.
Too bad that after reading all these books all you can do to prove your
points is provide references and quotes. I don't give a fuck what Lorca
said. Neither should you if you are to really address the issues at hand
instead of blindly conforming to what seems to be the agreement at this
or any time.
Historically, most agreements on just about everything have been proven
to be based on deep rooted fallacies and badly chosen premises. Don't be
that sure you know what you are talking about. You will feel less of an
ass when you are proven wrong.
All I have been doing here is state my opinion. You on the other hand
consistently choose to speak in absolute terms as if you represent a
higher authority or something. I find this to be of very bad taste to
say the least.
LW
Kenny Chaffin
> Chris Keelan <rufm...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:9bS_6.53447$Mf5.14...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > Mike Billard wrote:
> > > Hi Chris. Good to see you here again. I have a deep regard for Nims and
> > > find this brief quote you've provided very much dead on.
> >
> > Is this regard just based on "Western Wind"? I love that book but can't
> > seem to find out anything more about him.
>
> Actually, no. I've read a number of essays by him, most recently in the book
> "Meter In English - A Critical Engagement." That's an interesting book, btw.
> A fellow named Robert Wallace wrote an essay aptly titled "Meter in
> English." It was distributed to a dozen or so poets and critics for comment.
> The essay and those responses comprise the book. We're talking some major
> names here, people like Robert Hass, Charles O. Hartman, Dana Gioia, Lewis
> Putnam Turco, Timothy Steele, and Eavan Boland. The originating essay
> addresses such topics as naming conventions for metrical devices, whether or
> not syllabics and quantities are really meters (in English) and an argument
> stating that there is only *one* true meter (in English), whixh of course is
> iambic.
>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
thanks for the snip...
>
Which brings me to: How important do people feel this/these "critical
academic discussions" really are to poetry and is or is not this academic
nature the reason poetry is not more popular with the average person on
the street.
KAC
--
Kenny A. Chaffin
KAC Website Design - http://www.kacweb.com
Custom/Contract Programming, Graphics, Design
Poetry Page: http://www.kacweb.com/poems/
Chris Keelan
>
> Which brings me to: How important do people feel this/these "critical
> academic discussions" really are to poetry and is or is not this academic
> nature the reason poetry is not more popular with the average person on
> the street.
Academic? I thought the discussion was about "why is it good for beginning
poets to avoid abstraction"? Maybe it's a stretch, but couldn't we look at
the practices of poets who have produced what are widely considered to be
"good" poems and draw some conclusions there? Nim's passage begins with a
general discussion of abstraction, just to frame the argument, and he does
make reference to other disciplines but that excerpt ends where it should
end--relating the insight back to poetry and he calls on a specific example
as his concluding point. Go back and re-read the excerpt. Pound does not
say that Rafu is beautiful, but we know it, because of the concrete details
he used to portray her.
If by "academic" you mean "discussing the particulars of poetic technique"
then yes, this conversation is guilty of that. As to whether or not this
kind of "academic" approach is useful to an apprentice poet, well, CAB
seemed to think so.
Okay Kenny, if you disagree, which poems will you use to illustrate your
point? Can you show us some examples of abstraction used to good effect?
- Chris
LonWolve
> Okay Kenny, if you disagree, which poems will you use to illustrate your
> point? Can you show us some examples of abstraction used to good effect?
>
> - Chris
>
I pointed out Vaughan - who I happen to like - the other day. Nobody
said anything.
LW
Mike Billard
> Kenny Chaffin wrote:
> >
> > Which brings me to: How important do people feel this/these "critical
> > academic discussions" really are to poetry
Possibly as important as anything else a poet can do. If one hasn't enough
passions for the art to care about and want to talk about the gritty
details, one probably hasn't enough passion to do the art well. Two quotes
come to mind, the first by the now familiar John Frederick Nims, the second
by Dana Gioia:
"Probably never in the history of poetry have poets had so little interest
in or knowledge of the arterial systems through which the lifeblood of
poetry flows. One can read through whole issues of 'poetry magazines' and
find not a glimmer of concern with prosody; even to know the word, some
writers seem to feel, puts a sort of stigma on them. As Anthony Hecht has
said in his recent Mellon Lecture on poetry and music: 'the rich and
versatile instruments of prosody . . . in these latter days, have been
rather too hastily consigned to the dustbin under the impression, on the
part of some poets, that if they are strident, or shocking, or emphatic
enough, all the artifices will be superfluous. Such poets incline to argue,
and to believe, that anything in the least contrived, and as seemingly
artificial as metrical regularity, would compromise and incriminate their
passionate integrity.'"
--John Frederick Nims
Now granted, Nims's comments focus on one specific aspect of academic
discussion--that of prosody, but his words apply to the full spectrum of
topics. The typical contemporary would-be poet thinks he can make it up as
he goes along. One wonders where such notions come from. How can a would-be
poet really expect to perform feats he's never bothered to learn in the
first place? Now, let's look at the second quote:
"Literary etiquette demands that in mixed company poets pretend prosody is a
dull subject. What genuine artist could possibly take those dusty Greek
terms and mechanistic scansions seriously? Only pedants reduce art to
arithmetic. Among their own kind, however, poets find prosody anything but
boring. I have watched poets argue intemperately over a detail of scansion
and witnessed others exhaust an evening disputing theories of versification.
Free-verse poets display surprisingly little immunity from these fevers; no
one, after all, likes to debate religion more than an atheist. Has any topic
raised tempers in the poetry world so high as the revival of rhyme and
meter?
"The passions that rage over versification puzzle and even perhaps
embarrass the common reader. Poets should be noble creatures of intuition,
not car mechanics trading greasy-fisted blows over how to rebuild an engine.
But isn't a religious fervor for technique the deepest difference between
the artist and the poseur?"
--Dana Gioia
To the last question, the answer is a resounding yes! There's a Robert Hass
essay somewhere, which I can't find at the moment, in which he talks about
spending an entire night with a handful of other poets arguing over a single
line in a Wallace Stevens poem. We don't seem to mind when (to borrow the
car mechanic metaphor from above) the guys hang out in the driveway for
hours drinking beer and talking gear ratios, RPMs and the like. Why should
there be any shock or concern when lovers of poetry get to together and talk
about the stuff that makes poems work? There would probably be far less bad
poetry written if more would-be poets took enough of an interest in the art
to have "academic discussions" about it.
> and is or is not this academic
> > nature the reason poetry is not more popular with the average person on
> > the street.
My initial, and probably ultimate, reaction to such a question is "Screw the
person on the street." It's sad indeed that Average Joe isn't being educated
(or educating himself) well enough to enjoy anything more than two steps
above thirty-minute sitcoms and games shows with spinning wheels. And I'm
probably giving Joe too much credit for his range of appreciation. If we
want to change the relationship between Average Joe and poetry then we need
to get poetry (and I mean real poetry) taught in the schools (and I mean
taught by people who know poetry) so that Average Joe can read the stuff.
When the widening of the gap, if the gap is indeed widening at all, is
because the reader is drifting further and further down the literacy scale,
I see no benefit to either reader or poetry in demanding poetry follow the
reader down.
Frances Kwong
cythera wrote in message ...
>"Frances Kwong" <pang...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:<3b3b4665$0$25479$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>...
<snip>
>What do you think:
>can the trickle-down effect actually work? :)
Who knows? A single drop of water repeated can eventually corrode through
stone....
<snip>
>By looking into a source-book (say, a dictionary)
That was done. Call me a - little hard of hearing -....
<snip>
>> Or, could that be two abstract ideas?
>I don't understand the question, but if you want to explain, I'll give it a
shot.
>1) One in a million _what_?
>2) What about this poem does or does not make it abstract?
>cythera.
O>K here goes:
Does the verse below contain an abstaction? (i.e) 'one in a million'
>> Dragon-flies through
>> the air transparent,
>> one in a million.
Imho I think yes. The fact I left out -what- exactly I think only adds to
the abstaction of the term - One in a mllion - which I think is an
abstaction. I probably should have made it :
Dragon-fly through
the air transparent,
one in a million. to make my reasoning more readily understood.
I'm not sure even now if this is one 'abstract notion' or two abstract
'words' (i.e.) million + transparent. For example if I were to shuffle it
around to:
Dragon
-flies through
the air transparent;
One in a million.
Would it be abstract at all? Does the abstraction come because the thought
of transparency is nebulous - I mean we say a person is transparent and they
are not.
Or is it that only one unit- in 1,000, 000, 000 is too abstract to
understand and needs something more concrete?
Or is this abstract at all? It could 'one in a million' just be a
colloquialism??
I was only trying to clarify because I *have* exhausted my reasoning.....
Btw, I don't know how much of my 'work' is read beyond the first line. What
I do know is that plenty of people admit to hanging around in aapc long
before they announce their presence. If my ramblings are read by them and no
one else, well, Alea iacta est - the die is cast.
Thanks for taking time to reply Cythera.
I appreciate all replies.
===
FK
Kenny Chaffin
fot...@altavista.net says...
I'm with you on this LW.....
Kenny Chaffin
rufm...@home.com says...
Chris, I didn't say I agree or diagree, I asked another question.
Kenny Chaffin
> Chris Keelan <rufm...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Cd8%6.60315$Mf5.16...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > Kenny Chaffin wrote:
> > >
> > > Which brings me to: How important do people feel this/these "critical
> > > academic discussions" really are to poetry
>
> Possibly as important as anything else a poet can do. If one hasn't enough
> passions for the art to care about and want to talk about the gritty
> details, one probably hasn't enough passion to do the art well. Two quotes
> come to mind, the first by the now familiar John Frederick Nims, the second
> by Dana Gioia:
>
This sounds like virtually a duplicate (opposite) of "If you can't do it
you can't crit it." I reject this just as soundly as others reject that
premis. There is no more need to be able to discuss arcane details in
order to accomplish poetry. I'm not saying it's possible, but that it's
not required.
> "Probably never in the history of poetry have poets had so little interest
> in or knowledge of the arterial systems through which the lifeblood of
> poetry flows. One can read through whole issues of 'poetry magazines' and
> find not a glimmer of concern with prosody; even to know the word, some
> writers seem to feel, puts a sort of stigma on them. As Anthony Hecht has
> said in his recent Mellon Lecture on poetry and music: 'the rich and
> versatile instruments of prosody . . . in these latter days, have been
> rather too hastily consigned to the dustbin under the impression, on the
> part of some poets, that if they are strident, or shocking, or emphatic
> enough, all the artifices will be superfluous. Such poets incline to argue,
> and to believe, that anything in the least contrived, and as seemingly
> artificial as metrical regularity, would compromise and incriminate their
> passionate integrity.'"
>
> --John Frederick Nims
Okay. So? I think that is one point of view. I think there is a full
spectrum of what we call poetry.
>
> Now granted, Nims's comments focus on one specific aspect of academic
> discussion--that of prosody, but his words apply to the full spectrum of
> topics. The typical contemporary would-be poet thinks he can make it up as
> he goes along. One wonders where such notions come from. How can a would-be
> poet really expect to perform feats he's never bothered to learn in the
> first place? Now, let's look at the second quote:
This doesn't even make sense. Everyone starts somewhere, no one is born a
poet any more than they are born a ballerina or nuclear scientist.
>
> "Literary etiquette demands that in mixed company poets pretend prosody is a
> dull subject. What genuine artist could possibly take those dusty Greek
> terms and mechanistic scansions seriously? Only pedants reduce art to
> arithmetic. Among their own kind, however, poets find prosody anything but
> boring. I have watched poets argue intemperately over a detail of scansion
> and witnessed others exhaust an evening disputing theories of versification.
> Free-verse poets display surprisingly little immunity from these fevers; no
> one, after all, likes to debate religion more than an atheist. Has any topic
> raised tempers in the poetry world so high as the revival of rhyme and
> meter?
> "The passions that rage over versification puzzle and even perhaps
> embarrass the common reader. Poets should be noble creatures of intuition,
> not car mechanics trading greasy-fisted blows over how to rebuild an engine.
> But isn't a religious fervor for technique the deepest difference between
> the artist and the poseur?"
>
> --Dana Gioia
You seem to be focusing on the prosidy thing. I don't care. I appreciate
your ability to pull up all these quotes, but so what? What do you think?
>
> To the last question, the answer is a resounding yes! There's a Robert Hass
> essay somewhere, which I can't find at the moment, in which he talks about
> spending an entire night with a handful of other poets arguing over a single
> line in a Wallace Stevens poem. We don't seem to mind when (to borrow the
> car mechanic metaphor from above) the guys hang out in the driveway for
> hours drinking beer and talking gear ratios, RPMs and the like. Why should
> there be any shock or concern when lovers of poetry get to together and talk
> about the stuff that makes poems work? There would probably be far less bad
> poetry written if more would-be poets took enough of an interest in the art
> to have "academic discussions" about it.
I'd agree that it takes study of any art or craft to become better at it.
I'd also say that most so-called academic discussions exist for their own
benefit rather than for that purpose.
>
>
> > and is or is not this academic
> > > nature the reason poetry is not more popular with the average person on
> > > the street.
>
> My initial, and probably ultimate, reaction to such a question is "Screw the
> person on the street." It's sad indeed that Average Joe isn't being educated
Well that puts it in perspective and delineates your audience. (See above
where I said .... "for it's own benefit..."
> (or educating himself) well enough to enjoy anything more than two steps
> above thirty-minute sitcoms and games shows with spinning wheels. And I'm
> probably giving Joe too much credit for his range of appreciation. If we
> want to change the relationship between Average Joe and poetry then we need
> to get poetry (and I mean real poetry) taught in the schools (and I mean
> taught by people who know poetry) so that Average Joe can read the stuff.
and who is to choose. I'd argue that poetry _is_ being learned but that
it's rap and not some 18th century writer.
> When the widening of the gap, if the gap is indeed widening at all, is
> because the reader is drifting further and further down the literacy scale,
> I see no benefit to either reader or poetry in demanding poetry follow the
> reader down.
It does no good to blame someone else. Here you are simultaneously saying
you don't give a shit about the average joe, but that they should better
themselves by comeing "up" to your level. This is egotistical self-
centered bullshit. If you wish others to change then they must be reached
on their level.
LonWolve
deja.com says...
> Mike B. or someone who knows poetry
> inside-out will help _me_ one of these days.
Someone who knows poetry inside-out huh?
You do need some serious help with things, but I doubt poetry is at the
top of that list.
LW
LonWolve
> I'm with you on this LW.....
>
> KAC
>
Thanks Kenny
LW
DE nederlandsche CACAOFABRIEK
No problemos, Alfonso.
Martijn
Note: this is not a chatbox
--
DE nederlandsche CACAOFABRIEK
http://www.cacaofabriek.com/
‘The artist-proletarian must act on the intellect of his comrade
proletarians not only
through what they can understand at their present stage of
development.’
Pavel Filonov
Mike Billard
news:MPG.15a5aaa93...@news.lineone.net...
> Mike,
>
> this is an impressive mini essay and everything but only seemingly so.
> Here is the resume as I see it:
>
> > The simple, and best, answer to
> > LonWolve's "Why should I believe these guys?" is "Look at poetry and see
if
> > it applys." Which, of course, it does.
>
> > Now, that is not to say there are not successful poems that deal mostly
in
> > abstractions, because there are. Nor does the existence of these poems
> > invalidate the overall notion that concrete imagery works better and
more
> > often than abstraction.
>
> > Why should we believe those guys? Not because recent breakthroughs in
> > neurological science have revealed an asociation between blah blah blah
. .
> > ., but because we have read thousands and thousands (and thousands) of
poems
> > and we have observed this principle in practice.
>
> For me there are obvious logical errors here (check comment 3). Also,
> there are psychological issues that emerge. I don't mean anything
> abnormal, just an "unwillingness" to let go of your pre-established
> convictions.
Starting off with one big mistake, or an attempt at a subtle slur, doesn't
help you out much. I came to poetry without any pre-established convictions,
which apparently is more than we can say about your approach. You see,
that's the difference. I read poetry and learned from what I found there.
What, exactly, have you been doing?
>
> Comments:
> 1.
> > the most important, and often the least applied, method for
> > proving or disproving an idea (at least an idea presented
> > here)--observation.
>
> Observation does not prove anything. It is merely the first phase in
> what we call scientific method. Look:
Irrelevant, really. As I state further down this ain't science, and all your
attmepts to try and make it science only pull you further and further from
where you should be. You keep working on your scientific approach for poetry
and when you've got it worked out to a mathematical formula start posting
poems and we'll see how well they work.
>
> a. Observe
> b. Propose a hypothesis
> c. Test your hypothesis
> d. Formulate a theory
> e. (optional) Watch the theory collapse.
Lovely.
>
>
> 2.
> > The simple, and best, answer to
> > LonWolve's "Why should I believe these guys?" is "Look at poetry and see
if
> > it applys." Which, of course, it does.
>
> Would that be the whole of poetry? And how could I do that? I mean, see
> if it applies to the whole of poetry?? From the little I have read I see
> it applying to some poems and not applying to some others. I like those
> some others.
Well, I've read over a million poems in my life and it applies to the vast
majority. I understand that people like Nims, and Pound, and William Carlos
Williams, and the hundreds of other poets who have come down on the side of
concrete imagery have read collectively millions of poems. What's funny, and
as I say in another post, I've never *once* found an essay (out of the
thousands I've read) that espouses "with equal weight" the alternative idea.
It's really rather stupid of you to take an "all or nothing" approach. This
is simply more of your silly "rules" nonsense. You think by finding a small
handful of exceptions you're disproving a "rule" others are trying to force
upon you. Those of us who have taken the time to study poetry reject the
notion of rules altogether. You ought to try it. BTW: and I know I'm
pressing my luck here because you refuse to back up your claims with
evidence, I'd like for you to post one of those purely abstract poems you
like so much so that we can look at it and see what does make it work.
>
> 3.
> > "Look at poetry and see if
> > it applys." Which, of course, it does.
>
> > Now, that is not to say there are not successful poems that deal mostly
in
> > abstractions, because there are.
>
> --> Which means that it obviously does not apply sometimes. Now, what is
> it that you said here? I mean, really?
The truth. What's wrong with that? Again, if you ever *really* want to learn
much about poetry you're going to have to lose the silly pre-established
convictions you have. We're not talking scientific law, which is so
ridiculously obvious it shouldn't have to be stated. The question is whether
concrete imagery is more successful in poetry than pure abstractions. The
answer, as supported by the evidence, is that concrete imagery is more
successful. As the subject applies to *this* newsgroup, which is where the
question was asked, concrete imagery is a far easier technique to pull off
than pure abstraction is and the earlier poet (which most of us in this
newsgroup are) will have greater success by applying the former over the
latter. Now, you can run to your library and hunt down two or three poems
full of abstractions that work wonderfully and wave them around pretending
you're proving something, if you want. But you won't be proving anything.
The question is not, nor has it ever been, about which technique works 100%
of the time and which technique never works. You really need to move past
that idea, because you're the only one holding on to it.
Now, please, get over your adolescent wounded ego act and post a couple of
those purely abstract poems you like so much so that we can all look at them
and come to our own conclusions.
Mike Billard
> > I asked him to name poems or cite essays. I'm not surprised
> > that
> > > he didn't.
> >
> > That's because he can't. He made some comment about how we'd probably
find
> > different opinions of equal value if only we'd look in another
direction.
> > Well, the simple truth is I've looked in every direction I could. I've
read
> > literally hundreds of books on poetry, prosody, and the like, from
different
> > centuries and different countries in fact. And those different opinions
of
> > equal value just don't exist.
>
> Too bad that after reading all these books all you can do to prove your
> points is provide references and quotes.
And all you can provide is, well, nothing. You've got nothing to support
your position. Meanwhile, as you so generously admit, I've at least drawn as
support for my position references from the actual thing we're talking
about here--poetry. I mean, lets's get real. Your comment literally says
that the only thing I can offer to prove my point is evidence. Imagine that!
> I don't give a fuck what Lorca
> said.
This says far more than you think.
> Neither should you if you are to really address the issues at hand
> instead of blindly conforming to what seems to be the agreement at this
> or any time.
I realize the point will be glossed over so that you can go on whining, but
there is no lack of information on this newsgroup regarding the amount of
research and time some of us have put into studying the art of poetry. Your
"blindly conforming" comment is just so much pretentious bullshit. I base my
opinions on decades of study, and you base yours on what you've managed to
conjure up in your little head, with no actual research into the art. How
convenient. I've got all kinds of opinions on the economic problems in
Russia that I'm sure the Russians would love to hear. Let's ignore the fact
I don't know a damn thing about their nation's economy, my opinion is
obviously equal to their best economists' opinions. In fact, their
economists are idiots for listening to what other economists have to say on
the matter. What blind conformity they display!
>
> Historically, most agreements on just about everything have been proven
> to be based on deep rooted fallacies and badly chosen premises. Don't be
> that sure you know what you are talking about. You will feel less of an
> ass when you are proven wrong.
Then prove me wrong. My understanding of poetry is an ever-changing thing.
Each day I learn something new. I'm not in it for the silly false bravado
you seem to be in it for. I don't need to pull myself up to my full height,
thrust out my chest and say "It *my* opinion, so there! The rest of you go
to hell!" If you were willing, or capable, of providing a cogent argument
for or against anything, I'd be the first to listen. But the "It's my
opinion and it is just as equal as everyone else's" argument is hollow. I
won't accept it because it is baseless. State your point and then support
your point with examples drawn from the world of poetry. Either poets
talking poetry or poems that show your point in use, I don't care. Give us
all something to work with. After all, neither Chris nor I has shown the
audacity to simply throw a few ideas without offering support for them. You
shouldn't, either. You want to participate, then for Christ's sake,
participate! Tell us what you think, why you think it, and then show us the
texts from which you drew your conclusions.
John Carle
> "The passions that rage over versification puzzle and even perhaps
>embarrass the common reader. Poets should be noble creatures of intuition,
>not car mechanics trading greasy-fisted blows over how to rebuild an engine.
>But isn't a religious fervor for technique the deepest difference between
>the artist and the poseur?"
>
>--Dana Gioia
>
>To the last question, the answer is a resounding yes!
I'll agree with that, but I think what often happens is that poets get
so tangled up in (yes, occasionally pedantic) details that they can't
then write clearly. Language poetry does this in spades, which it why
it drives me batshit.
> We don't seem to mind when (to borrow the
>car mechanic metaphor from above) the guys hang out in the driveway for
>hours drinking beer and talking gear ratios, RPMs and the like. Why should
>there be any shock or concern when lovers of poetry get to together and talk
>about the stuff that makes poems work?
There shouldn't be - in fact, it should be a cause for rejoicing. But
we don't require that Joe Sixpack on the highway understand gear
ratios to get to work safely. The thing to remember is where the art
hits the reader, so to speak.
> There would probably be far less bad
>poetry written if more would-be poets took enough of an interest in the art
>to have "academic discussions" about it.
Yup.
>My initial, and probably ultimate, reaction to such a question is "Screw the
>person on the street."
May be a sign of the end of the age, but I have to back Kenny a little
here. This is not to suggest that we should be writing drivel in
order to coddle readers any more than to suggest that we not discuss
the tools of good poetry amongst ourselves and any interested "lay
readers", but ISTM that we do ourselves no great service if what we
*do* write is accessible only by each other. I guess I always liked
Brodsky's idea of getting poetry into every nook and cranny of daily
life.
> If we
>want to change the relationship between Average Joe and poetry then we need
>to get poetry (and I mean real poetry) taught in the schools (and I mean
>taught by people who know poetry) so that Average Joe can read the stuff.
>When the widening of the gap, if the gap is indeed widening at all, is
>because the reader is drifting further and further down the literacy scale,
>I see no benefit to either reader or poetry in demanding poetry follow the
>reader down.
Exactly so, but neither should we seal ourselves into a Tower of Art
and thumb our noses at the masses who think of poetry in McKuen-esque
terms.
John
Return of the home page
http://www.newtonsbaby.com/john/
Gravity
http://www.newtonsbaby.com/gravity/
Karen Tellefsen
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: Abstractions- a question
Ermmm....
Mike B. is the one of the few posters here who
has a profound understanding of poetry (though I
don't know about inside out) who doesn't play the
some of the stupid ego games (well maybe a teensy
bit on a few occasions.) Poetry ain't science; I do
both (science pays the bills.) You should respect his
opinion even if you don't agree with it.
Also, there was no need to be sharp with cythera.
Now that I've broken my own ice, my own meager
thoughts on abstraction:
Abstractions of themselves aren't bad, it's their use in
poetry that can be problematic. Many aspects of
civilization depend on abstract thought, such as
ethics, economics and art. Necessarily, abstractions
must be used when discussing such abstract concepts.
However, poetry is an art form based on language,
and language itself is necessarily symbolic and somewhat
abstract, unlike paint on canvas or carved stone.
Excessive use of abstractions in poetry is a double
whammy; many readers desire something concrete to
hold on to enjoy the experience. Abstraction is so dry;
concrete sensuality is much more juicy, hence pleasant.
Sometimes it is easier to explain an abstraction with an
illustration of the concrete. If a visual artist is asked to
illustrate an abstract concept, say poverty, they are likely
to use something objective to demonstrate it, maybe
skinny people in ragged clothing. Perhaps the less-than-
great poet is well advised to do something similar.
Just a thoughts.
Mike Billard
Let me jump in here on your post and talk about several of the points you
raise above. First, dealing with the word "transparent", as you use it here
it isn't an abstraction at all. "Transparent" is a real property that
objects can possess. Sure, it takes on abstract qualities when applied to
people, much as "shallow" would for instance. But when used to modify "air"
it isn't abstract at all. If anything it's overkill. The air, by nature, is
transparent, and that property doesn't need to be pointed out. Now, if
you're going for a play on words here (air transaparent sounds like heir
apparent), you may gain a little justification for using the unnecessary
modifier. But that would depend a lot on other factors, such as how well
such other word plays work throughout the piece, etc.
Now, "one in a million" is what's called hyperbole. It's one of those
phrases that loses meaning and power because its such an exaggeration. Sure,
the dragon-fly might be realistially one in a thousand, or one in
three-thousand two-hundred forty-three, but we fall into these traps of
wanting to increase the effects of our perceptions. I've seen poems where a
relationship coming to an end is likened to "the sun blinking out in an
instant", or as "the end of the human race as we know it." Can the reader
really relate to the end of the human race or the sun blinking out? No. And
so he isn't moved very much by those exaggerations, which is exactly
opposite the effect the writer was hopin for. There was a comic strip years
ago that had the following dialog: "
Character A "Hey, you look like a million dollars!"
Character B "But you've never seen a million dollars."
Character A "Exactly! You look like nothing I've ever seen before."
You can take something concrete and turn it into an abstraction by expanding
it beyond the typical reader's ability to comprehend. While the number
1,000,000 is concrete and real enough, it is large enough to be out of the
reader's grasp. If I say "There were seven dogs chasing me down the street",
the reader can say, "Ooh, I've seen dogs in packs of twos and threes and
even fours. I can imagine how big a pack of seven dogs must be!" I've
achieved my goal. Now if I say "It seemd like a million dogs were chasing me
down the street", the reader will probably say, "Yeah, yeah, lots of dogs, I
get it." Big difference in the reader's response. And, of course, after all
that is said and done, you are still left with the fact that "one in a
million" is a fairly overused, tired phrase.
LonWolve
> Now, please, get over your adolescent wounded ego act and post a couple of
> those purely abstract poems you like so much so that we can all look at them
> and come to our own conclusions.
I already did that in reply to George's post. I posted 2 poems by Henry
Vaughan and a link to more poems by him. Check it out.
LW
LonWolve
> Mike B. is the one of the few posters here who
> has a profound understanding of poetry (though I
> don't know about inside out)
Karen,
I was not attacking Mike's obviously profound understanding of poetry
(however not flawless as he would like to have us think sometimes). I
was merely attacking the notion of somebody having "inside-out" poetry
understanding, whatever that means.
>
> Abstractions of themselves aren't bad, it's their use in
> poetry that can be problematic. Many aspects of
> civilization depend on abstract thought, such as
> ethics, economics and art. Necessarily, abstractions
> must be used when discussing such abstract concepts.
> However, poetry is an art form based on language,
> and language itself is necessarily symbolic and somewhat
> abstract, unlike paint on canvas or carved stone.
> Excessive use of abstractions in poetry is a double
> whammy; many readers desire something concrete to
> hold on to enjoy the experience. Abstraction is so dry;
> concrete sensuality is much more juicy, hence pleasant.
>
> Sometimes it is easier to explain an abstraction with an
> illustration of the concrete. If a visual artist is asked to
> illustrate an abstract concept, say poverty, they are likely
> to use something objective to demonstrate it, maybe
> skinny people in ragged clothing. Perhaps the less-than-
> great poet is well advised to do something similar.
>
I basically agree with what you say.
Later,
LW
Chris Keelan
[snip]
> Chris, I didn't say I agree or diagree, I asked another question.
What I'm not understanding here is your use of the term "academic". The
original post was asking for help identifying abstractions, oui? There were
two immediate responses, one by PJR and my post in which I quoted Nims'
explanation of the need for concrete imagery. It seems as if the question
became "academic" when another participant began making sweeping statements
about the nature of mind and the tendancies of humans towards abstractions.
Until then, I thought any insights were being related directly back to
poetic *practice*.
So what I don't understand is this: do you consider a side-discussion of
imagery, within the context of a thread about a particular poem "academic"?
How about the use of "cliche", when it arises directly out of one
participant's observation of another poet's use of cliched construction? At
what point does discussing the technical execution of a poem become
"academic" for you, Kenny?
I've seen you advocate a certain approach to critique, but honestly can't
understand how your "method" will help anyone, yourself included, improve
their poetry. I don't mean this as an attack. You've obviously got strong
beliefs about the creative process but I'm confused about how you intend to
share this insight with other apprentice poets.
If you were teaching poetry, Kenny, how would you do it? I'm not baiting
you, though it probably seems that way. I've watched you post here for,
what is it, a year now? Beyond the "let's be civil in our critiques", I
don't really understand your take on poetry.
- Chris
-----
Registered Linux user #219465
Rik Roots
So far on this thread I agree with everything you say. Except when I
come to this.
> My initial, and probably ultimate, reaction to such a question is "Screw the
> person on the street." It's sad indeed that Average Joe isn't being educated
> (or educating himself) well enough to enjoy anything more than two steps
> above thirty-minute sitcoms and games shows with spinning wheels. And I'm
> probably giving Joe too much credit for his range of appreciation. If we
> want to change the relationship between Average Joe and poetry then we need
> to get poetry (and I mean real poetry) taught in the schools (and I mean
> taught by people who know poetry) so that Average Joe can read the stuff.
> When the widening of the gap, if the gap is indeed widening at all, is
> because the reader is drifting further and further down the literacy scale,
> I see no benefit to either reader or poetry in demanding poetry follow the
> reader down.
>
I disagree that poetry should only entertain poets. I do agree that
poetry needs to be taught better, and there is no harm in teaching
people how to approach poetry for maximum pleasure.
But I feel that for Average Joe "poetry" has in some way lost the
plot. Poetry should not - must not - descend to the lowest common
denominator to include AJ (as Hallmark verse seems to do). But it
should make some effort to cover subjects and topics with which AJ can
connect. I feel that Post Modernism, and schools such as the Language
Poets have actively attempted to exclude AJ.
Poetry has played a role in the lives of AJ past. It can do so again.
But it has to be a two-way conversation between AJ and the poet. If
poetry continues to ghetto-ise itself in academia, or demean itself in
birthday cards, then no amount of teaching will drag the hoards away
from alternative entertainments.
This is of course just my own personal, unresearched opinion.
Rik, knee deep.
--
http://www.kalieda.org/poems/
Pop in for a browse, when you have a moment to spare...
Michael Snider
and, being a musician, I spend a lot of time in bars. I'm here to tell
you Joe and Betty Sixpack still read, treasure, and memorize poetry.
When my non-academic friends find out I write poetry they're nearly as
likely as not to pull a poem out of their wallet or to start to recite.
Now, it won't be Ron Silliman (an appropriate name), or even Sylvia
Plath, Seamus Heaney, Adrienne Rich, or Billy Collins. It damned sure
won't be Eliot, Pound, or Williams. People who use wheelbarrows are
seldom impressed with that red one.
It will be Frost, or Elizabeth Browing, or Kipling, or Millay, or even
Worsdworth. The most common are probably Kipling (who deserved the
first Nobel Prize for Poetry) and Service, who, though limited in range,
was damned good at a few things. My brother, an unreconstructed
redneck, once said to me "Michael, I dont get what you see in that
literature shit. I never could stand any of it but Shakespeare."
Mechanics, tool-makers, carpenters, farmers -- people who make things or
make things work and have to understand how they're put together and
function -- recognize and love well-made things, including well-made
poems.
Certainly there are wonderful poems which my friends cannot easily
appreciate because the poems depend on literary associations which are
unlikely outside academia. But Betty and Joe have much more canny
appreciation for poetry than do most of the BA's and BS's I've known (a
lot -- I taught freshman comp and creative writing for 7 years at the
University of Louisville).
There are at least two sad things about the situation. One is that fewer
people are learning how to make or understand the function of anything
at all -- our lovely "service economy" and mass-production techniques.
The second is that, for the most part, the academic world ignores the
poetry that is still vital, memorable, and moving to the people who do
still undertand making.
Aidan Tynan
>plot. Poetry should not - must not - descend to the lowest common
>denominator to include AJ (as Hallmark verse seems to do). But it
>should make some effort to cover subjects and topics with which AJ can
>connect. I feel that Post Modernism, and schools such as the Language
>Poets have actively attempted to exclude AJ.
Alternatively, the Great Unwashed have made their every effort to exclude
poetry from their lives.
-Aidan
Paul Heslop
>
> >But I feel that for Average Joe "poetry" has in some way lost the
> >plot. Poetry should not - must not - descend to the lowest common
> >denominator to include AJ (as Hallmark verse seems to do). But it
> >should make some effort to cover subjects and topics with which AJ can
> >connect. I feel that Post Modernism, and schools such as the Language
> >Poets have actively attempted to exclude AJ.
>
> Alternatively, the Great Unwashed have made their every effort to exclude
> poetry from their lives.
>
> -Aidan
>
--
Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come" C.Sandburg
--------------------------------------------------------------
my old and new sites......
http://dreamst8.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Chaffin
rufm...@home.com says...
learn to write it better by studying what works. A discussion becomes
academic when it moves away from poem at hand into the abstract realm of
discussion or when it becomes an argument between two points of view both
of which may very well be right. I ran into a guy at the gazebo recently
who seems to just want to argue (as do some here) and apparently feels
that his way is the only way and can't comprehend that others could (or
shoulh) have different views from him. He essentially wants and feels
everyone should agree with him and is by-damn gonna make sure they do.
Poetry and poetics is not like that, it's a very creative venue and there
are many forms, methods and reasons for doing it. There is no _one_ right
way and that is why I tend to poo-poo academic discussions, not that
there is not good information and things to learn, but that they tend to
get caught up in their own shit and forget about the point that started
it all. I particularly dislike the "appeal to authority or history" when
people quote someone's opinion on some topic, I'd rather here what they
have to say themselves. It's often as if they have no opinion, no emotion
themselves but only a collection of other's opinions.
So I guess to summarize, I consider it getting off base once the
discussion starts eating it's own tail. If the comments relate directly
to the poem at hand, that's exactly appropriate!
As far as my take on poetry, I don't know that I understand it either,
except that I believe it's a very important creative art that is
necessary for civilization in some manner as well as being an extremely
valuable way of chronicling and communicating by individuals.
Not sure that addresses the issue/questions, but there ya go!
Kenny Chaffin
Kenny Chaffin
Kenny Chaffin
Okay, so.... The Red Wheelbarrow? Do we read it as concrete? or apply
abstractions to it?
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Kenny Chaffin
> LonWolve <fot...@altavista.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.15a7165ef...@news.lineone.net...
> > > I asked him to name poems or cite essays. I'm not surprised
> > > that
> > > > he didn't.
> > >
> > > That's because he can't. He made some comment about how we'd probably
> find
> > > different opinions of equal value if only we'd look in another
> direction.
> > > Well, the simple truth is I've looked in every direction I could. I've
> read
> > > literally hundreds of books on poetry, prosody, and the like, from
> different
> > > centuries and different countries in fact. And those different opinions
> of
> > > equal value just don't exist.
> >
> > Too bad that after reading all these books all you can do to prove your
> > points is provide references and quotes.
>
> And all you can provide is, well, nothing. You've got nothing to support
> your position. Meanwhile, as you so generously admit, I've at least drawn as
> support for my position references from the actual thing we're talking
> about here--poetry. I mean, lets's get real. Your comment literally says
> that the only thing I can offer to prove my point is evidence. Imagine that!
>
Which is perhaps more valid than a ton of dead academics.
> > I don't give a fuck what Lorca
> > said.
>
> This says far more than you think.
>
> > Neither should you if you are to really address the issues at hand
> > instead of blindly conforming to what seems to be the agreement at this
> > or any time.
>
> I realize the point will be glossed over so that you can go on whining, but
> there is no lack of information on this newsgroup regarding the amount of
> research and time some of us have put into studying the art of poetry. Your
> "blindly conforming" comment is just so much pretentious bullshit. I base my
> opinions on decades of study, and you base yours on what you've managed to
> conjure up in your little head, with no actual research into the art. How
> convenient. I've got all kinds of opinions on the economic problems in
> Russia that I'm sure the Russians would love to hear. Let's ignore the fact
> I don't know a damn thing about their nation's economy, my opinion is
> obviously equal to their best economists' opinions. In fact, their
> economists are idiots for listening to what other economists have to say on
> the matter. What blind conformity they display!
>
Mike you yourself said this is not science, why do you then insist on
studying it, trying to determine specific rules, fixing precisely the way
things should be? Why not simply read great poems with out the the
comment and rhetoric and write. Is not the focus of this the poetry? or
is it academic opinion? I think there are two things in the study of
poetry that cause contention because they often get jammed together or
are forced together by various participants. I think the is the poetry
itself and there is academic study of the history of poetry they are very
different things much in the same way as science and the history of
science or music and music theory. I'm not saying that a wall should be
placed between them, but that in all discussions the difference should be
kept in mind as well as the biases of the participants. It's no secret
that I am on the poetry side and have little regard for academic over-
analysis of poetry or poetics. Note I said over-analysis, certainly there
are craft aspects of poetry that must be studied and learned in order to
accomplish poetry at an level of proficency, but when academics start
debating the meaning of "white" then that's going too far.
>
..
>
> Then prove me wrong. My understanding of poetry is an ever-changing thing.
> Each day I learn something new. I'm not in it for the silly false bravado
> you seem to be in it for. I don't need to pull myself up to my full height,
> thrust out my chest and say "It *my* opinion, so there! The rest of you go
> to hell!"
but that's exactly what you do.
> If you were willing, or capable, of providing a cogent argument
> for or against anything, I'd be the first to listen. But the "It's my
and you expect people to respond only on your terms.
> opinion and it is just as equal as everyone else's" argument is hollow. I
> won't accept it because it is baseless. State your point and then support
and then you dismiss them if they don't. You can't play the game only by
your rules, this is life, living and breathing, there are many ways, many
methods, many opinions, and they are all valid.
> your point with examples drawn from the world of poetry. Either poets
> talking poetry or poems that show your point in use, I don't care. Give us
> all something to work with. After all, neither Chris nor I has shown the
> audacity to simply throw a few ideas without offering support for them. You
support for them means different things to different people. You seem to
want an academic argument as support and seem to only be willing to
accept that. There are many other possibilities.
> shouldn't, either. You want to participate, then for Christ's sake,
> participate! Tell us what you think, why you think it, and then show us the
> texts from which you drew your conclusions.
>
He is participating, you're not allowing that he has his own way, you
want him to play by your rules, which is only one way of looking at the
world.
Kenny Chaffin
says...
> Mike,
>
> > "The passions that rage over versification puzzle and even perhaps
> >embarrass the common reader. Poets should be noble creatures of intuition,
> >not car mechanics trading greasy-fisted blows over how to rebuild an engine.
> >But isn't a religious fervor for technique the deepest difference between
> >the artist and the poseur?"
> >
> >--Dana Gioia
> >
> >To the last question, the answer is a resounding yes!
>
> I'll agree with that, but I think what often happens is that poets get
> so tangled up in (yes, occasionally pedantic) details that they can't
> then write clearly. Language poetry does this in spades, which it why
> it drives me batshit.
Total agreement here!!
>
> > We don't seem to mind when (to borrow the
> >car mechanic metaphor from above) the guys hang out in the driveway for
> >hours drinking beer and talking gear ratios, RPMs and the like. Why should
> >there be any shock or concern when lovers of poetry get to together and talk
> >about the stuff that makes poems work?
>
> There shouldn't be - in fact, it should be a cause for rejoicing. But
> we don't require that Joe Sixpack on the highway understand gear
> ratios to get to work safely. The thing to remember is where the art
> hits the reader, so to speak.
Well said.
>
> > There would probably be far less bad
> >poetry written if more would-be poets took enough of an interest in the art
> >to have "academic discussions" about it.
>
> Yup.
>
> >My initial, and probably ultimate, reaction to such a question is "Screw the
> >person on the street."
>
> May be a sign of the end of the age, but I have to back Kenny a little
> here. This is not to suggest that we should be writing drivel in
> order to coddle readers any more than to suggest that we not discuss
> the tools of good poetry amongst ourselves and any interested "lay
> readers", but ISTM that we do ourselves no great service if what we
> *do* write is accessible only by each other. I guess I always liked
> Brodsky's idea of getting poetry into every nook and cranny of daily
> life.
Thanks, and yes that's my point, we should write for all to read IMO not
writing for other poets, it should touch somehow the common life we all
share. (certainly there are subsets of this where the audience is more
limited and that is fine, but the poets writing for poets have no right
to tell me I can and can't write about or what poetry is or isn't). Dr
Seuss in some ways has done more for poetry that Keats ever did.
>
> > If we
> >want to change the relationship between Average Joe and poetry then we need
> >to get poetry (and I mean real poetry) taught in the schools (and I mean
> >taught by people who know poetry) so that Average Joe can read the stuff.
> >When the widening of the gap, if the gap is indeed widening at all, is
> >because the reader is drifting further and further down the literacy scale,
> >I see no benefit to either reader or poetry in demanding poetry follow the
> >reader down.
>
> Exactly so, but neither should we seal ourselves into a Tower of Art
> and thumb our noses at the masses who think of poetry in McKuen-esque
> terms.
Exactly! Thanks John, very well put.
>
> John
>
> Return of the home page
> http://www.newtonsbaby.com/john/
> Gravity
> http://www.newtonsbaby.com/gravity/
>
Best,
Kenny Chaffin
Kenny Chaffin
paul....@cableinet.co.uk says...
> Aidan Tynan wrote:
> >
> > >But I feel that for Average Joe "poetry" has in some way lost the
> > >plot. Poetry should not - must not - descend to the lowest common
> > >denominator to include AJ (as Hallmark verse seems to do). But it
> > >should make some effort to cover subjects and topics with which AJ can
> > >connect. I feel that Post Modernism, and schools such as the Language
> > >Poets have actively attempted to exclude AJ.
> >
> > Alternatively, the Great Unwashed have made their every effort to exclude
> > poetry from their lives.
> >
> > -Aidan
> >
> Hey! I haven't had a bath in days and I read poetry all the time!
>
>
I wondered what that was I smelled.
Mike Billard
news:3b3e10eb...@news.speakeasy.net...
Sure, but the difference between Commuter Joe and Motorhead Joe is similar
to the difference between Information Joe and Poetry Joe. One citizen sees,
or at least uses, languages as nothing more than a means for information
gathering and distributing. Newspaper articles, Playboy centerfold stat
pages, giving directions to the local IHOP--that sort of thing.
Understanding language at that level is on par with understanding a car well
enough to know where to put the gas and the oil, and when to shift gears,
and which pedal accelerates the car and which pedal slows it down.
>
> > There would probably be far less bad
> >poetry written if more would-be poets took enough of an interest in the
art
> >to have "academic discussions" about it.
>
> Yup.
>
> >My initial, and probably ultimate, reaction to such a question is "Screw
the
> >person on the street."
>
> May be a sign of the end of the age, but I have to back Kenny a little
> here. This is not to suggest that we should be writing drivel in
> order to coddle readers any more than to suggest that we not discuss
> the tools of good poetry amongst ourselves and any interested "lay
> readers", but ISTM that we do ourselves no great service if what we
> *do* write is accessible only by each other. I guess I always liked
> Brodsky's idea of getting poetry into every nook and cranny of daily
> life.
I don't disagree with this. But by saying "Screw the person on the street"
I'm not implying that poets should only concentrate on certain level of
"high brow" or obscure or technically complex poetry that can only be
understood by those who have studied Greek classics. Hell, two of my
favorite poets are Richard Hugo and James Wright. To put it bluntly, if
Average Joe can't understand what they're saying, Average Joe ain't too
bright. But as for Brodsky's idea, I think the nooks and crannies that need
to be filled first are the ones in the elementary schools, and in the middle
schools, and in the high schools. There isn't much wrong with poetry these
days--the wide range of voices, styles, themes, and so forth supply plenty
of poems for everybody--the problem lies in how carefully people are being
taught to read.
>
> > If we
> >want to change the relationship between Average Joe and poetry then we
need
> >to get poetry (and I mean real poetry) taught in the schools (and I mean
> >taught by people who know poetry) so that Average Joe can read the stuff.
> >When the widening of the gap, if the gap is indeed widening at all, is
> >because the reader is drifting further and further down the literacy
scale,
> >I see no benefit to either reader or poetry in demanding poetry follow
the
> >reader down.
>
> Exactly so, but neither should we seal ourselves into a Tower of Art
> and thumb our noses at the masses who think of poetry in McKuen-esque
> terms.
No, we shouldn't. But you know as well as I that this Tower of Art has had
as many stones laid by the lazy reader complaining about the elitists as it
has had laid by the elitists complaining about the lazy reader.
The answer doesn't lie in changing what we're doing (writing poetry of a
certain kind, having "academic" discussions, etc.), it lies in teaching
people at an earlier age how to appreciate poetry. And that's a tough sell
with the current range of passive (meaning no real active mental engagement
on the viewer's part) entertainment choices available to people. I don't
know if Keats can compete with Pokemon, or whether Heaney has a chance
against Bart Simpson.
Mike Billard
news:3B3E1CE2.MD-1...@enterprise.net...
> Hi, Mike.
>
> So far on this thread I agree with everything you say. Except when I
> come to this.
>
> > My initial, and probably ultimate, reaction to such a question is "Screw
the
> > person on the street." It's sad indeed that Average Joe isn't being
educated
> > (or educating himself) well enough to enjoy anything more than two steps
> > above thirty-minute sitcoms and games shows with spinning wheels. And
I'm
> > probably giving Joe too much credit for his range of appreciation. If we
> > want to change the relationship between Average Joe and poetry then we
need
> > to get poetry (and I mean real poetry) taught in the schools (and I mean
> > taught by people who know poetry) so that Average Joe can read the
stuff.
> > When the widening of the gap, if the gap is indeed widening at all, is
> > because the reader is drifting further and further down the literacy
scale,
> > I see no benefit to either reader or poetry in demanding poetry follow
the
> > reader down.
> >
> I disagree that poetry should only entertain poets.
Good. I disagree with that notion, too. I think poetry should entertain
anyone with the facility to understand and be entertained by poetry.
> I do agree that
> poetry needs to be taught better, and there is no harm in teaching
> people how to approach poetry for maximum pleasure.
>
> But I feel that for Average Joe "poetry" has in some way lost the
> plot. Poetry should not - must not - descend to the lowest common
> denominator to include AJ (as Hallmark verse seems to do). But it
> should make some effort to cover subjects and topics with which AJ can
> connect. I feel that Post Modernism, and schools such as the Language
> Poets have actively attempted to exclude AJ.
Sure, and other schools have produced their share of obscure stuff, too. But
there is just too much poetry being written all the time addressing every
theme imaginable to think AJ is being alienated because he can't connect
with the themes. I think the problem lies in understanding what a poem is
capable of doing, and also in gaining an appreciation for when a poem does
it. Let's face it, car chases and exploding airplanes and guys who can jump
in the air and simultaneously kick seven people while disarming a bomb and
freeing the scantily clad heroine from her chains are what people consider
stimulating these days. A cleverly turned phrase and a wonderful allusion
and impeccable rhythm aren't even on the list.
>
> Poetry has played a role in the lives of AJ past.
We have this tendency, I think, to exaggerate both how bad things are now
and how good things were then. Those in the know (and I've seen this written
in a number of places) say that a greater *percentage* of Americans (sorry,
no stats for other countries) are buying, and presumably reading, poetry now
than at any other time in history. And while it may be true that poetry
played a bigger role in the lives of those who read it in the past, the
slice of the population even capable of reading it was much smaller then
than it is now.
> It can do so again.
> But it has to be a two-way conversation between AJ and the poet. If
> poetry continues to ghetto-ise itself in academia, or demean itself in
> birthday cards, then no amount of teaching will drag the hoards away
> from alternative entertainments.
You see, I don't think there's that big of a problem that needs fixing. I
mean, how many people visit an art museum on a daily basis to see the latest
Hopper or Monet exhibition? There's a sculpture garden in the heart of
Washington D.C. that I visit fairly regularly. Nearly a million people
wandering around that city during any given weekday and I'm lucky to run
into a dozen people in the garden. I can't imagine how to instruct these
artists to produce sculptures that would appeal to the more people. And
should I worry about it? I know that poetry is read by far more people than
actively* write it. I know that Hopper and Monet are being viewed by far
more people than actively* paint. And I know that those sculptures are being
viewed by far more people than actively*, well, weld and build and assemble
and whatever else goes into making those sculptures. What size market share
should we be shooting for? As long as poets (and other artists) aren't
*intentionally and by design* trying to be obscure, and trying to alienate
entire populations, I think they should remain true to whatever vision is
driving them and allow the audience that is drawn to their work be drawn.
The best we can hope for is that the population is given the tools at an
early age to apprehend things more complex than a Britney Spears album or a
Dharma and Greg episode.
* I mean "actively" in the sense of pursuing it as an art. More people
probably *do* doodle verse than read poetry, but I'm referring to only those
who try to create art from their attempts.
>
> This is of course just my own personal, unresearched opinion.
>
> Rik, knee deep.
The current's not half as strong as it looks. Wade on out until your nipples
are getting wet.
Chris Keelan
[snipolla]
> Chris, I have no desire to teach poetry. My desire is to write it and
> learn to write it better by studying what works.
Okay, fair enough. But what do you mean by "study"? How do you study
something without crossing over into "academic" discussion? Where's the
boundary?
> A discussion becomes
> academic when it moves away from poem at hand into the abstract realm of
> discussion
What exactly is an "abstract realm of discussion". Does the discussion of a
particular sonnet become "academic" when it broadens to discuss sonnets in
general? If so, why is that a "bad thing"?
[snip]
>I particularly dislike the "appeal to authority or history" when
> people quote someone's opinion on some topic,
But what if the "authority" has said it better or more completely than I
could? Isn't the whole idea behind rational discussion one of explaining
how we got to our points of view? In a discussion, I'm not invoking Nims or
Kinzie to absolve myself from responsibility for the point I'm discussing,
rather to say "I've given this enough thought that I've bothered reading
this person, who's given this even more thought and study than I have"? And
what if I "appeal" to an authority who states something that's "right", or
at least better supported than the opposing viewpoint?
> I'd rather here what they
> have to say themselves. It's often as if they have no opinion, no emotion
> themselves but only a collection of other's opinions.
Who're "they", specifically? Are you referring to specific participants
here? I don't find that this vague generalization helps the point you're
trying to make.
>
> So I guess to summarize, I consider it getting off base once the
> discussion starts eating it's own tail. If the comments relate directly
> to the poem at hand, that's exactly appropriate!
But this is what I find confusing. At what point does the discussion "start
eating its own tail" in your opinion?
Let's continue the sonnet example: we recognize a sonnet because it has
characteristics which make it resemble other sonnets. Those characteristics
can be identified, not because someone is trying to lay down absolute rules
about sonnets, rather because poets have historically created sonnets with
these characteristics. Haven't the vast majority of sonnets in English been
written as 14-line, rhymed iambic verse? Did the discussion just become
academic because I catalogued the predominant features of a sonnet and
compared them to the poem under discussion?
If the poet in this instance is attempting one of the "boundary" sonnets,
for example a blues sonnet, how do we determine whether or not she's
succeeded if we don't know anything about the general practice of writing
sonnets?
> As far as my take on poetry, I don't know that I understand it either,
> except that I believe it's a very important creative art that is
> necessary for civilization in some manner as well as being an extremely
> valuable way of chronicling and communicating by individuals.
It's probably unfair to attribute this argument to you, but are you really
saying that the less you "know" about poetry, the better your poems? That
seems to be an argument which gets advanced around here (not that I'm
specifically accusing you of this) and yet, I have never seen the poems
which back this up. The more knowlegeable poets seem to write better poems.
The less knowlegeable poets seem to write "worse" poems, as I understand
how to evaluate them.
> Not sure that addresses the issue/questions, but there ya go!
I'm getting there. Obviously you believe strongly enough in what you're
saying to say it persistently. I'm just trying to put your argument into
terms I can understand.
- Chris
-----
Registered Linux user #219465
No Microsoft products were used or harmed to produce this usenet post.
Kenny Chaffin
And your point is?
Ahhh backpeddling in true MB style.
James Wright is far from writing for the average joe.
>
> >
> > > If we
> > >want to change the relationship between Average Joe and poetry then we
> need
> > >to get poetry (and I mean real poetry) taught in the schools (and I mean
> > >taught by people who know poetry) so that Average Joe can read the stuff.
> > >When the widening of the gap, if the gap is indeed widening at all, is
> > >because the reader is drifting further and further down the literacy
> scale,
> > >I see no benefit to either reader or poetry in demanding poetry follow
> the
> > >reader down.
> >
> > Exactly so, but neither should we seal ourselves into a Tower of Art
> > and thumb our noses at the masses who think of poetry in McKuen-esque
> > terms.
>
> No, we shouldn't. But you know as well as I that this Tower of Art has had
> as many stones laid by the lazy reader complaining about the elitists as it
> has had laid by the elitists complaining about the lazy reader.
>
I don't think so. If those in the tower are so knowing and above the rest
then it is their duty, their responsibility to connect with the rest,
unless of course that is the way they prefer it.
Kenny Chaffin
...
> > >
> > I disagree that poetry should only entertain poets.
>
> Good. I disagree with that notion, too. I think poetry should entertain
> anyone with the facility to understand and be entertained by poetry.
>
> > I do agree that
> > poetry needs to be taught better, and there is no harm in teaching
> > people how to approach poetry for maximum pleasure.
> >
> > But I feel that for Average Joe "poetry" has in some way lost the
> > plot. Poetry should not - must not - descend to the lowest common
> > denominator to include AJ (as Hallmark verse seems to do). But it
> > should make some effort to cover subjects and topics with which AJ can
> > connect. I feel that Post Modernism, and schools such as the Language
> > Poets have actively attempted to exclude AJ.
>
> Sure, and other schools have produced their share of obscure stuff, too. But
> there is just too much poetry being written all the time addressing every
> theme imaginable to think AJ is being alienated because he can't connect
> with the themes. I think the problem lies in understanding what a poem is
> capable of doing, and also in gaining an appreciation for when a poem does
> it. Let's face it, car chases and exploding airplanes and guys who can jump
> in the air and simultaneously kick seven people while disarming a bomb and
> freeing the scantily clad heroine from her chains are what people consider
> stimulating these days. A cleverly turned phrase and a wonderful allusion
> and impeccable rhythm aren't even on the list.
Okay, two points here. Who's to say what a poem is and what it can
accomplish, there is a wide range of possibility which often academia
tries to restrict and categorize. Just look at the constant "fight" over
lyrics vs poetry, songwriters vs poets, the Blackbird thing, Bob Dylan,
etc.
As far as what the average joe finds entertaining you're missing music
and lyrics which is the perfect connection with other types of poetry and
seem to ignore or dismiss it. There are billions of kids out there that
are listening to music and lyrics and a good chunk of those lyrics are
poetry full of poetic ideas, images, and content.
>
> >
> > Poetry has played a role in the lives of AJ past.
>
> We have this tendency, I think, to exaggerate both how bad things are now
> and how good things were then. Those in the know (and I've seen this written
> in a number of places) say that a greater *percentage* of Americans (sorry,
> no stats for other countries) are buying, and presumably reading, poetry now
> than at any other time in history. And while it may be true that poetry
> played a bigger role in the lives of those who read it in the past, the
> slice of the population even capable of reading it was much smaller then
> than it is now.
Who's we? Speak for yourself. So what's the problem? Is there an issue
with what they are reading or what. Just a minute ago you said that
virtually no on reads poetry and there's problems in the schools. Did you
change your mind?
>
> > It can do so again.
> > But it has to be a two-way conversation between AJ and the poet. If
> > poetry continues to ghetto-ise itself in academia, or demean itself in
> > birthday cards, then no amount of teaching will drag the hoards away
> > from alternative entertainments.
>
> You see, I don't think there's that big of a problem that needs fixing. I
> mean, how many people visit an art museum on a daily basis to see the latest
> Hopper or Monet exhibition? There's a sculpture garden in the heart of
> Washington D.C. that I visit fairly regularly. Nearly a million people
> wandering around that city during any given weekday and I'm lucky to run
> into a dozen people in the garden. I can't imagine how to instruct these
> artists to produce sculptures that would appeal to the more people. And
> should I worry about it? I know that poetry is read by far more people than
> actively* write it. I know that Hopper and Monet are being viewed by far
> more people than actively* paint. And I know that those sculptures are being
> viewed by far more people than actively*, well, weld and build and assemble
> and whatever else goes into making those sculptures. What size market share
> should we be shooting for? As long as poets (and other artists) aren't
> *intentionally and by design* trying to be obscure, and trying to alienate
> entire populations, I think they should remain true to whatever vision is
> driving them and allow the audience that is drawn to their work be drawn.
> The best we can hope for is that the population is given the tools at an
> early age to apprehend things more complex than a Britney Spears album or a
> Dharma and Greg episode.
You seem to be obsessed by this idea that you think the average person is
stupid. They're not, many of them could easily hand you your balls on a
plate or teach you nuclear physics or how to play piano. Everyone has
different skills, different intelligences to "apprehend" many things.
Kenny Chaffin
rufm...@home.com says...
> Kenny Chaffin wrote:
>
> [snipolla]
>
> > Chris, I have no desire to teach poetry. My desire is to write it and
> > learn to write it better by studying what works.
>
> Okay, fair enough. But what do you mean by "study"? How do you study
> something without crossing over into "academic" discussion? Where's the
> boundary?
when it starts discussing abstractions instead of specifics.
It's a bit like the difference in engineering and science or playing
music vs music theory. There is a line, but it's a bit grey.
>
> > A discussion becomes
> > academic when it moves away from poem at hand into the abstract realm of
> > discussion
>
> What exactly is an "abstract realm of discussion". Does the discussion of a
> particular sonnet become "academic" when it broadens to discuss sonnets in
> general? If so, why is that a "bad thing"?
See above, e.g. when you start discussing the "meaning" of white for
instance.
>
> [snip]
>
> >I particularly dislike the "appeal to authority or history" when
> > people quote someone's opinion on some topic,
>
> But what if the "authority" has said it better or more completely than I
> could? Isn't the whole idea behind rational discussion one of explaining
> how we got to our points of view? In a discussion, I'm not invoking Nims or
> Kinzie to absolve myself from responsibility for the point I'm discussing,
> rather to say "I've given this enough thought that I've bothered reading
> this person, who's given this even more thought and study than I have"? And
> what if I "appeal" to an authority who states something that's "right", or
> at least better supported than the opposing viewpoint?
No but you're detracting from it by brining in a third or fourth party.
If you've read these people and understood them and adopted their ideas
as your own, they you should be able to express the concept. I don't have
a problem with referencing someone else as supporting "evidence" but when
that's the only thing you do, you're a researcher or historian or
whatever, not a student of poetry.
>
> > I'd rather here what they
> > have to say themselves. It's often as if they have no opinion, no emotion
> > themselves but only a collection of other's opinions.
>
> Who're "they", specifically? Are you referring to specific participants
> here? I don't find that this vague generalization helps the point you're
> trying to make.
Whoever does this.
> >
> > So I guess to summarize, I consider it getting off base once the
> > discussion starts eating it's own tail. If the comments relate directly
> > to the poem at hand, that's exactly appropriate!
>
> But this is what I find confusing. At what point does the discussion "start
> eating its own tail" in your opinion?
See above.
>
> Let's continue the sonnet example: we recognize a sonnet because it has
> characteristics which make it resemble other sonnets. Those characteristics
> can be identified, not because someone is trying to lay down absolute rules
> about sonnets, rather because poets have historically created sonnets with
> these characteristics. Haven't the vast majority of sonnets in English been
> written as 14-line, rhymed iambic verse? Did the discussion just become
> academic because I catalogued the predominant features of a sonnet and
> compared them to the poem under discussion?
Simply stating something is a sonnet has not crossed into the academic
realm other than to identify it.
If you start discuss the pros and cons of sonnets, then it has.
>
> If the poet in this instance is attempting one of the "boundary" sonnets,
> for example a blues sonnet, how do we determine whether or not she's
> succeeded if we don't know anything about the general practice of writing
> sonnets?
And your point is?
>
> > As far as my take on poetry, I don't know that I understand it either,
> > except that I believe it's a very important creative art that is
> > necessary for civilization in some manner as well as being an extremely
> > valuable way of chronicling and communicating by individuals.
>
> It's probably unfair to attribute this argument to you, but are you really
> saying that the less you "know" about poetry, the better your poems? That
> seems to be an argument which gets advanced around here (not that I'm
> specifically accusing you of this) and yet, I have never seen the poems
> which back this up. The more knowlegeable poets seem to write better poems.
> The less knowlegeable poets seem to write "worse" poems, as I understand
> how to evaluate them.
You're right it's not, because I never said that. What I said is I have
no idea what you mean by "my take" on poetry. As far are this argument I
guess it depends on what you mean by knowledgable. There could be experts
on sonnets that know nothing about any other form or poetic academics
that know every form but couldn't write their way out of a paper bag. As
I said, there is all kinds of poetry for all kinds of reasons, there is
no reason to try to pigeon-hole it all. There are poets that write
marvelous poems that wouldn't know a sonnet if it bit them and academics
that have read every poem and criticism and discussion ever written but
can't write poetry themselves and everything in between. I don't advocate
any particular thing or school, poetry is an art, not a science that's my
bottom line and academics too often try to turn it into a science which
is ridiculious to even attempt. I think that is exactly where the
contention with academics comes from.
Rik Roots
> Among other things, I sometimes make my living as a framing carpenter,
> and, being a musician, I spend a lot of time in bars. I'm here to tell
> you Joe and Betty Sixpack still read, treasure, and memorize poetry.
> When my non-academic friends find out I write poetry they're nearly as
> likely as not to pull a poem out of their wallet or to start to recite.
> Now, it won't be Ron Silliman (an appropriate name), or even Sylvia
> Plath, Seamus Heaney, Adrienne Rich, or Billy Collins. It damned sure
> won't be Eliot, Pound, or Williams. People who use wheelbarrows are
> seldom impressed with that red one.
>
> It will be Frost, or Elizabeth Browing, or Kipling, or Millay, or even
> Worsdworth. The most common are probably Kipling (who deserved the
> first Nobel Prize for Poetry) and Service, who, though limited in range,
> was damned good at a few things. My brother, an unreconstructed
> redneck, once said to me "Michael, I dont get what you see in that
> literature shit. I never could stand any of it but Shakespeare."
> Mechanics, tool-makers, carpenters, farmers -- people who make things or
> make things work and have to understand how they're put together and
> function -- recognize and love well-made things, including well-made
> poems.
>
This is, I think, Mike B's point about education and poetry
appreciation. The poems that form part of a society's core canon will
get taught at school early and often (I was first introduced to
Wordsworth's daffodils when I was six, from which my contempt for all
that man's later works developed). Modern poetry is taught, if at all,
when studying EngLit for exams - it is not taught for its own sake,
but as a task to be mastered to gain marks in an exam.
I'm not sure I agree that artisans appreciate poems more than
non-artisans.
Rik, knee deep
Rik Roots
> >plot. Poetry should not - must not - descend to the lowest common
> >denominator to include AJ (as Hallmark verse seems to do). But it
> >should make some effort to cover subjects and topics with which AJ can
> >connect. I feel that Post Modernism, and schools such as the Language
> >Poets have actively attempted to exclude AJ.
>
> Alternatively, the Great Unwashed have made their every effort to exclude
> poetry from their lives.
>
to print a good poem daily, weekly, even just monthly, then I am sure
the GU would be happy to read the poems - if they are good,
entertaining, and in some way relevant to them.
> -Aidan
>
Rik, knee deep
Rik Roots
> > plot. Poetry should not - must not - descend to the lowest common
> > denominator to include AJ (as Hallmark verse seems to do). But it
> > should make some effort to cover subjects and topics with which AJ can
> > connect. I feel that Post Modernism, and schools such as the Language
> > Poets have actively attempted to exclude AJ.
>
> Sure, and other schools have produced their share of obscure stuff, too. But
> there is just too much poetry being written all the time addressing every
> theme imaginable to think AJ is being alienated because he can't connect
> with the themes.
Then perhaps the problem lies with the filters which select the poems
to be presented and marketed to AJ? One strand markets them Jewel and
Bukowski, another strand tells them that the Art is far too complex
for them to understand and should be left to the academics.
I want some new filters.
> I think the problem lies in understanding what a poem is
> capable of doing, and also in gaining an appreciation for when a poem does
> it. Let's face it, car chases and exploding airplanes and guys who can jump
> in the air and simultaneously kick seven people while disarming a bomb and
> freeing the scantily clad heroine from her chains are what people consider
> stimulating these days. A cleverly turned phrase and a wonderful allusion
> and impeccable rhythm aren't even on the list.
>
People also thought Schindlers List to be good entertainment. Captain
Correlli's Mandolin (not an easy book to read) stayed in the
bestsellers charts for years. I believe good poetry is excellent
entertainment, and easily portable to boot.
> >
> > Poetry has played a role in the lives of AJ past.
>
> We have this tendency, I think, to exaggerate both how bad things are now
> and how good things were then. Those in the know (and I've seen this written
> in a number of places) say that a greater *percentage* of Americans (sorry,
> no stats for other countries) are buying, and presumably reading, poetry now
> than at any other time in history. And while it may be true that poetry
> played a bigger role in the lives of those who read it in the past, the
> slice of the population even capable of reading it was much smaller then
> than it is now.
>
We live in a different age. Information now is easily obtainable,
while in past times it was at a premium (and a lot more expensive). As
Michael S says in his response, many people could, and still can,
quote poetry. It remains a valid entertainment.
> > It can do so again.
> > But it has to be a two-way conversation between AJ and the poet. If
> > poetry continues to ghetto-ise itself in academia, or demean itself in
> > birthday cards, then no amount of teaching will drag the hoards away
> > from alternative entertainments.
>
> You see, I don't think there's that big of a problem that needs fixing. I
> mean, how many people visit an art museum on a daily basis to see the latest
> Hopper or Monet exhibition? There's a sculpture garden in the heart of
> Washington D.C. that I visit fairly regularly. Nearly a million people
> wandering around that city during any given weekday and I'm lucky to run
> into a dozen people in the garden. I can't imagine how to instruct these
> artists to produce sculptures that would appeal to the more people.
One of the most visited attractions in London is the new Tate Modern
Gallery, in Bankside powerstation. It is easy to get to, and well
publicised. Marketing the product has been central to its success.
> And
> should I worry about it? I know that poetry is read by far more people than
> actively write it. I know that Hopper and Monet are being viewed by far
> more people than actively paint. And I know that those sculptures are being
> viewed by far more people than actively, well, weld and build and assemble
> and whatever else goes into making those sculptures. What size market share
> should we be shooting for?
As large a market as we can reach.
> As long as poets (and other artists) aren't
> *intentionally and by design* trying to be obscure, and trying to alienate
> entire populations, I think they should remain true to whatever vision is
> driving them and allow the audience that is drawn to their work be drawn.
> The best we can hope for is that the population is given the tools at an
> early age to apprehend things more complex than a Britney Spears album or a
> Dharma and Greg episode.
>
Which is fair enough. But I think a poet who ignores his potential
audience is doing an injustice to his or her art. For me, poetry is a
conversation between the writer and the reader. It is an adventure
which should be entertaining and enjoyable to both. Ignoring the
audience is not only selfish, it is pointless. Especially when the
work is subsequently published.
> I mean "actively" in the sense of pursuing it as an art. More people
> probably *do* doodle verse than read poetry, but I'm referring to only those
> who try to create art from their attempts.
>
Creating art vs communicating a vision. Now there's a wrestling match
to appreciate.
> >
> > This is of course just my own personal, unresearched opinion.
> >
> > Rik, knee deep.
>
> The current's not half as strong as it looks. Wade on out until your nipples
> are getting wet.
>
A man does not need to wade out far before the current drags him down
by the bollocks.
Mike Billard
> In article <9hjaq6$lin$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, mbil...@erols.com says...
> > Chris Keelan <rufm...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:Cd8%6.60315$Mf5.16...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > > Kenny Chaffin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Which brings me to: How important do people feel this/these "critical
> > > > academic discussions" really are to poetry
> >
> > Possibly as important as anything else a poet can do. If one hasn't enough
> > passions for the art to care about and want to talk about the gritty
> > details, one probably hasn't enough passion to do the art well. Two quotes
> > come to mind, the first by the now familiar John Frederick Nims, the second
> > by Dana Gioia:
> >
>
> This sounds like virtually a duplicate (opposite) of "If you can't do it
> you can't crit it."
Which it isn't.
> I reject this just as soundly as others reject that
> premis.
You reject it only because either a) you've cornered yourself into a
knee-jerk reject everything mode of discourse and you simply can't
respond in any other manner, or b) you don't understand what I'm
saying. No one would question for one minute the notion that one
cannot play soccer at a high level without understanding the
intricacies of the game. Nor would they reject the notion that one
cannot build a house without knowing the details of how to, well,
build a house. But poetry is somehow different. Different in what way
we'll never know because people who espouse this ridiculous opinion,
including you, never seem willing to explain how. So I'm asking, how
can we honestly expect a person to write good poems without knowing,
or caring about, the principles of the art?
> There is no more need to be able to discuss arcane details in
> order to accomplish poetry.
Which may be one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said on this
newsgroup. First, as long as you consider the details of poetry
composition "arcane" you'll never really get anywhere at all. I know
it makes you feel all progressive and stuff (look! Kenny's too cool to
care about the arcane details of poetry composition! Meter? Boring!
Allusion? For geeks! Metaphor? Who gives a shit! Kenny's rad!), but it
sure as hell doesn't make you a better poet. I wonder why you post
your poems if you're going to secretly dismiss as arcane all those
comments you receive. I've seen the comments many people at Gaz have
made in good faith to your poems. Much of what has been said falls
squarely under the heading of "arcane details" by your standard. It's
disingenuous of you to waste their time by soliciting things you
couldn't care one ounce about. As for the ability to discuss the
details, you make it seem like a specialized skill that only a handful
of people could ever possibly care about obtaining. It isn't a skill,
it's a desire. I realize you've never even glimpsed the sort of
passion for the art that leads people to spend hours discussing some
"arcane" detail of poetry, so trying to explain it to you would be a
waste of time and effort. Suffice it to say it is something other than
an "academic" exercise, as you so glibly categorize it. It's more akin
to talking the details of your favorite baseball team with a fan of a
rival team. It's your mentality--a mentality that says we've
progressed beyond the need for understanding and knowledge--that harms
poetry as much as anything. Sincerity and an undeserved belief that
anything one says is of immense value have replaced concern for craft
and excellence.
> I'm not saying it's possible, but that it's
> not required.
>
> > "Probably never in the history of poetry have poets had so little interest
> > in or knowledge of the arterial systems through which the lifeblood of
> > poetry flows. One can read through whole issues of 'poetry magazines' and
> > find not a glimmer of concern with prosody; even to know the word, some
> > writers seem to feel, puts a sort of stigma on them. As Anthony Hecht has
> > said in his recent Mellon Lecture on poetry and music: 'the rich and
> > versatile instruments of prosody . . . in these latter days, have been
> > rather too hastily consigned to the dustbin under the impression, on the
> > part of some poets, that if they are strident, or shocking, or emphatic
> > enough, all the artifices will be superfluous. Such poets incline to argue,
> > and to believe, that anything in the least contrived, and as seemingly
> > artificial as metrical regularity, would compromise and incriminate their
> > passionate integrity.'"
> >
> > --John Frederick Nims
>
> Okay. So? I think that is one point of view. I think there is a full
> spectrum of what we call poetry.
Which is so vague and nonspecific it can't help but being true, but
which is also irrelevant to Nims's comments. It's also a point of view
supported by a wealth of historical data and evidence. Give me the
alternative point of view and then support it with references from the
world of poetry.
>
> >
> > Now granted, Nims's comments focus on one specific aspect of academic
> > discussion--that of prosody, but his words apply to the full spectrum of
> > topics. The typical contemporary would-be poet thinks he can make it up as
> > he goes along. One wonders where such notions come from. How can a would-be
> > poet really expect to perform feats he's never bothered to learn in the
> > first place? Now, let's look at the second quote:
>
> This doesn't even make sense.
It does to anyone capable of comprehending simply constructed
sentences. My point, which I'll repeat by typing slowly so you can
keep up, is that avoiding discussions on the mechanics of an art (what
you refer to as both "academic discussions" and "arcane details") is
useless. The would-be poet cannot ignore the existence of the devices
and techniques that make his art work and expect to make his art work.
A participant in this newsgroup several years ago admonished everyone
for actually reading poetry. I can't remember his exact statement, but
to paraphrase he said "Why waste your time reading poetry? Who cares
what's been done before? Be different, improvise!" Now, the simple and
obvious question is, how can you be different if you don't know what
others have already done? To pretend that one can create art while
living in a vacuum, completely closed off from all that has come
before and all that has been learned previously, is just plain stupid.
Makes for a good fantasy, I guess, inventing the myth of the poetry
savant who writes miraculous poetry on intuition alone. Too bad it's
just that--a fantasy. But you hang onto it Kenny. It might be all
you've got.
> Everyone starts somewhere, no one is born a
> poet any more than they are born a ballerina or nuclear scientist.
Which, again, has little to no bearing on what I said. Sure we all
start somewhere. So what? It's what happens after we start that's
important. I remember trying to write poems before I ever learned the
first thing about meter. I kept counting the syllables in each line to
make sure they were the same, but I couldn't understand why some lines
read choppy and some didn't. The stresses were out of whack, which is
obvious to me now, but to me then I had no clue. I could have simply
shrugged my shoulders and said "Who cares?", but I didn't. I went to
a teacher and began having an academic discussion about arcane
details. And I learned something. Which is more answer to why people
should have these discussions than you could possibly need. Maybe we
can turn it into a slogan and print up T-shirts:
Have An Academic Discussion
Learn Something
>
> >
> > "Literary etiquette demands that in mixed company poets pretend prosody is a
> > dull subject. What genuine artist could possibly take those dusty Greek
> > terms and mechanistic scansions seriously? Only pedants reduce art to
> > arithmetic. Among their own kind, however, poets find prosody anything but
> > boring. I have watched poets argue intemperately over a detail of scansion
> > and witnessed others exhaust an evening disputing theories of versification.
> > Free-verse poets display surprisingly little immunity from these fevers; no
> > one, after all, likes to debate religion more than an atheist. Has any topic
> > raised tempers in the poetry world so high as the revival of rhyme and
> > meter?
> > "The passions that rage over versification puzzle and even perhaps
> > embarrass the common reader. Poets should be noble creatures of intuition,
> > not car mechanics trading greasy-fisted blows over how to rebuild an engine.
> > But isn't a religious fervor for technique the deepest difference between
> > the artist and the poseur?"
> >
> > --Dana Gioia
>
> You seem to be focusing on the prosidy thing.
Had you bothered to read my post you would have noticed that I already
pointed that out, and that I remarked that the quotes, while specific
to a topic, apply to the broad range of poetry related topics. Which
they do.
> I don't care. I appreciate
> your ability to pull up all these quotes, but so what? What do you think?
I began my post by telling you what I think. I then posted two quotes
that not only support what I think, but expound on the subject, as
well.
>
> >
> > To the last question, the answer is a resounding yes! There's a Robert Hass
> > essay somewhere, which I can't find at the moment, in which he talks about
> > spending an entire night with a handful of other poets arguing over a single
> > line in a Wallace Stevens poem. We don't seem to mind when (to borrow the
> > car mechanic metaphor from above) the guys hang out in the driveway for
> > hours drinking beer and talking gear ratios, RPMs and the like. Why should
> > there be any shock or concern when lovers of poetry get to together and talk
> > about the stuff that makes poems work? There would probably be far less bad
> > poetry written if more would-be poets took enough of an interest in the art
> > to have "academic discussions" about it.
>
> I'd agree that it takes study of any art or craft to become better at it.
> I'd also say that most so-called academic discussions exist for their own
> benefit rather than for that purpose.
Now give me examples and references to support your statement. I
personally think you're wrong. I can say from my own experience that
the discussions I've had into the details of the craft have proven
remarkably important. I've posted two quotes above (and I could post
hundreds more) by two active, working poets who seem to think, based
on their own experiences, that discussing the details of the craft are
of the utmost importance to poets. I'm afraid your gratuitous
rejections of anything anyone says aren't holding up very well. I'd
like to see some documented support for your opinions.
>
> >
> >
> > > and is or is not this academic
> > > > nature the reason poetry is not more popular with the average person on
> > > > the street.
> >
> > My initial, and probably ultimate, reaction to such a question is "Screw the
> > person on the street." It's sad indeed that Average Joe isn't being educated
>
> Well that puts it in perspective and delineates your audience. (See above
> where I said .... "for it's own benefit..."
I find the notion of delineating one's audience particularly odious.
"Oh, I think I'll write this one for all the truck drivers out there!"
Or "Maybe the allusions in this one will turn off the male chauvinist
pigs in my audience." Whatever. The more like a marketing scheme
(let's remove the Christian references from C.S. Lewis's writings so
we can sell the action figures to a wider customer base, eh?) we try
to make poetry, the more we'll be producing ad slogans and not poems.
>
> > (or educating himself) well enough to enjoy anything more than two steps
> > above thirty-minute sitcoms and games shows with spinning wheels. And I'm
> > probably giving Joe too much credit for his range of appreciation. If we
> > want to change the relationship between Average Joe and poetry then we need
> > to get poetry (and I mean real poetry) taught in the schools (and I mean
> > taught by people who know poetry) so that Average Joe can read the stuff.
>
> and who is to choose.
To choose what? Whether poetry is taught at all? By whom? What poetry?
Try being more specific in your questions if you want accurate
answers.
> I'd argue that poetry _is_ being learned but that
> it's rap and not some 18th century writer.
As if that's all there is. It's either rap or its 18th century stuff,
eh? So a kid is exposed to a wealth of strong stress, alliterative
verse (rap) and you think he's been given an education in poetry. Wow!
that's so ridiculous it's amazing. And what about the kid who doesn't
listen to rap? Your notion is so weak it never even reached a height
from which it could collapse. It's nonsense in the extreme.
>
> > When the widening of the gap, if the gap is indeed widening at all, is
> > because the reader is drifting further and further down the literacy scale,
> > I see no benefit to either reader or poetry in demanding poetry follow the
> > reader down.
>
> It does no good to blame someone else.
I don't need to blame someone else because I don't see a foul being
committed. That's why I question if the gap is really widening at all.
I personally don't think it is. figures tracking the number of poetry
books being bought indicate that more people are reading poetry than
ever before. I presume that includes people on the street and not just
academics.
> Here you are simultaneously saying
> you don't give a shit about the average joe, but that they should better
> themselves by comeing "up" to your level.
Well, no, not really. First, I really don't see any point in hanging
the term "bettering themselves" on anyone. That's your term and I'll
let you have it. Gaining the sensitive ear (and believe it or not,
reading certain rhythms and meters can work to train a reader's ear)
to hear what can often be subtle rhythms and cadences in some poems
wouldn't be a case of "bettering oneself" in my book. Nor would
learning to recognize allusions and symbols or gaining the
appreciation for poetry needed to work through difficult tropes be
considered "bettering oneself."
> This is egotistical self-
> centered bullshit.
Really? you're the one who a) thinks it's plausible for people to
create art without any (or at least much) engagement with others
attempting to create art, and without any real knowledge of the
systems and disciplines and principles that help define the art, and
b) who considers people who don't know how to read poetry as need to
"better themselves." I find the former possibly the most egotistical
view one can hold regarding art. It's the old "That's not hard. I
could do that!" mentality.
> If you wish others to change then they must be reached
> on their level.
Which I spoke clearly to in my previous post. If we want people who
are not currently interested in reading poetry to read poetry we need
to reach them when they're learning how to read. Most children begin
their lives with a love for poetry in the form of nursery rhymes and
nonsense verses that rely heavily on sonic devices. They're fun to
hear and they're fun to say. Kids love them. But at some point the
need to rely on language for the utilitarian purpose of information
exchange supplants the fun uses of language. And although the fun and
joy of language remains in part in the child's life in the form of
little lyrics (like rope jumping cadences) and songs, it takes a very
distant backseat to what they call in my school district as "reading
to perform a task." Dumbing down poetry, or eliminating the more
complex aspects of it simply to reach a wider audience, an audience
who has lost its ear and its head for poetry, is just plain stupid.
Teaching the audience to appreciate poetry again is the obvious
choice.
Paul Heslop
>
> In article <3B3EC16B...@cableinet.co.uk>,
> paul....@cableinet.co.uk says...
> > Aidan Tynan wrote:
> > >
> > > >But I feel that for Average Joe "poetry" has in some way lost the
> > > >plot. Poetry should not - must not - descend to the lowest common
> > > >denominator to include AJ (as Hallmark verse seems to do). But it
> > > >should make some effort to cover subjects and topics with which AJ can
> > > >connect. I feel that Post Modernism, and schools such as the Language
> > > >Poets have actively attempted to exclude AJ.
> > >
> > > Alternatively, the Great Unwashed have made their every effort to exclude
> > > poetry from their lives.
> > >
> > > -Aidan
> > >
> > Hey! I haven't had a bath in days and I read poetry all the time!
> >
> >
>
> I wondered what that was I smelled.
>
gasping for breath and he was upstairs!
Mike Billard
news:f25f7815.01070...@posting.google.com...
>
> Which is so vague and nonspecific it can't help but being true, but
> which is also irrelevant to Nims's comments. It's also a point of view
> supported by a wealth of historical data and evidence. Give me the
> alternative point of view and then support it with references from the
> world of poetry.
As a matter of clarification, the above should read "Nims's is also a point
of view . . ." If that's the only mistake I've made in my post I'll consider
myself lucky. Well, actually, if I win tomorrow's lottery drawing I'll
consider myself lucky.
LonWolve
>
> No problem in having someone point out imprecision in my writing.
> Lack of rudeness in future would be nice, though.
>
> cythera.
>
You got it Cythera! :)
LW
Kenny Chaffin
deja.com says...
> LonWolve <fot...@altavista.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.15a80cf1b...@news.lineone.net>...
> > >
> > > Mike B. is the one of the few posters here who
> > > has a profound understanding of poetry (though I
> > > don't know about inside out)
> >
> > I was not attacking Mike's obviously profound understanding of
> > poetry
>
> >(however not flawless as he would like to have us think
> > sometimes).
>
> Well, here is my two blue feathers' worth: what anyone might or might
> not want to have me think sometimes seems irrelevant to my learning the
> art and craft of poetry-writing.
>
> > I was merely attacking
>
> > the notion of somebody having "inside-out" poetry understanding,
>
> > whatever that means.
>
> I would have told you had you asked that I was speaking relatively,
> not absolutely.
>
> No problem in having someone point out imprecision in my writing.
> Lack of rudeness in future would be nice, though.
>
> cythera.
>
Yes. Exactly!
Kenny Chaffin
mike.b...@mail.house.gov says...
> Kenny Chaffin <ke...@kacweb.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.15a75abe...@news.dimensional.com>...
> > In article <9hjaq6$lin$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, mbil...@erols.com says...
> > > Chris Keelan <rufm...@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Cd8%6.60315$Mf5.16...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > > > Kenny Chaffin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Which brings me to: How important do people feel this/these "critical
> > > > > academic discussions" really are to poetry
> > >
> > > Possibly as important as anything else a poet can do. If one hasn't enough
> > > passions for the art to care about and want to talk about the gritty
> > > details, one probably hasn't enough passion to do the art well. Two quotes
> > > come to mind, the first by the now familiar John Frederick Nims, the second
> > > by Dana Gioia:
> > >
> >
> > This sounds like virtually a duplicate (opposite) of "If you can't do it
> > you can't crit it."
>
> Which it isn't.
That's what I said below.
>
> > I reject this just as soundly as others reject that
> > premis.
>
> You reject it only because either a) you've cornered yourself into a
> knee-jerk reject everything mode of discourse and you simply can't
> respond in any other manner, or b) you don't understand what I'm
See you can't argue against it so it's right back to the personal attack.
> saying. No one would question for one minute the notion that one
> cannot play soccer at a high level without understanding the
> intricacies of the game. Nor would they reject the notion that one
> cannot build a house without knowing the details of how to, well,
> build a house. But poetry is somehow different. Different in what way
> we'll never know because people who espouse this ridiculous opinion,
> including you, never seem willing to explain how. So I'm asking, how
> can we honestly expect a person to write good poems without knowing,
> or caring about, the principles of the art?
So now you're calling what I say ridiculous. Setting up a straw man and
trying to shoot it down instead of telling me why. You're a hypocrite!
>
> > There is no more need to be able to discuss arcane details in
> > order to accomplish poetry.
>
> Which may be one of the dumbest things anyone has ever said on this
> newsgroup. First, as long as you consider the details of poetry
There you go again calling me dumb instead of addressing the point. Is it
no wonder you get no respect. You claim to know so much but you act like
an idiot.
> composition "arcane" you'll never really get anywhere at all. I know
> it makes you feel all progressive and stuff (look! Kenny's too cool to
> care about the arcane details of poetry composition! Meter? Boring!
> Allusion? For geeks! Metaphor? Who gives a shit! Kenny's rad!), but it
> sure as hell doesn't make you a better poet. I wonder why you post
> your poems if you're going to secretly dismiss as arcane all those
> comments you receive. I've seen the comments many people at Gaz have
> made in good faith to your poems. Much of what has been said falls
> squarely under the heading of "arcane details" by your standard. It's
> disingenuous of you to waste their time by soliciting things you
> couldn't care one ounce about. As for the ability to discuss the
> details, you make it seem like a specialized skill that only a handful
> of people could ever possibly care about obtaining. It isn't a skill,
> it's a desire. I realize you've never even glimpsed the sort of
> passion for the art that leads people to spend hours discussing some
> "arcane" detail of poetry, so trying to explain it to you would be a
> waste of time and effort. Suffice it to say it is something other than
> an "academic" exercise, as you so glibly categorize it. It's more akin
> to talking the details of your favorite baseball team with a fan of a
> rival team. It's your mentality--a mentality that says we've
> progressed beyond the need for understanding and knowledge--that harms
> poetry as much as anything. Sincerity and an undeserved belief that
> anything one says is of immense value have replaced concern for craft
> and excellence.
See you are so totally sure of your way and your way only that you have
you academic blinders on and sit around circle-jerking with your buddies.
What are you doing here, slumming? You really don't know poetry. You see
only through your filters and can't accept any other way. Maybe someday
you'll grow up and see that the world is much bigger than just Mike.
>
> > I'm not saying it's possible, but that it's
> > not required.
> >
> > > "Probably never in the history of poetry have poets had so little interest
> > > in or knowledge of the arterial systems through which the lifeblood of
> > > poetry flows. One can read through whole issues of 'poetry magazines' and
> > > find not a glimmer of concern with prosody; even to know the word, some
> > > writers seem to feel, puts a sort of stigma on them. As Anthony Hecht has
> > > said in his recent Mellon Lecture on poetry and music: 'the rich and
> > > versatile instruments of prosody . . . in these latter days, have been
> > > rather too hastily consigned to the dustbin under the impression, on the
> > > part of some poets, that if they are strident, or shocking, or emphatic
> > > enough, all the artifices will be superfluous. Such poets incline to argue,
> > > and to believe, that anything in the least contrived, and as seemingly
> > > artificial as metrical regularity, would compromise and incriminate their
> > > passionate integrity.'"
> > >
> > > --John Frederick Nims
> >
> > Okay. So? I think that is one point of view. I think there is a full
> > spectrum of what we call poetry.
>
> Which is so vague and nonspecific it can't help but being true, but
> which is also irrelevant to Nims's comments. It's also a point of view
> supported by a wealth of historical data and evidence. Give me the
> alternative point of view and then support it with references from the
> world of poetry.
>
I don't give a shit about Nin's comments. I want to know what _you_
think. I've given you an alternative, you refuse to accept it.
> > \
....
I'll stop there because the rest of your response is just as ridiculous
as the above. You really don't want to discuss this and really don't want
to hear any opinion other than the one you already have planted in your
closed mind.
Martijn Benders
Kenny Chaffin wrote:
> Yes. Exactly!
No. Not chatbox. Nono. Meant for discussion. Not chatbox.
Nogood 'I agree' 'me too' & like that. Kenny must trim posts
he reply.
Not chatbox.
Martijn
--
************************
The Sea Cannibal online:
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m.benders/sea/zeekannibaal.htm
De nederlandsche Cacaofabriek:
http://www.cacaofabriek.com/
************************
Kenny Chaffin
>
>
> Kenny Chaffin wrote:
>
> > Yes. Exactly!
>
> No. Not chatbox. Nono. Meant for discussion. Not chatbox.
> Nogood 'I agree' 'me too' & like that. Kenny must trim posts
> he reply.
> Not chatbox.
>
> Martijn
>
>
Do you speak english?
Peter J Ross
> Do you speak english?
Do *you*?
Post us a revision, KAC. Show us what you can do.
PJR :-)
--
"In early 1993 Kenny went into a sort of poetic trance and guided by
the muse produced hundreds of poems. He subsequently collected these
poems and others into topical chapbooks which he has self-published."
Kenny Chaffin
Kenny Chaffin
p...@britishlibrary.net says...
I have, you were to busy practicing your clown act to see it. <G> And it
really does grow old. Why don't you come back when you grow and learn how
to act among others.
This thread is about abstractions, do you have the foggiest? I didn't
think so.
Peter J Ross
> This thread is about abstractions, do you have the foggiest? I
didn't
> think so.
Upthread I posted a couple of examples of abstractions well used and
badly used. Go and argue with me there, since I "don't have the
foggiest". Talk to me about poetry for a change. I'm sure you'll win
the argument.
PJR :-)
--
"on a moonlit velvet night
my heart took nocturnal flight"
Chuckles the Clown
Michael Snider
<rikr...@enterprise.net> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I agree that artisans appreciate poems more than
> non-artisans.
Certainly, I have no hard data, no surveys handled by professional
sociologists and statisticians. But it's been my experience, and I
don't think it's surprising that people who have taken the time to find
out how _something_ works are more likely to be interested in how other
things work and to be more likely to appreciate well-made things in
general.
I sure don't want to insist on it.
What is also interesting, at least to me, is that artisans (thank you
for the one-word summary), in my experience, have preferred formal
poetry - not because formal poetry is _better_ than free verse in any
absolute sense, but it's easier to see the bones. Free verse is harder
to learn from, and harder to write well, than formal verse.
JAS Carter
Michael Snider <msn...@mindspring.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>What is also interesting, at least to me, is that artisans (thank you
>for the one-word summary), in my experience, have preferred formal
>poetry - not because formal poetry is _better_ than free verse in any
>absolute sense, but it's easier to see the bones. Free verse is harder
>to learn from, and harder to write well, than formal verse.
Ooh, interesting comment on the difference, though I'm not positive I
agree.
I think those of us with an affection for formal verse, in general, do
find that it lends itself more directly to critique. It has specific
*things* that we can all point to and say, "Hey, your meter is good,
but your rhyme is awful. Great volta. You have a line missing in
your envoi," etc.
The bones are much easier to see, and the parameters of judgment are,
once you've connected the dots at least, pretty obvious.
Of course, that doesn't say that commenting on formal poetry's flesh
is any easier, just that we can, in laziness, always fall back to the
bones.
My love of rhymed metered verse really reflects a desire to write
something that someone who doesn't know poetry would say is a poem.
(Si metrum non habet, non est poema.) Of course, that desire is
fairly academic, since I don't seek anyone who doesn't know poetry,
aside from my husband who writes rhyming couplets about barnyard
animals on occasion.
I think the fascination for working within stringent parameters is
also reflected in genre novels. Personally, I don't read "fiction"; I
read genre fiction. Seeing what an author can do while writing within
the expected constraints of a genre is what delights me, not just
seeing what someone can write down.
Novel lengths force me to be more particular, more polarized in my
reading than poems do, so I tend to read free and formal verse
equally. That isn't exactly true. I read more free verse simply
because there is more new free verse out there, but I don't skip a
free verse poem the way I skip a non-genre novel.
I do skip haiku though. *shudder*
Julie Carter
--
Good link: http://www.aldaily.com/
CAB
<snippage>
>
> Which brings me to: How important do people feel this/these "critical
> the street.
>
As the original post-er on the Abstractions topic, I feel I should
comment on this. I think "'academic discussions'" are incredibly
important to those of us who wish to comment intelligently and
helpfully on poetry posted here. E.g., if someone writes a line like
crippled purple irony <----(I made this up- this isn't a quote)
and I don't like that image, without some "'academic'" knowledge, I'm
reduced to saying something akin to, "I don't like this line." Not
very specific, and thus not very helpful. With some (rudimentary)
"'academic'" knowledge, I can say something more specific: "'Irony'
is an abstraction that doesn't help the poem along. Furthermore,
you've used two concrete adjectives to modify an abstract noun, which
is awkward." (Thanks to PJR for pointing out this latter concept).
Not only does the latter criticism point out a problem, but it
suggests a solution: try to find a concrete way to illustrate the
irony.
The "'discussions'" are also vital to those of us who hope to write
good poetry. They point out what has worked in the past and what is
likely to work in the future. There are probably poems that break
many of the guidelines that academics use to judge poetry. But, as a
novice, I don't think that I can completely ignore the guidelines and
produce good poetry.
As for the unpopularity of poetry among the Majority, I'm not sure why
this is so. I personally think the average person doesn't like to be
challenged, and good art is almost always challenging. It's much
easier to read a fantasy novel than to deal with Dostoyevski's dread
over the birth of the "new Napoleons" in "Crime and Punishment."
Likewise, it's easier to listen to a Top-40 song than to dive into a
volume of Eliot.
BTW, my rewrite of the above line is:
crippled purple iron
Can't get more concrete than that! ;-)
CAB
LonWolve
>
> BTW, my rewrite of the above line is:
>
> crippled purple iron
>
> Can't get more concrete than that! ;-)
>
Iron is also abstract. One could say that what is not abstract should
have an ostensive definition. You cannot point at iron but you can point
at a particular iron door for instance. Notice the importance of the
words "particular" and "instance" in my previous sentence.
Later,
LW
Kenny Chaffin
says...
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2001 23:43:11 -0400, in alt.arts.poetry.comments
> Michael Snider <msn...@mindspring.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>
> >What is also interesting, at least to me, is that artisans (thank you
> >for the one-word summary), in my experience, have preferred formal
> >poetry - not because formal poetry is _better_ than free verse in any
> >absolute sense, but it's easier to see the bones. Free verse is harder
> >to learn from, and harder to write well, than formal verse.
>
> Ooh, interesting comment on the difference, though I'm not positive I
> agree.
>
> I think those of us with an affection for formal verse, in general, do
> find that it lends itself more directly to critique. It has specific
> *things* that we can all point to and say, "Hey, your meter is good,
> but your rhyme is awful. Great volta. You have a line missing in
> your envoi," etc.
>
True.
> The bones are much easier to see, and the parameters of judgment are,
> once you've connected the dots at least, pretty obvious.
>
> Of course, that doesn't say that commenting on formal poetry's flesh
> is any easier, just that we can, in laziness, always fall back to the
> bones.
Yes, it's the same, though I think that often allowance is given to the
content/poet because it must fit the form and therefore they can get by
with things you can't in free verse. I'm not saying this is right of
wrong, but just happens.
>
> My love of rhymed metered verse really reflects a desire to write
> something that someone who doesn't know poetry would say is a poem.
> (Si metrum non habet, non est poema.) Of course, that desire is
> fairly academic, since I don't seek anyone who doesn't know poetry,
> aside from my husband who writes rhyming couplets about barnyard
> animals on occasion.
And you are getting better at it.
>
> I think the fascination for working within stringent parameters is
> also reflected in genre novels. Personally, I don't read "fiction"; I
> read genre fiction. Seeing what an author can do while writing within
> the expected constraints of a genre is what delights me, not just
> seeing what someone can write down.
Good parallel.
>
> Novel lengths force me to be more particular, more polarized in my
> reading than poems do, so I tend to read free and formal verse
> equally. That isn't exactly true. I read more free verse simply
> because there is more new free verse out there, but I don't skip a
> free verse poem the way I skip a non-genre novel.
>
> I do skip haiku though. *shudder*
>
You're missing some good stuff. I don't read a lot of it either, but some
of them can be killers.
> Julie Carter
Kenny Chaffin
cab...@yahoo.com says...
> KAC wrote:
> <snippage>
> >
> > Which brings me to: How important do people feel this/these "critical
> > academic discussions" really are to poetry and is or is not this academic
> > nature the reason poetry is not more popular with the average person on
> > the street.
> >
> > KAC
>
> As the original post-er on the Abstractions topic, I feel I should
> comment on this. I think "'academic discussions'" are incredibly
> important to those of us who wish to comment intelligently and
> helpfully on poetry posted here. E.g., if someone writes a line like
>
> crippled purple irony <----(I made this up- this isn't a quote)
>
> and I don't like that image, without some "'academic'" knowledge, I'm
> reduced to saying something akin to, "I don't like this line." Not
> very specific, and thus not very helpful. With some (rudimentary)
> "'academic'" knowledge, I can say something more specific: "'Irony'
> is an abstraction that doesn't help the poem along. Furthermore,
> you've used two concrete adjectives to modify an abstract noun, which
> is awkward." (Thanks to PJR for pointing out this latter concept).
> Not only does the latter criticism point out a problem, but it
> suggests a solution: try to find a concrete way to illustrate the
> irony.
Well okay, but I wouldn't necessarily call that knowledge academic
knowledge of poetry, but more just knowledge of language. I know someone
is going to jump on this....but they are different.
>
> The "'discussions'" are also vital to those of us who hope to write
> good poetry. They point out what has worked in the past and what is
> likely to work in the future. There are probably poems that break
> many of the guidelines that academics use to judge poetry. But, as a
> novice, I don't think that I can completely ignore the guidelines and
> produce good poetry.
>
I guess it depends on your audience then. The audience of academics is a
very different audience than the average joe or even the poetry buying
public (as small as they are).
> As for the unpopularity of poetry among the Majority, I'm not sure why
> this is so. I personally think the average person doesn't like to be
> challenged, and good art is almost always challenging. It's much
Why must good art be challenging. I don't buy it. I think it all depends
on the audience.
> easier to read a fantasy novel than to deal with Dostoyevski's dread
> over the birth of the "new Napoleons" in "Crime and Punishment."
> Likewise, it's easier to listen to a Top-40 song than to dive into a
> volume of Eliot.
this is totally incongruent. If you said a beethoven symphony vs Garth
Brooks....
>
> BTW, my rewrite of the above line is:
>
> crippled purple iron
(And that's better? I guess it has to be in context, but I get this image
of a purple steel beam with a crutch hobbling along.) <g>
>
> Can't get more concrete than that! ;-)
>
> CAB
>
Best,
Peter J Ross
news:c45ac6e5.01070...@posting.google.com...
> crippled purple iron
>
> Can't get more concrete than that! ;-)
True, despite what the Lone Troll thinks. But you're using two
adjectives to modify a single noun, where one, or even none, might be
enough, in the context of a poem. It's a good idea always to hesitate
before using an adjective, adverb or modifying phrase, and decide
whether your journey is really necessary.
PJR :-)
--
Yes, I know CAB was joking.
LonWolve
>
> > crippled purple iron
> >
> > Can't get more concrete than that! ;-)
>
> True, despite what the Lone Troll thinks.
Does what I think somehow make you nervous PJ? Kinda uncertain nervous
maybe? :)
LW
George Tolis
Actually, I think the reference was to unwrinkling clothes.
Kenny Chaffin
fot...@altavista.net says...
yep. His hair is standing on end.
Mike Billard
>
> >
> > > crippled purple iron
> > >
> > > Can't get more concrete than that! ;-)
> >
> > True, despite what the Lone Troll thinks.
>
Only if you're in control of some missiles somewhere. You aren't in control
of some missiles somewhere, are you?
Mike Billard
news:YWB07.4582$A51.1...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
Me too. but even if the reference was to the ore, it still wouldn't be an
abstraction.
Kenny Chaffin
John Carle
On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 09:51:31 -0400, "Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com>
wrote:
>Sure, but the difference between Commuter Joe and Motorhead Joe is similar
>to the difference between Information Joe and Poetry Joe. One citizen sees,
>or at least uses, languages as nothing more than a means for information
>gathering and distributing. Newspaper articles, Playboy centerfold stat
>pages, giving directions to the local IHOP--that sort of thing.
>Understanding language at that level is on par with understanding a car well
>enough to know where to put the gas and the oil, and when to shift gears,
>and which pedal accelerates the car and which pedal slows it down.
But Motorhead Joe still makes cars that Commuter Joe can use to get to
the IHOP or Waffle House (he said, as the wheels came off the
metaphor). I just don't think it's always good to make poetry a
vehicle only usable (readable) by someone who who understands fuel
injection.
>I don't disagree with this. But by saying "Screw the person on the street"
>I'm not implying that poets should only concentrate on certain level of
>"high brow" or obscure or technically complex poetry that can only be
>understood by those who have studied Greek classics. Hell, two of my
>favorite poets are Richard Hugo and James Wright. To put it bluntly, if
>Average Joe can't understand what they're saying, Average Joe ain't too
>bright.
Heh. True.
> But as for Brodsky's idea, I think the nooks and crannies that need
>to be filled first are the ones in the elementary schools, and in the middle
>schools, and in the high schools. There isn't much wrong with poetry these
>days--the wide range of voices, styles, themes, and so forth supply plenty
>of poems for everybody--the problem lies in how carefully people are being
>taught to read.
Often, in whether or not they're being taught to read at all above
newspaper level, but point taken. Having tried myself to introduce
some fairly straightforward poems into a high school classroom,
though, I'm torn between wanting to go back and try again at some
point and wanting to never see the inside of a classroom again. The
necessity of introducing poetry in elementary school is right on the
money.
>No, we shouldn't. But you know as well as I that this Tower of Art has had
>as many stones laid by the lazy reader complaining about the elitists as it
>has had laid by the elitists complaining about the lazy reader.
Honestly, I'm not sure how it got built. I think we have an ignorant
and poor public vocabulary, by and large, the blame for which can be
left on any number of doorsteps (the Teletubbies come to mind for some
reason). Poets have to come to grips with that environment.
>The answer doesn't lie in changing what we're doing (writing poetry of a
>certain kind, having "academic" discussions, etc.), it lies in teaching
>people at an earlier age how to appreciate poetry. And that's a tough sell
>with the current range of passive (meaning no real active mental engagement
>on the viewer's part) entertainment choices available to people. I don't
>know if Keats can compete with Pokemon, or whether Heaney has a chance
>against Bart Simpson.
I think they can. There will always be those who have no use for
poetry and that's fine, but ISTM that there's a large middle ground of
lay readers who really do die a little every day without it. (Amye,
or whatever your name is, that's a reference to a W. C. Williams
quote.) They don't usually even know what it is that's missing, in my
experience. I want to find ways to sneak up on the populace with a
copy of "The Old WPA Swimming Pool in Martins Ferry, Ohio", for
instance, and go from there. Is Garrison Keillor still doing the
Writer's Almanac?
Again, the issue of the age at which people are exposed to poetry is
huge, though.
John
Return of the home page
http://www.newtonsbaby.com/john/
Gravity
http://www.newtonsbaby.com/gravity/
John Carle
wrote:
>> Sure, but the difference between Commuter Joe and Motorhead Joe is similar
>> to the difference between Information Joe and Poetry Joe. One citizen sees,
>> or at least uses, languages as nothing more than a means for information
>> gathering and distributing. Newspaper articles, Playboy centerfold stat
>> pages, giving directions to the local IHOP--that sort of thing.
>> Understanding language at that level is on par with understanding a car well
>> enough to know where to put the gas and the oil, and when to shift gears,
>> and which pedal accelerates the car and which pedal slows it down.
>>
>
>And your point is?
Quite possibly that you wouldn't know a metaphor if it strolled up and
bit you on the ass.
*Sigh* I knew I'd regret leaving the door open for you.
JC
Kenny Chaffin
says...
You really can't be that dense can you? Do you edit in proper sentences
as well?
Chuck Lysaght
Keats. Great examples of sharp juxtapositions of abstracts with
concrete words. There are times when vividness of diction comes about
as the result of the fusion or the clash of abstract and concrete
words.
cab...@yahoo.com (CAB) wrote in message news:<c45ac6e5.01062...@posting.google.com>...
> First of all, I've been lurking here for a few weeks, and I've learned
> a lot about poetry just looking at the critiques. Thank you all for
> sharing your knowledge.
>
> However, I'm having trouble with one concept: abstractions. They
> seem to be anathema here at aapc, but I'm having trouble spotting
> them. Can anyone give a good example of A) a well used abstraction
> and B) a poorly used one? I would be most appreciative.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> CAB
Mike Billard
news:3b436509...@news.speakeasy.net...
> Sorry, Mike, just now saw your response:
>
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2001 09:51:31 -0400, "Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Sure, but the difference between Commuter Joe and Motorhead Joe is
similar
> >to the difference between Information Joe and Poetry Joe. One citizen
sees,
> >or at least uses, languages as nothing more than a means for information
> >gathering and distributing. Newspaper articles, Playboy centerfold stat
> >pages, giving directions to the local IHOP--that sort of thing.
> >Understanding language at that level is on par with understanding a car
well
> >enough to know where to put the gas and the oil, and when to shift gears,
> >and which pedal accelerates the car and which pedal slows it down.
>
> But Motorhead Joe still makes cars that Commuter Joe can use to get to
> the IHOP or Waffle House (he said, as the wheels came off the
> metaphor). I just don't think it's always good to make poetry a
> vehicle only usable (readable) by someone who who understands fuel
> injection.
John, I'm afraid my analogy has grown legs of its own and walked off in a
direction I hadn't intended. You are absolutely right in what you say here.
What I was trying to speak to was Kenny's problem with the usefullness of
academic discussions. We all use language to get around, to be sure, but
some of us find it interesting enough to stand around in the driveway
drinking Pinot Grigio (you don't expect us to drink beer do you?) and
talking arcane details, just as those people who use cars to get around
stand around talking arcane details. My point was that it isn't harmful to
car making for those guys, even if they do make cars themselves, to talk
details among themselves. And it isn't harmful for people who try to make
things out of language to to talk details among themselves. Regardless of
how complex the car discussion gets, the final product still operates well
within the realm of normal car operations and Commuter Joe could figure out
how to drive it with little to no practice. No one ever worries that the
guys in the driveway are going to get so far removed from the real world in
their talk over car stuff that they will start building machines that only
they can figure out how to drive. And no one thinks it weird that they're
out there talking about it in the first place. People like Kenny find it
elitist or arrogant to even be interested in the underlying structures that
make poetry work. I'm trying to liken our interest in the inner workings of
a universally used thing (language) to the interest others have in the inner
workings of a universally used thing (cars.) If it's not elitist and
arrogant for them it isn't elitist and arrogant for us. Everyone has
something they like well enough to give it more attention than the "average"
person would. Kenny also thinks that all this talk about details will only
serve to separate poets and poetry from the "masses" and from the other uses
of language. I don't think that will happen any more than talking cars among
motorheads separates them from the larger class of casual or functional
drivers. Sure, there will always be those few in any given group who try to
separate themselves from the rest (what, you don't know what a cylinder
sleeve is? How common!), but I don't think they comprise the majority in any
instance. We love poetry, and the fundamental building block of poetry is
language. So we talk details of language. That's neither harmful nor elitist
nor arrogant nor useless. And I'm sure I've only managed to further obscure
my original intent, which isn't particularly unusual either.
LonWolve
> > Does what I think somehow make you nervous ?
>
> Only if you're in control of some missiles somewhere. You aren't in control
> of some missiles somewhere, are you?
>
Nah!
LT