My new theory of poetry
CarolynGlo
have read in my long life and what I am reading here on the board.
I am calling it The Bell Curve Theory of poetry. Imagine a bell curve, if you
will. Very far to the right, under the thinnest part of it farest to the
right, are those beautifully crafted, full-of literary and mythological
references and arcane words you have to look up in a dictionary, and preferably
the OED, that one might find in The New Yorker. TOTALLY inaccessible by the
ordinary person. Apparently meant for some extremely erudite group of readers
(my husband, a nuclear physicist, used to tell me that some of the papers he
wrote were completely understandable only by about 12 people in the world --
seems the same is true of some poetry). I don't like this kind of poetry
because I can't understand it. I haven't seen much of that here, thank
goodness.
The great middle.of the curve: fortunately, most people who write poetry hope
to communicate so there are words I can understand without looking them up, and
what references there are to outside personages and events at least hold some
meaning for me, because they are in the common experience of people like me
living here and now. Also under this part of the curve are old and famous poems
(Shakespeare's sonnets). Though written in an English that is no longer spoken,
we can "get it" because enough words are used to pass the meaning on to us.
The far left side of the curve -- oh dear. That's what I see here, and so much
of it. There's the Japanese guy, who strings phrases together I can only guess
he's gotten out of some computer translation program, Japanese into English.
There's the rhyming lines -- that's all they are, lines that rhyme. Might as
well be nonsense. There's the words and phrases thrown together in a kind of
blank verse melange with the hope that something will be gleaned from them
through the clever mind of the astute and searching reader. These poems do not
repay a read because there's no message, and thus no communication.
Now, get this -- the interesting thing is that the far right and the far left
intersect! Yet you know the poet who wrote the poem on the far right side is
termendously skilled. Very intelligent and capable. And the one on the left
just throws down some words and calls it a poem. The effect is the same.
NO Communication.
The Bell Curve -- that's what I'm talking about.
Aidan Tynan
CarolynGlo wrote in message <20020823105018...@mb-bh.aol.com>...
>Well, talk about nerve! Yes, I have a new theory of poetry, based on what
I
>have read in my long life and what I am reading here on the board.
>
>I am calling it The Bell Curve Theory of poetry. Imagine a bell curve, if
you
>will. Very far to the right, under the thinnest part of it farest to the
>right, are those beautifully crafted, full-of literary and mythological
>references and arcane words you have to look up in a dictionary, and
preferably
>the OED, that one might find in The New Yorker. TOTALLY inaccessible by
the
>ordinary person. Apparently meant for some extremely erudite group of
readers
>(my husband, a nuclear physicist, used to tell me that some of the papers
he
>wrote were completely understandable only by about 12 people in the
>seems the same is true of some poetry). I don't like this kind of poetry
>because I can't understand it. I haven't seen much of that here, thank
>goodness.
If a poem is good, understanding is irrelevant, which is why one I enjoy
listening to poems in languages that I don't understand. Besides, every age
creates its own criteria about what constitutes poetry. Shakespeare's
writing is full of 'literary and mythological references and arcane words
you have to look up in a dictionary' also, yet you do not place his work at
this end of your scale. And, btw, poetry can be 'difficult' without
necesarily being full of arcana: Vallejo, Mandelstam, Holderlin, Cernuda,
Khlebnikov. These poets force you to read differently, not merely to look up
references in The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.
>
>The great middle.of the curve: fortunately, most people who write poetry
hope
>to communicate so there are words I can understand without looking them up,
and
>what references there are to outside personages and events at least hold
some
>meaning for me, because they are in the common experience of people like me
>living here and now. Also under this part of the curve are old and famous
poems
>(Shakespeare's sonnets).
Kick the stone, Sam Johnson, kick the stone!
>Though written in an English that is no longer spoken,
Shakespeare wrote in modern English.
>we can "get it" because enough words are used to pass the meaning on to us.
I suppose this would exclude Chaucer?
>
>The far left side of the curve -- oh dear. That's what I see here, and so
much
>of it. There's the Japanese guy, who strings phrases together I can only
guess
>he's gotten out of some computer translation program, Japanese into
English.
>There's the rhyming lines -- that's all they are, lines that rhyme. Might
as
>well be nonsense. There's the words and phrases thrown together in a kind
of
>blank verse melange
Uh, blank verse doesn't rhyme.
with the hope that something will be gleaned from them
>through the clever mind of the astute and searching reader. These poems do
not
>repay a read because there's no message, and thus no communication.
Surely if there were a message, and that was the only item of importance, no
reading further than one adequate to glean the meaning would be required?
This is crossword puzzle poetics. A poem 'without a message' will reward
rereading infinitely for the same reason that you can only do the same
crossword puzzle once. Poems that have a message usually cease to be read,
and therefore remembered, after the message is grasped, paraphrased,
politicised, written into God's Book, as it were. Which is why we still read
Hamlet.
>
>Now, get this -- the interesting thing is that the far right and the far
left
>intersect! Yet you know the poet who wrote the poem on the far right side
is
>termendously skilled. Very intelligent and capable. And the one on the left
>just throws down some words and calls it a poem. The effect is the same.
>
>NO Communication.
Poetry is about the ellusiveness of communication; poetry stops language in
its tracks, perverts it, and forces it to confront itself. If you think a
poem is the totality of its referents, then you're missing the point. It is
a well known fact that a placard can communicate far better than a poem can.
Which is why we forget most placards. A good poem fails to communicate as
much as it succeeds to communicate.
-Aidan
Paul Heslop
>
> Well, talk about nerve!
you said it all, right there. Although you have the right to an opinion
you have shown a complete disregard for everyone by saying that what you
read in this newsgroup belongs to the lowest form of poetry.
I've personally seen beautiful crafted works in here (not including my
own) and I do not agree with your statement, except of course that there
are obviously at least three grades of poetry.
--
Paul. (when it dies, it dies for good...)
____________________________________________________________
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Tom Bishop
"Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3D666AFA...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> CarolynGlo wrote:
> >
> > Well, talk about nerve!
>
> you said it all, right there. Although you have the right to an opinion
> you have shown a complete disregard for everyone by saying that what you
> read in this newsgroup belongs to the lowest form of poetry.
> I've personally seen beautiful crafted works in here (not including my
> own) and I do not agree with your statement, except of course that there
> are obviously at least three grades of poetry.
Lemme guess?
- readable
- twangy
- extra twangy
> --
> Paul. (when it dies, it dies for good...)
> ____________________________________________________________
> http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
--
Tom Bishop ,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,
http://Poetry.Here.Nu - Poetry web hosting, with audio.
http://Composer.Here.Nu - Poetry Composition Tool!!
http://Spoiled-Poems.Here.Nu - Master poetry explained.
j r sherman
says...
>Yes, I have a new theory of poetry, based on what I
>have read in my long life and what I am reading here on the board.
this should be good.
>I am calling it The Bell Curve Theory of poetry.
my god, where is Pete Ross when you need him most?
>Imagine a bell curve, if you
>will.
i'm a fan of the osillating universe theory myself.
>Very far to the right, under the thinnest part of it farest to the
>right, are those beautifully crafted, full-of literary and mythological
>references and arcane words you have to look up in a dictionary,
maybe the poem's like written in Latin and you just don't recognize it?
>and preferably
>the OED, that one might find in The New Yorker. TOTALLY inaccessible by the
>ordinary person. Apparently meant for some extremely erudite group of readers
i'm an ordinary person. i read the New Yorker. i guess that makes me erudite....
"and thus Nebazzariah came to smiteth the Erudites..."
sorry.
>(my husband, a nuclear physicist, used to tell me that some of the papers he
>wrote were completely understandable only by about 12 people in the world --
>seems the same is true of some poetry).
so like i'm one of 12 people in the world because i can understand the poetry in
the New Yorker?
does this come with discounts at Safeway? just curious.
>I don't like this kind of poetry
>because I can't understand it. I haven't seen much of that here, thank
>goodness.
i should think so. what would happen if people started writing more poetry you
didn't understand?
where would the world be? why, we might actually have a leader of the strongest
country in the world that knew how to read???
well, let's not get hysterical.
>The great middle.of the curve: fortunately, most people who write poetry hope
>to communicate so there are words I can understand without looking them up,
for god's sake, YES! where would we all be if we started USING DICTIONARIES???
you're like a prophet of the modern age, carol.
>and
>what references there are to outside personages and events at least hold some
>meaning for me, because they are in the common experience of people like me
>living here and now.
FUCKING-A, sister! people, learning about things outside of their own little
world!!!! my GOD, what horrors could befall all people if they starting REALLY
learning????
go tell it on the mountain, sister!!!
>Also under this part of the curve are old and famous poems
>(Shakespeare's sonnets). Though written in an English that is no longer spoken,
>we can "get it" because enough words are used to pass the meaning on to us.
i believe you're the first person i've ever seen who's claimed Uncle Billy was
mediocre.
>The far left side of the curve -- oh dear. That's what I see here, and so much
>of it. There's the Japanese guy, who strings phrases together I can only guess
>he's gotten out of some computer translation program, Japanese into English.
>There's the rhyming lines -- that's all they are, lines that rhyme. Might as
>well be nonsense.
are you working on becoming the poster child for "a little knowledge is
dangerous?"
>There's the words and phrases thrown together in a kind of
>blank verse
verse doesn't ryhme.
>melange with the hope that something will be gleaned from them
>through the clever mind of the astute and searching reader.
to be astute and searching is somehow wrong?
>These poems do not repay a read because there's no message, and thus no
>>communication.
i'm sorry, i was overcome with laughter.
>Now, get this -- the interesting thing is that the far right and the far left
>intersect! Yet you know the poet who wrote the poem on the far right side is
>termendously skilled. Very intelligent and capable. And the one on the left
>just throws down some words and calls it a poem. The effect is the same.
>
>NO Communication.
you need to read some more poetry and learn what lies on the inside of
dictionaries.
>The Bell Curve -- that's what I'm talking about.
of course.
OH look! the A's are first place.
most sincerely,
j r sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------
"A sad tale's best for winter: I have one
Of sprites and goblins."
------------------------------------------------------------------
CarolynGlo
>you have shown a complete disregard for everyone by saying that what you
>read in this newsgroup belongs to the lowest form of poetry.
Paul, read what I wrote again, this time carefully. NOT the lowest form. Just
NOT communicating. The whole point of poetry is to communicate with the
reader, right? I am a reader. I am not particularly dumb or clueless, I love
the written, spoken,sung and whatever word -- I have all my life -- and I can
see stuff posted here that wastes my time. It's one thing not to have the skill
to get your idea across, it's quite another when you don't even try and call it
art.
And why? Everybody who offers poetry on this board is literate I guess the
Japanese guy can't help it -- English is not his first language -- but
everybody else is English speaking. Why is it so hard to write something others
can understand? It's nice when you have your own little group of admirers (at
either end of the bell curve) but I don't get why anybody would delieberately
set out to write poetry that is not at least to some degree understandable by
the ordinary, English-speaking reader.
Years ago, many magazines contained poetry tucked in amongst the articles or
the fiction, poems that people read and enjoyed. Not so today. Think about
it. Wonder why? The answer is a failure to communicate. Poetry has lost its
audience. Now the only poetry people care about is song lyrics and the poems in
greeting cards. Too bad, IMO.
CArolyn
CarolynGlo
>> are obviously at least three grades of poetry.
>
>Lemme guess?
> - readable
> - twangy
> - extra twangy
Yeah, I'm kinda curious about that, too, Tom. Three grades of poetry?
Hmmm....like potatoes.
Carolyn
CarolynGlo
Who is Pete Ross?
>
>>Very far to the right, under the thinnest part of it farest to the
>>right, are those beautifully crafted, full-of literary and mythological
>>references and arcane words you have to look up in a dictionary,
>
>maybe the poem's like written in Latin and you just don't recognize it?
I had two years of Latin in HS, and I would recognize it in an instant, though
I admit I wouldn't be able to understand it very well.
>
>>and preferably
>>the OED, that one might find in The New Yorker. TOTALLY inaccessible by the
>>ordinary person. Apparently meant for some extremely erudite group of
>readers
>
>i'm an ordinary person. i read the New Yorker. i guess that makes me
>erudite....
I read TNY (I am a long-time subscriber -- decades) and almost the only poetry
in its pages that I get and enjoy are the poems that have been translated from
another language. This I find discouraging.
>>(my husband, a nuclear physicist, used to tell me that some of the papers he
>>wrote were completely understandable only by about 12 people in the world
>--
>>seems the same is true of some poetry).
>
>so like i'm one of 12 people in the world because i can understand the poetry
>in
>the New Yorker?
No. I am sure there are more than that, I am equally sure, though, that they
are a very small part of TNY readership. If the magazine announced that it was
not going to print another poem, nobody would probably even notice except
people who write poetry. (Take the cartoons away, though -- that would be a
different matter -- cartoons actually have to communicate!)
>
>does this come with discounts at Safeway? just curious.
Sorry. You get nothing for being smart. Virtue (and intelligence) is its own
reward.
>
>>I don't like this kind of poetry
>>because I can't understand it. I haven't seen much of that here, thank
>>goodness.
>
>i should think so. what would happen if people started writing more poetry
>you
>didn't understand?
I don't know, but I can tell you I would probably not hang around here for
long. As I said, I am pretty smart. I can worry the meaning of a poem out, I
have a big library of reference works, I know my way around libraries all over
the country, and I can clap my hand upon any information I need within a day.
However -- I do not think this should be necessary. Poetry should be
accessible.
>
>where would the world be? why, we might actually have a leader of the
>strongest
>country in the world that knew how to read???
>
>well, let's not get hysterical.
Let's try to keep politics off this board, shall we? Maybe if you spent less
time blabbering on about how much you hate the Pres, you'd get more poetry
written and try harder to make it understandable (I don't actually know if I've
read or commented on any of your stuff, so I am just saying that).
>
>>The great middle.of the curve: fortunately, most people who write poetry
>hope
>>to communicate so there are words I can understand without looking them up,
>
>for god's sake, YES! where would we all be if we started USING
>DICTIONARIES???
I have a DICTIONARY. I do not feel that I should have to use my DICTIONARY
when I read a poem any more than I should have to have my DICTIONARY at my
side when I read an article or a story!
>
>you're like a prophet of the modern age, carol.
Carolyn is my name.. I am a prophet of the modern age. I am saying that poetry
will be completely marginalized eventually -- only other poets will read it --
unless you folks start trying to communicate with more people than just each
other.
>
>FUCKING-A, sister! people, learning about things outside of their own little
>world!!!! my GOD, what horrors could befall all people if they starting
>REALLY
>learning????
Keep a civil tongue in your head, my good man. I have avoided any bad , and I
expect you to do so, as well.
>
>go tell it on the mountain, sister!!!
>
>>Also under this part of the curve are old and famous poems
>>(Shakespeare's sonnets). Though written in an English that is no longer
>spoken,
>>we can "get it" because enough words are used to pass the meaning on to us.
>
>i believe you're the first person i've ever seen who's claimed Uncle Billy
>was
>mediocre.
Why don't you go ahead and read my post again? You apparently have failed to
grasp the sense of it. The bell curve I am talking about is the one of
understandability, NOT quality.
>
>>The far left side of the curve -- oh dear. That's what I see here, and so
>much
>>of it. There's the Japanese guy, who strings phrases together I can only
>guess
>>he's gotten out of some computer translation program, Japanese into English.
>>There's the rhyming lines -- that's all they are, lines that rhyme. Might
>as
>>well be nonsense.
>
>are you working on becoming the poster child for "a little knowledge is
>dangerous?"
Why are you unable to debate what I have written? -- You seem to be trying to
respond to my post with insults. That is not enough. I want real argument. Tell
me where I'm wrong -- and how.
>
>>There's the words and phrases thrown together in a kind of
>>blank verse
>
>verse doesn't ryhme.
Thanks for the pointer.
>
>>melange with the hope that something will be gleaned from them
>>through the clever mind of the astute and searching reader.
>
>to be astute and searching is somehow wrong?
No -- it should not be necessary. If your poem doesn't speak to me quickly and
easily, why should I read it?
>
>>These poems do not repay a read because there's no message, and thus no
>>>communication.
>
>i'm sorry, i was overcome with laughter.
And this is your response? I was hoping for something with some thought in it,
and instead I get
>i'm sorry, i was overcome with laughter.
>
>
>>Now, get this -- the interesting thing is that the far right and the far
>left
>>intersect! Yet you know the poet who wrote the poem on the far right side
>is
>>termendously skilled. Very intelligent and capable. And the one on the left
>>just throws down some words and calls it a poem. The effect is the same.
>>
>>NO Communication.
>
>you need to read some more poetry and learn what lies on the inside of
>dictionaries.
You don't know me. And I'm sure I don't know you. I suggest you don't make
suggestions of this nature to people you don't know.
>
>OH look! the A's are first place.
>
>most sincerely,
>
>j r sherman
Hey, jr, how about making another go at it? Read it again, this time with your
brain fully engaged, instead of in full frontal assault. You might learn
something, or I might. As it is
NO COMMUNICATION.
Carolyn
Tom Bishop
"CarolynGlo" <carol...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020823161144...@mb-fl.aol.com...
> >Although you have the right to an opinion
> >you have shown a complete disregard for everyone by saying that what you
> >read in this newsgroup belongs to the lowest form of poetry.
>
> Paul, read what I wrote again, this time carefully. NOT the lowest form. Just
> NOT communicating. The whole point of poetry is to communicate with the
> reader, right? I am a reader.
Poets need those, you should be popular.
> I am not particularly dumb or clueless,
Even if so, some people value that, and you should be popular.
> I love the written, spoken,sung and whatever word -- I have all my life -- and I can
> see stuff posted here that wastes my time. It's one thing not to have the skill
> to get your idea across, it's quite another when you don't even try and call it
> art.
>
> And why? Everybody who offers poetry on this board is literate I guess the
> Japanese guy can't help it --
If you are talking about Talent, watch it! You may not be popular.
> English is not his first language -- but
> everybody else is English speaking. Why is it so hard to write something others
> can understand?
Well they don't havta if they don't wanna.
> It's nice when you have your own little group of admirers (at
> either end of the bell curve) but I don't get why anybody would delieberately
> set out to write poetry that is not at least to some degree understandable by
> the ordinary, English-speaking reader.
Prolly lots of reasons.
>
> Years ago, many magazines contained poetry tucked in amongst the articles or
> the fiction, poems that people read and enjoyed. Not so today.
Yeah.. every poet (based on some idiotic Usenet concept) thinks their
words are sacred.
> Think about
> it. Wonder why? The answer is a failure to communicate. Poetry has lost its
> audience. Now the only poetry people care about is song lyrics and the poems in
> greeting cards. Too bad, IMO.
No sense in crying over it.. take advantage of it,
and help forge a new era.
>
> CArolyn
Tom Bishop
"CarolynGlo" <carol...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020823163713...@mb-fl.aol.com...
> >my god, where is Pete Ross when you need him most?
>
> Who is Pete Ross?
AKA rocky, AKA the "clown of aapc"
He is an English chap that has a pine cone permanently
stuck in his rectum.
Unfortunate story.
He is having rectum replacement surgery,
and /might/ recover.
Prey for him... ;-)
<>
> >you need to read some more poetry and learn what lies on the inside of
> >dictionaries.
>
> You don't know me. And I'm sure I don't know you. I suggest you don't make
> suggestions of this nature to people you don't know.
Just makin friends I see.
j r is a troll that I killfile, but that
is just my opinion..
There are 2 or 3 people that love him.
>
> Carolyn
CarolynGlo
>
>AKA rocky, AKA the "clown of aapc"
I look forward to reading some of his stuff.
>He is an English chap that has a pine cone permanently
>stuck in his rectum.
>
>Unfortunate story.
Oooo! How did such a thing happen? (I am guessing it was some sort of accident
with a tree...?)
>
>He is having rectum replacement surgery,
>and /might/ recover.
Goodie. I'd hate to think he might pass away (or something else) before I hear
from him.
>
>Prey for him... ;-)
>
><>
>
>> >you need to read some more poetry and learn what lies on the inside of
>> >dictionaries.
>>
>> You don't know me. And I'm sure I don't know you. I suggest you don't make
>> suggestions of this nature to people you don't know.
>
>Just makin friends I see.
Yeah -- I think we're going to be good buddies. In fact, I think ol jr and I
are going to have some very excellent times together.
>
>j r is a troll that I killfile, but that
>is just my opinion..
I would never killfile anybody. There's good in everyone. (picture little furry
bunnies and tweeting birds and a warm sun and fluffy clouds -- and me and jr
running slow motion toward each other in a big greeen field -- if you can).
>There are 2 or 3 people that love him.
Hmm. His mum and dad -- and one of his grandparents?
Thanks, Tom Bishop, for the answers and insights.
Carolyn
Paul Heslop
>
> "Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3D666AFA...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> > CarolynGlo wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, talk about nerve!
> >
> > you said it all, right there. Although you have the right to an opinion
> > you have shown a complete disregard for everyone by saying that what you
> > read in this newsgroup belongs to the lowest form of poetry.
> > I've personally seen beautiful crafted works in here (not including my
> > own) and I do not agree with your statement, except of course that there
> > are obviously at least three grades of poetry.
>
> Lemme guess?
> - readable
> - twangy
> - extra twangy
>
Paul Heslop
Okay, so let's put it this way, i can understand most of the poems in
this group reasonably well, though poems, as with all art, should be
open to interpretation and if you don't or can't get anything from any
works in here then that really is YOUR problem. Whereas obviously I
found your post not as easy to decipher as I misunderstood your attack,
thinking you were saying they were poor where you're actually saying
they make no sense.
I don't think the japanese guy, as you call him, is real. I proved it by
shoving one of my poorer works into an interpreter then back again, it
made the work stilted and just like his, except obviously the poem
wasn't in his style.
sophie
<snip>
>
>I read TNY (I am a long-time subscriber -- decades) and almost the only poetry
>in its pages that I get and enjoy are the poems that have been translated from
>another language. This I find discouraging.
Carolyn, has it occurred to you (and I ask this never having read the
New Yorker, never mind it's poetry section), if maybe the fault lies
with you, the reader, rather than the author? maybe "problem" is a
better word than "fault".
<snip>
>As I said, I am pretty smart. I can worry the meaning of a poem out, I
>have a big library of reference works, I know my way around libraries all over
>the country, and I can clap my hand upon any information I need within a day.
>However -- I do not think this should be necessary. Poetry should be
>accessible.
I'm not at all sure what you mean by "accessible"; I have a horrid
feeling about it, and I'm hoping I'm wrong...
<aside - it's very hard to convey "friendly discussion" rather than
"antagonism" on usenet. or in life, really>
ANYWAY.
one of the joys of poetry - or any artform - is that it introduces the
reader/viewer/audience to New Stuff. Stuff to get your teeth into, stuff
to interest you, stuff to take you off on tangents or blind alleys,
using your brain and imagination and thinking and learning.
I'm carried away, but you get my point.
>I have a DICTIONARY. I do not feel that I should have to use my DICTIONARY
>when I read a poem any more than I should have to have my DICTIONARY at my
>side when I read an article or a story!
this is foolish, Carolyn. words are wonderful. learning new words is a
wonderful and useful thing. language is the very stuff that dreams -
sorry, poems - are made of, and to restrict it deliberately to the
pedestrian is kind of missing the point.
if you don't love words and language, how come you love poetry? poetry
_is_ words and language.
and if you _do_ love words and language, how come you don't love new
words? new concepts?
>The bell curve I am talking about is the one of
>understandability, NOT quality.
"understandability" ain't that important.
quality is.
>If your poem doesn't speak to me quickly and
>easily, why should I read it?
!!!
I'm genuinely speechless.
!!!
!!!
I'm interested in this because of your need to (and sometimes inability
to) understand/break down a poem/language/imagery to/on it's most
literal level; which is a characteristic pronounced enough in you for me
to remember it from postings of yours on aapc around four years ago.
It's a problem, for want of a better word, that most of the literate
posters here (and elsewhere, and habitual readers everywhere) don't
really have, and I'm curious about it - particularly the aversion to new
or unusual words, which is weird in a writer or reader, and the
difficulty with imagery. It reminds me of some autistic-spectrum kids
(and no, I'm not suggesting you suffer from autism, and no, I'm not
using autism as an insult.)
there's nothing to be scared of in the new, the unknown, the slightly
incomprehensible. that's what it's FOR.
--
sophie
CarolynGlo
>
>Poets need those, you should be popular.
There are more than 200 million readers in this country alone, I would venture
to guess. How many of them read poetry?
>
>> I am not particularly dumb or clueless,
>
>Even if so, some people value that, and you should be popular.
Not looking for popularity. Looking for communication.
>
>> I love the written, spoken,sung and whatever word -- I have all my life --
>and I can
>> see stuff posted here that wastes my time. It's one thing not to have the
>skill
>> to get your idea across, it's quite another when you don't even try and
>call it
>> art.
>>
>> And why? Everybody who offers poetry on this board is literate I guess the
>> Japanese guy can't help it --
>
>If you are talking about Talent, watch it! You may not be popular.
I can only repeat Dennis's sig line -- How easy to call a bush a bear -- or
something like that. What do YOU think his poems mean, if anything? I thought
I'd croak when I realized the battery poem was about some battery that was
about to run out of energy and wanted to go on, despite its expiration date --
writeen from the POV of the battery, for petesake. (at least, I THINK that's
what it was about).
>
>> English is not his first language -- but
>> everybody else is English speaking. Why is it so hard to write something
>others
>> can understand?
>
>Well they don't havta if they don't wanna.
Well, they sure don't. You have a point. But why bother to write at all? Why
not just lean on a keyxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and send
that? To me, it would be a kindness. I wouldn't even bother trying to read.
>
>> It's nice when you have your own little group of admirers (at
>> either end of the bell curve) but I don't get why anybody would
>delieberately
>> set out to write poetry that is not at least to some degree understandable
>by
>> the ordinary, English-speaking reader.
>
>Prolly lots of reasons.
OK. I'll bite -- for example?
>> Years ago, many magazines contained poetry tucked in amongst the articles
>or
>> the fiction, poems that people read and enjoyed. Not so today.
>
>Yeah.. every poet (based on some idiotic Usenet concept) thinks their
>words are sacred.
Heh-heh. I noticed that. I thought everything posted here was in the public
doman for here. NO? What is it that you're doing to their poems that they don't
like, Tom?
>
>> Think about
>> it. Wonder why? The answer is a failure to communicate. Poetry has lost
>its
>> audience. Now the only poetry people care about is song lyrics and the
>poems in
>> greeting cards. Too bad, IMO.
>
>No sense in crying over it.. take advantage of it,
>and help forge a new era.
I actually intend to. In my own little corner of the world. I will let you know
of my successes, if there are any. I have got it all planned out...
Carolyn
Bruce Tindall
>If a poem is good, understanding is irrelevant, which is why one I enjoy
>listening to poems in languages that I don't understand.
"Ya Goya" ("I Am Goya") by Andrei Vosnesensky is a great example
of this. There must be an audio file of it being read in Russian
on the web somewhere.
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
Joshua P. Hill
Just because a poem is incomprehensible and in the New Yorker doesn't
mean it's good.
I think, in reality, that there are two bell curves in play, one
corresponding to erudition, the other to wit. And the former can't
substitute for the latter, as much as some might wish it. Or as I used
to say (being of a chiastic disposition), I'd rather be a good writer
of bad books than a bad writer of good ones . . .
Josh
Bruce Tindall
>The whole point of poetry is to communicate with the
>reader, right?
Even if I answered "yes" to that question, it wouldn't necessarily
mean that poetry without a paraphrasable logical argument is bad poetry.
A lot of the "communication" in poetry has to do with the rhythms,
the so-called musical effects of the sounds of the words, the
choice of words, the variation or lack thereof in any number of
elements (rhythm, sounds, level of diction, syntax, etc. etc. etc.),
completely independently of the logical argument (if any) of the words.
Even didactic or epigrammatic poetry may communicate a lot more
than a brief prose paraphrase expressing the same logical argument would.
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
Albeit Shakespeare's references were probably not so arcane to someone
of the period. He was not, after all, a "learned" man.
Josh
*Offensive* Non
hurt!
BTW where is he????
Re: My new theory of poetry
Group: alt.arts.poetry.comments Date: Fri, Aug 23, 2002, 8:37pm (EDT+4)
From: carol...@aol.com (CarolynGlo)
j r sherman
says...
>
>>my god, where is Pete Ross when you need him most?
>
>Who is Pete Ross?
you probably don't wish to know, i assure you.
>>>Very far to the right, under the thinnest part of it farest to the
>>>right, are those beautifully crafted, full-of literary and mythological
>>>references and arcane words you have to look up in a dictionary,
>>
>>maybe the poem's like written in Latin and you just don't recognize it?
>
>I had two years of Latin in HS, and I would recognize it in an instant, though
>I admit I wouldn't be able to understand it very well.
okay, Magyar then.
>>>and preferably
>>>the OED, that one might find in The New Yorker. TOTALLY inaccessible by the
>>>ordinary person. Apparently meant for some extremely erudite group of
>>readers
>>
>>i'm an ordinary person. i read the New Yorker. i guess that makes me
>>erudite....
>
>I read TNY (I am a long-time subscriber -- decades) and almost the only poetry
>in its pages that I get and enjoy are the poems that have been translated from
>another language. This I find discouraging.
well, poems translated for Americans from other languages are usually very
simple.
>>>(my husband, a nuclear physicist, used to tell me that some of the papers he
>>>wrote were completely understandable only by about 12 people in the world
>>--
>>>seems the same is true of some poetry).
>>
>>so like i'm one of 12 people in the world because i can understand the poetry
>>in
>>the New Yorker?
>
>No. I am sure there are more than that, I am equally sure, though, that they
>are a very small part of TNY readership. If the magazine announced that it was
>not going to print another poem, nobody would probably even notice except
>people who write poetry. (Take the cartoons away, though -- that would be a
>different matter -- cartoons actually have to communicate!)
or aim at the lowest common denominator?
>>does this come with discounts at Safeway? just curious.
>
>Sorry. You get nothing for being smart. Virtue (and intelligence) is its own
>reward.
perhaps where you live.
>>>I don't like this kind of poetry
>>>because I can't understand it. I haven't seen much of that here, thank
>>>goodness.
>>
>>i should think so. what would happen if people started writing more poetry
>>you
>>didn't understand?
>
>I don't know, but I can tell you I would probably not hang around here for
>long.
the tragedy of this is unspeakable.
>As I said, I am pretty smart.
i never said you were not. i most certainly implied otherwise, but i never came
right out and said it.
>I can worry the meaning of a poem out, I
>have a big library of reference works, I know my way around libraries all over
>the country, and I can clap my hand upon any information I need within a day.
>However -- I do not think this should be necessary. Poetry should be
>accessible.
i think people should learn how to read. a society that constantly aims at the
lowest common denominator turns into.... the United States.
>>where would the world be? why, we might actually have a leader of the
>>strongest
>>country in the world that knew how to read???
>>
>>well, let's not get hysterical.
>
>Let's try to keep politics off this board, shall we?
we never speak of politics here. heh....
>Maybe if you spent less
>time blabbering on about how much you hate the Pres, you'd get more poetry
>written and try harder to make it understandable (I don't actually know if I've
>read or commented on any of your stuff, so I am just saying that).
not at all. i write poetry about how much i hate the president. and i don't
actually "HATE" the president. i hate the New York Yankees and the St. Louis
Rams. i immensely disike the unelected President and all those in his
administration who are working very hard to destroy MY nation and it's civil
rights.
>>>The great middle.of the curve: fortunately, most people who write poetry
>>hope
>>>to communicate so there are words I can understand without looking them up,
>>
>>for god's sake, YES! where would we all be if we started USING
>>DICTIONARIES???
>
>I have a DICTIONARY. I do not feel that I should have to use my DICTIONARY
>when I read a poem any more than I should have to have my DICTIONARY at my
>side when I read an article or a story!
are you saying you have no more new words to learn?
>>you're like a prophet of the modern age, carol.
>
>Carolyn is my name..
sorry.
>I am a prophet of the modern age.
we agree.
>I am saying that poetry
>will be completely marginalized eventually -- only other poets will read it --
>unless you folks start trying to communicate with more people than just each
>other.
GOD NO! don't make people LEARN anything. don't make people REACH BEYOND there
ignorant little world and see something new.
make it all easy for them to understand.
thanks, no. playing to stupidity does only one thing. it creates more stupidity.
we have plenty already, more than enough.
maybe we should try and make people learn? there's a novel concept.
>>FUCKING-A, sister! people, learning about things outside of their own little
>>world!!!! my GOD, what horrors could befall all people if they starting
>>REALLY
>>learning????
>
>Keep a civil tongue in your head, my good man. I have avoided any bad , and I
>expect you to do so, as well.
i wasn't swearing at you.
>>go tell it on the mountain, sister!!!
>>
>>>Also under this part of the curve are old and famous poems
>>>(Shakespeare's sonnets). Though written in an English that is no longer
>>spoken,
>>>we can "get it" because enough words are used to pass the meaning on to us.
>>
>>i believe you're the first person i've ever seen who's claimed Uncle Billy
>>was
>>mediocre.
>
>Why don't you go ahead and read my post again? You apparently have failed to
>grasp the sense of it. The bell curve I am talking about is the one of
>understandability, NOT quality.
indeed, and what you're saying is that we need to write more "understandable"
poems so that we can communicate with the bread and circus's crowd, right? now
here's the real STICKLER, C, what if, just for the sake of argument, that the
REALLY GREAT poetry is poetry that you and the B & C crowd doesn't understand?
>>>The far left side of the curve -- oh dear. That's what I see here, and so
>>much
>>>of it. There's the Japanese guy, who strings phrases together I can only
>>guess
>>>he's gotten out of some computer translation program, Japanese into English.
>>>There's the rhyming lines -- that's all they are, lines that rhyme. Might
>>as
>>>well be nonsense.
>>
>>are you working on becoming the poster child for "a little knowledge is
>>dangerous?"
>
>Why are you unable to debate what I have written? -- You seem to be trying to
>respond to my post with insults.
pretty much, yeah.
>That is not enough. I want real argument. Tell
>me where I'm wrong -- and how.
see above. you complain that poetry you don't understand is not the kind of
poetry one should write, because we're all responsible (god knows why) for
communicating with people who don't understand big words.
i'm saying that's ignorant bullshit. i say we write the best poetry we can, skip
aiming at the lowest common denominator, and hope that that the average person,
who is more intelligent than you might think, goes and takes a look at a
dictionary to learn about the words he or she doesn't understand.
i think that's pretty clear, isn't it?
>>>There's the words and phrases thrown together in a kind of
>>>blank verse
>>
>>verse doesn't ryhme.
>
> Thanks for the pointer.
>
not at all.
>>>melange with the hope that something will be gleaned from them
>>>through the clever mind of the astute and searching reader.
>>
>>to be astute and searching is somehow wrong?
>
>No -- it should not be necessary.
WHAT? shouldn't we ALWAYS be astute and searching??? for christ's sake, what the
HELL are we here on this earth for, but to be constantly learning, searching,
discovering???? what is the point of human existence if one is not willing to be
better than they are, to be smarter than they are, to LEARN something new?
>If your poem doesn't speak to me quickly and
>easily, why should I read it?
because some times you have to bring something to a piece of art, instead of
just sitting back and letting the art do all the work.
really good art is like really good sex. it's interactive. heh.
>>>These poems do not repay a read because there's no message, and thus no
>>>>communication.
>>
>>i'm sorry, i was overcome with laughter.
>
>And this is your response? I was hoping for something with some thought in it,
>and instead I get
>
>>i'm sorry, i was overcome with laughter.
i strive to be honest.
>>>Now, get this -- the interesting thing is that the far right and the far
>>left
>>>intersect! Yet you know the poet who wrote the poem on the far right side
>>is
>>>termendously skilled. Very intelligent and capable. And the one on the left
>>>just throws down some words and calls it a poem. The effect is the same.
>>>
>>>NO Communication.
>>
>>you need to read some more poetry and learn what lies on the inside of
>>dictionaries.
>
>You don't know me.
this is self evident.
>And I'm sure I don't know you.
more than likely.
>I suggest you don't make
>suggestions of this nature to people you don't know.
then don't suggest such ridiculous ideas in a public forum.
>>OH look! the A's are first place.
>>
>>most sincerely,
>>
>>j r sherman
>
>Hey, jr, how about making another go at it? Read it again, this time with your
>brain fully engaged, instead of in full frontal assault. You might learn
>something, or I might. As it is
>
>NO COMMUNICATION.
you don't want COMMUNICATION, you want to be entertained without having to do
anything.
there is some art that doesn't do that.
you need to feed your head, carolyn.
most sincerely,
j r sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Tynan
"Bruce Tindall" wrote in message ...
>Aidan Tynan <aty...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>If a poem is good, understanding is irrelevant, which is why one I enjoy
>>listening to poems in languages that I don't understand.
>
>"Ya Goya" ("I Am Goya") by Andrei Vosnesensky is a great example
>of this. There must be an audio file of it being read in Russian
>on the web somewhere.
I bought a bilingual version of Arrow in the Wall about a year ago, some of
his stuff is very good. I could listen to Pound or Yeats read in any
language.
-Aidan
>
>--
>Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
j r sherman
says...
>
>>> Who is Pete Ross?
>>
>>AKA rocky, AKA the "clown of aapc"
>
>I look forward to reading some of his stuff.
you probably wouldn't understand it.
>>> >you need to read some more poetry and learn what lies on the inside of
>>> >dictionaries.
>>>
>>> You don't know me. And I'm sure I don't know you. I suggest you don't make
>>> suggestions of this nature to people you don't know.
>>
>>Just makin friends I see.
>
>Yeah -- I think we're going to be good buddies. In fact, I think ol jr and I
>are going to have some very excellent times together.
my dear, you do not even know the half of it.
>>j r is a troll that I killfile, but that
>>is just my opinion..
>
>I would never killfile anybody. There's good in everyone. (picture little furry
>bunnies and tweeting birds and a warm sun and fluffy clouds -- and me and jr
>running slow motion toward each other in a big greeen field -- if you can).
what are you wearing?
>>There are 2 or 3 people that love him.
that's idiotic, there are at least 4 or 5.
>Hmm. His mum and dad -- and one of his grandparents?
my grandparents are dead. three never met me, really. and one died in not the
best state of grace.
but ya know, they could, i guess. who's to say?
>Thanks, Tom Bishop, for the answers and insights.
but carolyn, you must be fair. allow me to give you some insights into tommy.
for starters, tommy lives in Ukiah, California. that alone would be enough to
garner sympathy from even third world residents. tommy doesn't like me because i
tell him the truth.
and all he tells me are lies.
how much would YOU trust someone who did nothing but tell you lies? not a lot,
my dear.
but i am a forgiving (on occasion) person. i do not bear tommy any ill-will. i
just wish he'd stop telling me lies.
i'm glad we had this time to talk. i hope you don't go away soon. even if
there's a lot of poetry here you don't understand.
Daphne Brinkerhoff
Um, I'm not sure you want to do that... the book _The Bell Curve_ was
very controversial (some accusations of racism, etc.).
> >The far left side of the curve -- oh dear. That's what I see here, and so much
> >of it. There's the Japanese guy, who strings phrases together I can only guess
> >he's gotten out of some computer translation program, Japanese into English.
> >There's the rhyming lines -- that's all they are, lines that rhyme. Might as
> >well be nonsense.
>
> are you working on becoming the poster child for "a little knowledge is
> dangerous?"
>
> >There's the words and phrases thrown together in a kind of
> >blank verse
>
> verse doesn't ryhme.
No, see, I think she's talking two different things, both "bad":
a) verse that rhymes
b) words & phrases thrown together in a kind of blank verse
Only she must mean "free verse", because blank verse is iambic
pentameter and all that, and I haven't seen much on the group.
Of course if we have a) rhyming verse and b) non-rhyming verse, both
bad, I don't see what that leaves to be actual *good* poetry.
> >melange with the hope that something will be gleaned from them
> >through the clever mind of the astute and searching reader.
I hope we all want astute & searching readers. I hope we all want
people to take time to think about our words. Like, people who know
what "melange" means.
> to be astute and searching is somehow wrong?
What he said.
> >These poems do not repay a read because there's no message, and thus no
> >>communication.
The thing is, you've got a circular definition going.
"There are three kinds of poems: poems that are above my head, poems I
can understand, and poems that are worthless. How can you tell the
difference? Poems I don't get a message from that have big words are
the first kind. Poems I don't get a message from that don't have big
words are the third kind. Everything else is in the middle."
This can't be duplicated by other readers. Reading a poem, I couldn't
predict which group you'd put it in, or analyze it for any clues. I
don't see how to write a poem that would fit in the second group.
What characteristics do poems in this group have? A message? I can
put it there, but that's no guarantee any reader will figure it out.
If they don't, is it their fault, or mine, or both? It's not a simple
issue.
Anyway, what I got out of your post was: "Poems are a way of
communicating. So try to communicate." I can't argue with that, as
far as it goes.
--Daphne Brinkerhoff
Tom Bishop
"Robert K. Thralls" <rthr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:10tdmug63bi6ejcfr...@4ax.com...
> >have read in my long life and what I am reading here on the board.
>
> destination.
>
> >
> >I am calling it The Bell Curve Theory of poetry. Imagine a bell curve, if you
>
> R: Seems too plane to be a remarkable theory.
> R: Seems to me, that you value communication too much.
> M: And don't you, Robert? You of all people. It is your calling, you
> make money when people communicate.
> R: Nonsense! Telephones are to communications as mustard is to the
> jar. As with a common yellow mustard, unlike a raspberry mustard,
> yellow is inexpensive to buy. It is the assumption that it will
> always be inexpensive and under-valued that we tend to leave so much
> in the bottom of that jar. I'm sure that French's makes more money
> off of what you leave in the bottom. Likewise, I make more money when
> people are vague and continue to speak for prolonged periods of time.
> M: What does raspberry mustard have to do with this?
> R: It is for very fine chefs, produced in small quantities, and has a
> narrow market share, therefore expensive. Its counterpart in telecom
> would be specialized communications services, few utilize the extent
> of the technology, few appreciate the technology, few have a need for
> the technology, therefore expensive, but will eventually become
> commonplace and packaged, even bundled options.
> M: And your point is?
> R: All things have climax and coda. The runner, the town crier, the
> news paper, a book, a payphone, a beeper, a cellular phone, a digital
> wireless device, and yes, even the poet. All things come and go in
> cycles.
> M: Pay phones?
> R: In particular, the cycle is waning for the pay phone. With the
> advent of other communications devices, the pay phone infrastructure,
> equipment, lines, maintenance, switching, termination, etc. has all
> become very expensive to keep around because not many use them
> anymore. Going the way of copper drums, Rubber, Vinyl, 8-track, and
> cassette.
> M: Do you have a theory of poetry?
> R: Yes - thought you would never ask. It is the Cosmos Theory of a
> Poet. It differs much from the Plotting and Buldging theory above. It
> rates not the poem, but the poet. It is three dimensional, larger than
> we think, ever changing, and alive. It is a Comet, large and round,
> racing. Bending space with its presence, and trying to fill all voids
> by leaving apart of itself behind. It isn't the leading edge that is
> so magnificant, but the atmosphere that trails behind that draws the
> imagination of a blue-green planet. Unlike the curve, all poets come
> from the mass, rise in crescendo, glittering amoungst the stars for a
> relatively breif time and are propelled to the height of their
> curvacious career, and then left behind forever in the darkness of
> shoeboxes with other neighborhood boys. They are replaced by other
> poets that only come once in a lifetime and come round again for our
> grandchildren to hear. The really big poets become meteors and fall
> to the masses that watch the storm in awe, and are forever collected
> in pieces and placed on the kitchen window sill to continue to refract
> the light of a distant memory and course of mankind. Tectite!! Poets
> fall from Draconis and ignite the desert, and they cool to a deep
> black glass. And where I come from, they are Green! And his name was
> strewn across Eastern Europe, "Moldavite!!!"
There is a tribe in Africa that points to the stars of their
origins.. and describes the star configuration.
Modern telescopes verify their diagrams, right
where they pointed.
> M: Yes, dear, thanks for picking me up at the airport...
> R: Have you noticed? I apply the same theory to sex.
> M: [commentary omitted]
>
> Martha and Robert
Go M&R...
Chuck Lysaght
You're an asshole j r.
Carolyn Gloeckner
>there's a lot of poetry here you don't understand.
>
>most sincerely,
>
>j r sherman
>
Actually, I have to go away in a few weeks (this is a good thing, not a bad
thing). I am pleased to have aroused so much emotion from you poets.
I do wish you'd make more of an effort to get along with Tom, though. Birds in
their little nests agree, and so should we.
BTW, none of my gparents are living, and I never even knew two of them. This is
sad and I am sad for you, as well. I am hoping someday to be a grandparent and
have a positive impact on all my grandkids' lives. If we can't get, I figure,
at least we can give.
Carolyn
"Some have relied on what they know;
Others on being simply true.
What worked for them may work for you."
--- Robert Frost, "Provide, Provide"
Carolyn Gloeckner
>New Yorker, never mind it's poetry section), if maybe the fault lies
>with you, the reader, rather than the author? maybe "problem" is a
>better word than "fault".
Yes, it sure has. I have gotten past that, fortunately. I now see that
communication is the point of communication. If I can't understand it without
considerable effort -- and I'm pretty smart -- there are probably not many who
can. Why should a poem be a puzzle?
>>However -- I do not think this should be necessary. Poetry should be
>>accessible.
>
>I'm not at all sure what you mean by "accessible"; I have a horrid
>feeling about it, and I'm hoping I'm wrong...
Well, just keep that horrid feeling going -- because that's exactly what I
mean. People should be able to read and understand a poem, not just react to
the rhythm of it, or the imagery, or etc.etc. I think artists have had this
same argument about abstract art vs. representational art. I will go for
surrealism and impressionism, but a white canvas on which plumbing has been
attached that drips water constantly down over it -- I don't get it, it's not
art to me. The same with bundles of words, and even carefully crafted poetry,
full of images and references to mythology, literary heroes and demons. etc.
that does not give up its meaning without a huge effort.
>
><aside - it's very hard to convey "friendly discussion" rather than
>"antagonism" on usenet. or in life, really>
Let's not worry about friendly at this point. Let's go for communication.
>ANYWAY.
>one of the joys of poetry - or any artform - is that it introduces the
>reader/viewer/audience to New Stuff. Stuff to get your teeth into, stuff
>to interest you, stuff to take you off on tangents or blind alleys,
>using your brain and imagination and thinking and learning.
>I'm carried away, but you get my point.
If I want NEW STUFF I can actually read a book about something new, or study it
personally, myself. I do not go looking for it in poetry. In other words, I do
not think a poem should be a puzzle. I think it should begin in beauty and end
in wisdom.
>
>>I have a DICTIONARY. I do not feel that I should have to use my DICTIONARY
>>when I read a poem any more than I should have to have my DICTIONARY at my
>>side when I read an article or a story!
>
>this is foolish, Carolyn. words are wonderful. learning new words is a
>wonderful and useful thing. language is the very stuff that dreams -
>sorry, poems - are made of, and to restrict it deliberately to the
>pedestrian is kind of missing the point.
>if you don't love words and language, how come you love poetry? poetry
>_is_ words and language.
>and if you _do_ love words and language, how come you don't love new
>words? new concepts?
I love them, yes I do. BUT I expect words and references to be understandable
in context. I do not want to have to be running to a textbook to find out who
this character or that one is, or what the meaning of that word is.
>
>>The bell curve I am talking about is the one of
>>understandability, NOT quality.
>
>"understandability" ain't that important.
>quality is.
Well, now. We get right down to the crux of it here. I suspect -- no, I KNOW
-- that you are in that 90th percentile when it comes to writing poetry.
>
>>If your poem doesn't speak to me quickly and
>>easily, why should I read it?
>
>!!!
>
>I'm genuinely speechless.
>
>!!!
>
>!!!
You have answered my question already. Your answer seems to be: "To learn new
words by looking them up in a dictionary, or to find out about mythology or
literature or history or ??? -- go take a course, Carolyn, so that you may be
with us, not on the outside looking in. My poems should engender in you a
desire to spend the next several hours learning about the stuff I am referring
to and some other stuff I am just kind of pointing at. Have fun!"
>
>I'm interested in this because of your need to (and sometimes inability
>to) understand/break down a poem/language/imagery to/on it's most
>literal level; which is a characteristic pronounced enough in you for me
>to remember it from postings of yours on aapc around four years ago.
Was it that long ago? I know I didn't last long -- didn't have the time and
energy. But it was fun, and I must say most of the old names I still
recognize. I remember your poem. It was something about a hag stirring a pot
and a lot of other associated stuff -- beautiful images, wonderful bunches of
words -- but I couldn't get it. I remember you were really polite and thanked
me for my effort.
>It's a problem, for want of a better word, that most of the literate
>posters here (and elsewhere, and habitual readers everywhere) don't
>really have, and I'm curious about it - particularly the aversion to new
>or unusual words, which is weird in a writer or reader,
I don't have an aversion to unsual words. I think they should present their
meanings by their context. I could throw in a few unusual words here in my
reply -- would it make you feel like reading what I have to say, if the meaning
wasn't clear from context? I don't think so.
and the
>difficulty with imagery. It reminds me of some autistic-spectrum kids
>(and no, I'm not suggesting you suffer from autism, and no, I'm not
>using autism as an insult.)
copied and moved: Sophie says:
><aside - it's very hard to convey "friendly discussion" rather than
>"antagonism" on usenet. or in life, really>
Apparently.
There is nothing missing in me. In fact, if anything, I have more than the
normal amount.
>
>there's nothing to be scared of in the new, the unknown, the slightly
>incomprehensible. that's what it's FOR.
Sophie, I'm not scared, I'm concerned, for all of you. You are losing, have
lost, your audience. You speak only to each other -- nobody else has the
paitence for it. I know I don't.
Carolyn Gloeckner
>
>Um, I'm not sure you want to do that... the book _The Bell Curve_ was
>very controversial (some accusations of racism, etc.).
Oh, gee, Daphne -- don't you know about the bell curve? It is common in nature
and in human behavior of all kinds. Look It Up.
>No, see, I think she's talking two different things, both "bad":
>
>a) verse that rhymes
>
>b) words & phrases thrown together in a kind of blank verse
>
>Only she must mean "free verse", because blank verse is iambic
>pentameter and all that, and I haven't seen much on the group.
Thanks for all the information. Always nice to get some actual facts.
>
>Of course if we have a) rhyming verse and b) non-rhyming verse, both
>bad, I don't see what that leaves to be actual *good* poetry.
I think you must go back and read the post again. You're reading it all chopped
and much is left out. You are responding to the response.
>
>> >melange with the hope that something will be gleaned from them
>> >through the clever mind of the astute and searching reader.
>
>I hope we all want astute & searching readers. I hope we all want
>people to take time to think about our words. Like, people who know
>what "melange" means.
Right-o.
>
>> to be astute and searching is somehow wrong?
>
>What he said.
>
>> >These poems do not repay a read because there's no message, and thus no
>> >>communication.
>
>The thing is, you've got a circular definition going.
>
>"There are three kinds of poems: poems that are above my head, poems I
>can understand, and poems that are worthless.
No, two kinds of poems: poems I can understand fairly easily and enjoy, and the
rest -- which give me a headache, one way or another, for one reason or
another.
How can you tell the
>difference? Poems I don't get a message from that have big words are
>the first kind. Poems I don't get a message from that don't have big
>words are the third kind. Everything else is in the middle."
Oh, my. Cut and paste from sophie's post: --
><aside - it's very hard to convey "friendly discussion" rather than
>"antagonism" on usenet. or in life, really>
>
>This can't be duplicated by other readers. Reading a poem, I couldn't
>predict which group you'd put it in, or analyze it for any clues.
Oh, come on. Yes you could. I can tell from the total silence (re sensible
comments) that follows some of the poems. The best some of you folks can do is
"I'm not getting anything from this" -- most honest comment I've seen yet.
Except from people who apparently have long established antagnonisms. They hate
everything.
I
>don't see how to write a poem that would fit in the second group.
>What characteristics do poems in this group have? A message?
Begins in beauty, ends in wisdom OR contains a thought, idea, image, so well
presented that the reader feels something, sees something in her/his mind's
eye..
I can
>put it there, but that's no guarantee any reader will figure it out.
>If they don't, is it their fault, or mine, or both? It's not a simple
>issue.
Maybe both. But if you don't HAVE a message, you can't convey it. That's the
problem with the left side of the bell curve, I think. Words thrown down in l
ines. That's not a poem, to me.
>
>Anyway, what I got out of your post was: "Poems are a way of
>communicating. So try to communicate." I can't argue with that, as
>far as it goes.
>
>--Daphne Brinkerhoff
Finally! Comes the dawn. Stick with me, Daphne (great name, btw) -- maybe I'll
have a convert.
Carolyn Gloeckner
OMG. You guys really have gone over.
Carolyn Gloeckner
>mean it's good.
I guess my complaint is that TNY offers the best in articles, fiction, and
cartoons -- why not the best in poems? Why are these such terrible poems? Why
do so few of them communicate anything to me (except, again, those translated
from some other language)?
>
>I think, in reality, that there are two bell curves in play, one
>corresponding to erudition, the other to wit. And the former can't
>substitute for the latter, as much as some might wish it.
I don't get your meaning here. What sense of wit are we talking about? As in,
losing my wits?
Or as I used
>to say (being of a chiastic disposition), I'd rather be a good writer
>of bad books than a bad writer of good ones . . .
Josh, I honestly don't get it. Try me again on this.
Carolyn
Carolyn Gloeckner
>of the period. He was not, after all, a "learned" man.
>
>
>Josh
Yes, I understand the kind of circumstances in which his art was originally
enjoyed. And I should add, about Shakespeare -- that studying Shakespeare is a
necessity to really enjoying his work.. Some of the meanings are lost on modern
audiences (I often think of the phrase "country matters" in Hamlet, as an
example) -- so you have to have somebody to serve as a kind of translator. BUT
WHO AMONG YOU will produce a body of work that will result in people studying
it centuries later?
WHO AMONG YOU?
You must write for the common man of today, if you want an audience. He will
appreciate your work, honestly, if you will meet him halfway. We are human and
most of us can read.
Carolyn Gloeckner
>Poet. It differs much from the Plotting and Buldging theory above. It
>rates not the poem, but the poet. It is three dimensional, larger than
>we think,
Best thing in the whole comment, IMO. Thanks for your response, Martha and
Robert.
Carolyn Gloeckner
> If you don't know, look out because you will know soon...and it will
>hurt!
But will he have any real good arguments about what I said? Will he insult me
and call me stupid? Will he turn to the put-down as reply?
That's what I want to know.
Bob Ross! If you are still alive, and the pine cone has been successfully
removed, come talk to me!
Calling Bob Ross.
Carolyn
j r sherman
carol...@aol.comsinge says...
>
>>i hope you don't go away soon. even if
>>there's a lot of poetry here you don't understand.
>>
>>most sincerely,
>>
>>j r sherman
>>
>
>Actually, I have to go away in a few weeks (this is a good thing, not a bad
>thing). I am pleased to have aroused so much emotion from you poets.
indeed. laughter is an expression of emotion.
> I do wish you'd make more of an effort to get along with Tom, though. Birds in
>their little nests agree, and so should we.
and sometimes momma bird pushes the really stupid baby bird out of the nest. in
this birds are smarter than we are.
>BTW, none of my gparents are living, and I never even knew two of them. This is
>sad and I am sad for you, as well. I am hoping someday to be a grandparent and
>have a positive impact on all my grandkids' lives. If we can't get, I figure,
>at least we can give.
right. just don't attempt to explain poetry to them, would you please? we do
enough damage to our children as it is.
most sincerely,
j r sherman
------------------------------------------------------------------
j r sherman
carol...@aol.comsinge says...
>
>Who IS BOB ROSS?
Peter Ross, carolyn. it's Peter Ross.
>> If you don't know, look out because you will know soon...and it will
>>hurt!
>
>But will he have any real good arguments about what I said?
what does it matter if his argument is "good" or not. if it's not what you want
to hear you'll merely whine that he doesn't "get it" because his opinions will
not correlate with yours.
i sincerely hope you don't teach children.
>Will he insult me
>and call me stupid? Will he turn to the put-down as reply?
he won't need to.
>That's what I want to know.
Peter Ross is the Prince of Darkness. you should be happy he is not here. if he
were here you would be sliced and diced and turned into a pile of Julian fries.
so, again, be happy he is not here. it's one of those fantastic breaks that one
never appreciates until it's too late.
>Bob Ross! If you are still alive, and the pine cone has been successfully
>removed, come talk to me!
fools rush in.....
Joshua P. Hill
Gloeckner) wrote:
I very much doubt that any of us will produce such a body of work,
but, if one of us does, it will be because it is damned good, not
because it is directed at one or another audience.
That being said, I agree that work directed primarily at the
professoriate and the poetoriate is of limited interest to the general
public, and, more importantly, tends to rely too much on theory rather
than audience reaction, losing fitness in the process. Though I think
it should be noted that while Shakespeare's references were not
arcane, he did not write for the common man, either: he rather looked
down on them and amused them with "dumb show for the groundlings" --
which groundlings were therefore presumably unable to understand the
talky parts. (And how did the groundlings react to that line, I
imagine? With hearty good humor at having had their noses tweaked, or
with dull incomprehension?)
Josh
sophie
>>Carolyn, has it occurred to you (and I ask this never having read the
>>New Yorker, never mind it's poetry section), if maybe the fault lies
>>with you, the reader, rather than the author? maybe "problem" is a
>>better word than "fault".
>
>Yes, it sure has. I have gotten past that, fortunately. I now see that
>communication is the point of communication.
absolutely.
absolute transparency and simple vocabulary is not the point of poetry,
though.
Dylan Thomas.
Eliot, for god's sake.
if you're asking who'll be studied in a couple of hundred years' time,
those two are a safe bet, and they're not transparent.
> If I can't understand it without
>considerable effort -- and I'm pretty smart -- there are probably not many who
>can. Why should a poem be a puzzle?
I don't think it should. but I don't think the fact that poetry is
"difficult" makes it a puzzle, it just makes it hard work. which may or
may not be it's own reward.
>
>
>>>However -- I do not think this should be necessary. Poetry should be
>>>accessible.
>>
>>I'm not at all sure what you mean by "accessible"; I have a horrid
>>feeling about it, and I'm hoping I'm wrong...
>
>Well, just keep that horrid feeling going -- because that's exactly what I
>mean. People should be able to read and understand a poem, not just react to
>the rhythm of it, or the imagery, or etc.etc. I think artists have had this
>same argument about abstract art vs. representational art. I will go for
>surrealism and impressionism, but a white canvas on which plumbing has been
>attached that drips water constantly down over it -- I don't get it, it's not
>art to me.
the important part of that sentence is "to me". art - like poetry -
invokes subjective responses.
>The same with bundles of words, and even carefully crafted poetry,
>full of images and references to mythology, literary heroes and demons. etc.
>that does not give up its meaning without a huge effort.
I wouldn't suggest that any of these things are necessarily good. Nor is
ease of comprehension.
>>
>><aside - it's very hard to convey "friendly discussion" rather than
>>"antagonism" on usenet. or in life, really>
>
>Let's not worry about friendly at this point. Let's go for communication.
;-)
>
>
>>ANYWAY.
>>one of the joys of poetry - or any artform - is that it introduces the
>>reader/viewer/audience to New Stuff. Stuff to get your teeth into, stuff
>>to interest you, stuff to take you off on tangents or blind alleys,
>>using your brain and imagination and thinking and learning.
>>I'm carried away, but you get my point.
>
>If I want NEW STUFF I can actually read a book about something new, or study it
>personally, myself. I do not go looking for it in poetry.
so if you don't want new stuff in poetry, this kind of implies you're
against poetic innovation; which I can't imagine you are.
> In other words, I do
>not think a poem should be a puzzle. I think it should begin in beauty and end
>in wisdom.
so you think poetry should be beautiful and wise? see, i would say
beauty and wisdom lie outside the absolutely quotidian, which is, as I
understand it, what you are advocating for poetry. which is fine, as
your own personal opinion. My opinion is different - I can get the
everyday from the newspapers, the telly, Helen Fielding novels.
>>
>>>I have a DICTIONARY. I do not feel that I should have to use my DICTIONARY
>>>when I read a poem any more than I should have to have my DICTIONARY at my
>>>side when I read an article or a story!
>>
>>this is foolish, Carolyn. words are wonderful. learning new words is a
>>wonderful and useful thing. language is the very stuff that dreams -
>>sorry, poems - are made of, and to restrict it deliberately to the
>>pedestrian is kind of missing the point.
>>if you don't love words and language, how come you love poetry? poetry
>>_is_ words and language.
>>and if you _do_ love words and language, how come you don't love new
>>words? new concepts?
>
>I love them, yes I do. BUT I expect words and references to be understandable
>in context. I do not want to have to be running to a textbook to find out who
>this character or that one is, or what the meaning of that word is.
ok, at what level should poems be written? yours? mine? Oprah's? who
decides? as you say, you're pretty smart; I'm sure I'm no smarter than
you, but we obviously have different expectations of poetry (I must
comment on your tern poem, btw, which I like).
How do we know which references or vocabulary the average reader will
get?
>>
>>>The bell curve I am talking about is the one of
>>>understandability, NOT quality.
>>
>>"understandability" ain't that important.
>>quality is.
>
>Well, now. We get right down to the crux of it here. I suspect -- no, I KNOW
>-- that you are in that 90th percentile when it comes to writing poetry.
I wouldn't agree with that.
>
>
>>
>>>If your poem doesn't speak to me quickly and
>>>easily, why should I read it?
>>
>>!!!
>>
>>I'm genuinely speechless.
>>
>>!!!
>>
>>!!!
>
>You have answered my question already. Your answer seems to be: "To learn new
>words by looking them up in a dictionary, or to find out about mythology or
>literature or history or ??? -- go take a course, Carolyn, so that you may be
>with us, not on the outside looking in. My poems should engender in you a
>desire to spend the next several hours learning about the stuff I am referring
>to and some other stuff I am just kind of pointing at. Have fun!"
I think you've entirely misunderstood my point.
the point of poetry is not to learn new words (if new words crop up, I'd
see it as a bonus, but there you go.) it's not to find out about
mythology &c; it's to be poetry. If you'd like to take a course, great,
but I'm not suggesting it; nor am I inviting you to come be with "us",
because there is no "us". we're all on the outside looking in. My poems,
few as they are, and if you can call them such, certainly aren't likely
to engender any desire to learn about any stuff, because by and large
they aren't that kind of poem.
have fun, yeah, absolutely.
but the point of poetry is none of the above. the point of poetry is
poetry.
>
>>
>>I'm interested in this because of your need to (and sometimes inability
>>to) understand/break down a poem/language/imagery to/on it's most
>>literal level; which is a characteristic pronounced enough in you for me
>>to remember it from postings of yours on aapc around four years ago.
>
>Was it that long ago? I know I didn't last long -- didn't have the time and
>energy. But it was fun, and I must say most of the old names I still
>recognize. I remember your poem.
I'm flattered!
> It was something about a hag stirring a pot
>and a lot of other associated stuff -- beautiful images, wonderful bunches of
>words -- but I couldn't get it. I remember you were really polite and thanked
>me for my effort.
I'm good at polite.
no really.
but if you're judging my writing on that one piece, you're going off on
the wrong tack.
>>It's a problem, for want of a better word, that most of the literate
>>posters here (and elsewhere, and habitual readers everywhere) don't
>>really have, and I'm curious about it - particularly the aversion to new
>>or unusual words, which is weird in a writer or reader,
>
>I don't have an aversion to unsual words.
well, you've said you don't want to have to use a dictionary to read a
poem; and I can't work out how else to interpret that.
>I think they should present their
>meanings by their context.
words usually do, don't they?
> I could throw in a few unusual words here in my
>reply -- would it make you feel like reading what I have to say, if the meaning
>wasn't clear from context?
it would make me reach for my english dictionary. I like my dictionary.
I'd be interested.
> I don't think so.
you'd be wrong!
>
>and the
>>difficulty with imagery. It reminds me of some autistic-spectrum kids
>>(and no, I'm not suggesting you suffer from autism, and no, I'm not
>>using autism as an insult.)
>
> copied and moved: Sophie says:
>
>><aside - it's very hard to convey "friendly discussion" rather than
>>"antagonism" on usenet. or in life, really>
>
>Apparently.
>
>There is nothing missing in me.
I didn't suggest there was (hence the bracketed bit). but I'm interested
in the way people break down wholes into parts and build parts into
wholes and make sense of them. I think I may be misunderstanding what
you're saying; but it seems/seemed to me that you don't "get" a lot of
imagery. and you're very tenacious in trying to "get" it, and to "get"
references which many readers might let wash over them as a general
impression, which reminded me of and got me thinking about the way many
autistic people really don't understand creative art or metaphor on a
fairly profound level. I'm not for a moment - as I said - suggesting
you're autistic; but your approach to poetry has (probably entirely
superficial) similarities to an autistic approach which interest me.
> In fact, if anything, I have more than the
>normal amount.
doesn't that put you under a dangerously low part of the bell curve?
>
>>
>>there's nothing to be scared of in the new, the unknown, the slightly
>>incomprehensible. that's what it's FOR.
>
>Sophie, I'm not scared, I'm concerned, for all of you.
who are "we"?
I'm genuinely interested.
there's not a lot of poetry posted on aapc at the moment, and if you're
seeing as a a coherent group, boy are you wrong!
> You are losing, have
>lost, your audience. You speak only to each other
and again, who is this "you"? aapc? because in all honesty, aapc spends
much of its time bickering. it is a long way form being a
self-congratulatory unity.
> -- nobody else has the
>paitence for it. I know I don't.
and you don't have to.
who are your favourite poets, just out of interest?
--
sophie
*Offensive* Non
was you who did it. I thought it was those damned magazines....
Oh emotion, oops.
Re: My new theory of poetry
*Offensive* Non
Ross. Bob, Peter yeah they sound alike, and are spelled alike. I see
where you made that mistake.
Re: My new theory of poetry
Group: alt.arts.poetry.comments Date: Sat, Aug 24, 2002, 3:30pm (EDT+4)
From: carol...@aol.comsinge (Carolyn Gloeckner)
Carolyn Gloeckner
>
>>> If you don't know, look out because you will know soon...and it will
>>>hurt!
>>
>>But will he have any real good arguments about what I said?
>
>what does it matter if his argument is "good" or not. if it's not what you
>want
>to hear you'll merely whine that he doesn't "get it" because his opinions
>will
>not correlate with yours.
Ooooooo...terrifying.
>i sincerely hope you don't teach children.
Nope.
>>Will he insult me
>>and call me stupid? Will he turn to the put-down as reply?
>
>he won't need to.
So, what -- he's more rational and direct than the rest of you? Or more
polite?
>Peter Ross is the Prince of Darkness. you should be happy he is not here. if
>he
>were here you would be sliced and diced and turned into a pile of Julian
>fries.
Oh, great pun. julienne -- Julian. See, I'm with it -- I'm hep with the jive!
>
>so, again, be happy he is not here. it's one of those fantastic breaks that
>one
>never appreciates until it's too late.
The anticipation is killing me OMG my hart! as vkds, ,mc';lv
not really.
Your friend,
Scott Lanning
> Who IS BOB ROSS?
He paints
happy little
afros.
Carolyn Gloeckner
getting his name right. Kinda like when jr called me carol.
Bob Ross -- where are you?
(Somebody at least pretend to be Bob -- this is kinda petering out...)
Carolyn Gloeckner
>>>of the period. He was not, after all, a "learned" man.
>>>
>>>
>>>Josh
>>
>>Yes, I understand the kind of circumstances in which his art was originally
>>enjoyed. And I should add, about Shakespeare -- that studying Shakespeare is
>a
>>necessity to really enjoying his work.. Some of the meanings are lost on
>modern
>>audiences (I often think of the phrase "country matters" in Hamlet, as an
>>example) -- so you have to have somebody to serve as a kind of translator.
>BUT
>>WHO AMONG YOU will produce a body of work that will result in people
>studying
>>it centuries later?
>>
>>WHO AMONG YOU?
>>
>>You must write for the common man of today, if you want an audience. He will
>>appreciate your work, honestly, if you will meet him halfway. We are human
>and
>>most of us can read.
>>Carolyn
Josh replies:
>
>I very much doubt that any of us will produce such a body of work,
>but, if one of us does, it will be because it is damned good, not
>because it is directed at one or another audience.
Meaning, exactly ...what? Damned good is the exact thing I am talking about
here. WHAT does it take to be damned good?
>That being said, I agree that work directed primarily at the
>professoriate and the poetoriate
I am wisely going not to write that down. I am sure there is a wealth of
meaning in those two words, and I do get it from context, but the idea that
there even are such words I find daunting.... (heh-heh -- that ought to get
sophie, if she looks in on this thread).
is of limited interest to the general
>public, and, more importantly, tends to rely too much on theory rather
>than audience reaction, losing fitness in the process.
That's it -- fitness. The perfect word. I also like the idea of "audience
reaction." Suggests an instantaneous thing, not turning the reading of a poem
into a career. Exactly what I am talking about.
Though I think
>it should be noted that while Shakespeare's references were not
>arcane, he did not write for the common man, either: he rather looked
>down on them and amused them with "dumb show for the groundlings" --
He had the sense of a need to write for both audiences, for all audiences. His
plays could be appreciated as spectacle and morality tale on the one hand, and
as beautifully crafted dialogue and clever plot on the other (though I confess
some of his plots are totally worthless -- can't blame him, though, since he
just cribbed them from other sources, or so I have read). Do you know if his
poetry (outside of scene ending couplets, of course) was ever performed, as
such? Was it just published, and that's all?
>which groundlings were therefore presumably unable to understand the
>talky parts. (And how did the groundlings react to that line, I
>imagine? With hearty good humor at having had their noses tweaked, or
>with dull incomprehension?)
You never know where you might come across a little fleck of intelligence,
Josh. I'm thinking both. Just because somebody sits down front and throws
walnuts doesn't mean he can't understand what's going on. Some of them might
have seen the implications of that remark -- but I betcha they didn't mind.
They thought he was making fun of the other fellow, not them.
Carolyn Gloeckner
>>thing). I am pleased to have aroused so much emotion from you poets.
>
>indeed. laughter is an expression of emotion.
It is -- especially nervous laughter. It hides all failings.
>
>> I do wish you'd make more of an effort to get along with Tom, though. Birds
>in
>>their little nests agree, and so should we.
>
>and sometimes momma bird pushes the really stupid baby bird out of the nest.
>in
>this birds are smarter than we are.
Sometimes birds push each other out. Have you ever heard of siblicide? It's a
common strategy for birds to hatch more eggs than they can possibly rear to
adulthood. The result is that, by instinct, the first hatched try hard to knock
the younger ones out of the nest. (Pelicans are one example -- if you've seen
a pelican, you've seen a sibling-killer, almost certainly.) Doesn't work with
poetry, though. These birds stick firmly in the nest and peck back.
>>BTW, none of my gparents are living, and I never even knew two of them. This
>is
>>sad and I am sad for you, as well. I am hoping someday to be a grandparent
>and
>>have a positive impact on all my grandkids' lives. If we can't get, I
>figure,
>>at least we can give.
>
>right. just don't attempt to explain poetry to them, would you please? we do
>enough damage to our children as it is.
And here I had tried to establish common ground with you re. the grandparents,
and the sympathy, and all I get back is insult! When my kids were young, I
read them a lot of poetry. I liked Mother Goose and Milne and some of Riley's
Child Rhymes (the scary ones), and also Shel Silverstein's poems. There are so
many good poetry books for kids. THEY actually communicate!
Sorry we can't be friends. Just as well, though -- I have the feeling you will
give my poetry a very thorough read, using exactly my criteria.
Later
Carolyn Gloeckner
>this group reasonably well, though poems, as with all art, should be
>open to interpretation and if you don't or can't get anything from any
>works in here then that really is YOUR problem.
I agree there. Every reader brings something more to a reading. And if he/she
doesn't, maybe reading poetry isn't something he/she should be doing.
Whereas obviously I
>found your post not as easy to decipher as I misunderstood your attack,
>thinking you were saying they were poor where you're actually saying
>they make no sense.
Riiight. Though I'm not sure there's a real difference, in the end. Depends on
the way you mean poor.
>I don't think the japanese guy, as you call him, is real. I proved it by
>shoving one of my poorer works into an interpreter then back again, it
>made the work stilted and just like his, except obviously the poem
>wasn't in his style.
So, Paul, how come he presents himself with the "Talent (japanese name)"
moniker, and has that little weird introductory remark at the beginning? Is
this a put on? And if so, why? Who responds (except Tom, who I suspect is
easily entertained by a piece of shiny paper blowing across his yard) to this
guy?
GeorgeTolis
news:3D66AB04...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Lemme guess?
> > - readable
> > - twangy
> > - extra twangy
> >
> or even chewy
Wriggly even...?
Carolyn Gloeckner
>mean that poetry without a paraphrasable logical argument is bad poetry.
>
>A lot of the "communication" in poetry has to do with the rhythms,
>the so-called musical effects of the sounds of the words, the
>choice of words, the variation or lack thereof in any number of
>elements (rhythm, sounds, level of diction, syntax, etc. etc. etc.),
>completely independently of the logical argument (if any) of the words.
We talking Mairzy Doats here? (Not meaning to be fresh!) You mean if I posted
a poem with no meaning that just sounded good people might like it and
respond to it positively?
>Even didactic or epigrammatic poetry may communicate a lot more
>than a brief prose paraphrase expressing the same logical argument would.
Show me, Bruce. I crave examples, not highflown prose. Demonstrate this and
perhaps I can be turned -- I suggest a "didactic or epigrammatic poetry-off"
here, where you post the "poems" under one subject line marked with an A and
the actual prose paraphrase in another marked B. Let's just see if you're right
about this. (I realize that for most of you really knowledgeable folks,
success in this undertaking is a given. However, I'd like to see it .)
C.
Paul Heslop
spearmint?
--
Paul. (when it dies, it dies for good...)
____________________________________________________________
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Joshua P. Hill
Gloeckner) wrote:
A lot of things, and one has to be born with some of them, and one has
to acquire others in childhood. So there's no magic bullet. What one
can do is become better, by reading, writing, mastering the conscious
elements of craft, connecting with the world and the audience (since
too many poems say nothing of interest, or say something very well but
don't connect with the audience).
>>That being said, I agree that work directed primarily at the
>>professoriate and the poetoriate
>
>I am wisely going not to write that down. I am sure there is a wealth of
>meaning in those two words, and I do get it from context, but the idea that
>there even are such words I find daunting.... (heh-heh -- that ought to get
>sophie, if she looks in on this thread).
"Professoriate" is a perfectly respectable word, "poetoriate" an
intentionally godawful coinage by analogy.
> is of limited interest to the general
>>public, and, more importantly, tends to rely too much on theory rather
>>than audience reaction, losing fitness in the process.
>
>That's it -- fitness. The perfect word. I also like the idea of "audience
>reaction." Suggests an instantaneous thing, not turning the reading of a poem
>into a career. Exactly what I am talking about.
I didn't really intend to imply instantaneity, since in my experience
the best poetry doesn't make its full impression on the first reading
any more than the best music does. I'm not promoting obscurity, but
rather, pointing out that in a sense, obscurity and superficiality are
bedfellows; what one is after is profundity.
>Though I think
>>it should be noted that while Shakespeare's references were not
>>arcane, he did not write for the common man, either: he rather looked
>>down on them and amused them with "dumb show for the groundlings" --
>
>He had the sense of a need to write for both audiences, for all audiences. His
>plays could be appreciated as spectacle and morality tale on the one hand, and
>as beautifully crafted dialogue and clever plot on the other (though I confess
>some of his plots are totally worthless -- can't blame him, though, since he
>just cribbed them from other sources, or so I have read). Do you know if his
>poetry (outside of scene ending couplets, of course) was ever performed, as
>such? Was it just published, and that's all?
The sonnets were initially circulated in manuscript, among his
friends; I'm not sure how much he had to do with their publication.
The narrative poems were written for publication, possibly because the
theaters were closed due to an outbreak of plague and he had nothing
much to do.
I'm not sure why you criticize Shakespeare's plots. Many aren't
original, but then, many of his plays are histories, which impose
certain constraints, and beyond that, there are only a relative
handful of basic plots, which writers recycle again and again. That he
did in fact invent some plots that have been used repeatedly -- the
Romeo and Juliet plot, forex -- is therefore rather remarkable.
>>which groundlings were therefore presumably unable to understand the
>>talky parts. (And how did the groundlings react to that line, I
>>imagine? With hearty good humor at having had their noses tweaked, or
>>with dull incomprehension?)
>
>You never know where you might come across a little fleck of intelligence,
>Josh. I'm thinking both. Just because somebody sits down front and throws
>walnuts doesn't mean he can't understand what's going on. Some of them might
>have seen the implications of that remark -- but I betcha they didn't mind.
>They thought he was making fun of the other fellow, not them.
Though one has to keep in mind that the educational system of the day
was not as egalitarian as our own.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Carolyn Gloeckner <carol...@aol.comsinge> said
>>>Carolyn, has it occurred to you (and I ask this never having read the
>>>New Yorker, never mind it's poetry section), if maybe the fault lies
>>>with you, the reader, rather than the author? maybe "problem" is a
>>>better word than "fault".
>>
>>Yes, it sure has. I have gotten past that, fortunately. I now see that
>>communication is the point of communication.
>
>absolutely.
>absolute transparency and simple vocabulary is not the point of poetry,
>though.
>Dylan Thomas.
>Eliot, for god's sake.
>if you're asking who'll be studied in a couple of hundred years' time,
>those two are a safe bet, and they're not transparent.
I think, unfortunately, that those two may have left a bad example for
some lesser lights. Neither is transparent, no, but both exert a
profound pull on the reader long before he has sussed out some of the
references and deep meaning. Unfortunately, some would-be poets
mistake erudition or obscurity for quality. And they aren't the same.
Those who can't write at the level of Eliot or Thomas just make things
worse when they put on airs. And in the 20th century they drove an
unforgiveable wedge between the poet and the broader literate
audience, which found too often that the rewards of exegisis failed to
justify the effort.
Josh
Carolyn Gloeckner
>happy little
>afros.
OH -- I remember him -- the guy on TV! Shows you how to paint happy little
whatevers -- on Public TV he used to be. Awful paintings...Sounds like Peter
isn't at all like his brother, Bob, who, come to think of it doesn't even have
a British accent.
Go figure.
Paul Heslop
> So, Paul, how come he presents himself with the "Talent (japanese name)"
> moniker, and has that little weird introductory remark at the beginning? Is
> this a put on? And if so, why? Who responds (except Tom, who I suspect is
> easily entertained by a piece of shiny paper blowing across his yard) to this
> guy?
Gimme a minute... okay this is the first verse of Mary had a little
lamb, fed into and out of babelfish
There is a small lamb where in Mary with the wool that as for Mary the
lamb it went going, was secure anywhere it is white as a snow,
pretty weird eh? You can then break it down and make it sound like a
translation. Honestly though, i don't know if Talent is real or not, but
he never responds of the him to him, so i guess he is fake.
Some people enjoy being fake, and others enjoy being controversial...
you seem to get off on the second one :O) I just like the fact that a
bunch of disparate souls from all over the world can get together and
talk to each other about everything and anything, hopefully without it
getting too higbrow so it becomes boring. Whenever someone posts
something, such as this post of yours, it comes off all heavy handed and
all knowing and to be honest I've seen examples of this sort of post in
every single NG I'm in.... only they call it trolling.
What i'd really like to know is, do you REALLY mean to suggest that
there are no poems posted in this group which you can understand? Or are
you ignoring the lighter stuff or the silly stuff or the just plain "I
loved my man but he pissed off" stuff?
Paul Heslop
>
> I think to really set the stage, you have to insult the guy in advance by not
> getting his name right. Kinda like when jr called me carol.
>
> Bob Ross -- where are you?
>
> (Somebody at least pretend to be Bob -- this is kinda petering out...)
>
school term (though he is certainly no schoolboy!) peter is a fixture.
sophie
I don't disagree with any of this.
in fact, dammit, I agree with all of it!
but bad poetry is bad poetry, be it pretentious as all get out, or as
simple as simple can be.
and the same goes for good poetry.
ease of comprehension is not, as far as I can tell, a useful standard
for judging poetry - except on a purely subjective level. and
subjectivity is fine, as long as you don't expect everyone to share your
point of view.
--
sophie
Bruce Tindall
>Show me, Bruce. I crave examples, not highflown prose. Demonstrate this and
>perhaps I can be turned -- I suggest a "didactic or epigrammatic poetry-off"
>here, where you post the "poems" under one subject line marked with an A and
>the actual prose paraphrase in another marked B.
Four lines of poetry, from Pope's Essay on Criticism, a didactic poem:
"When Ajax strives some rock's vast weight to throw,
The line too labours, and the words move slow.
Not so when swift Camilla scours the plain,
Flies o'er th' unbending corn, and skims along the main."
Prose paraphrase of the "message" the poem is "communicating":
"A passage consisting of equally-stressed monosyllabic words containing
a high proportion of fricative and plosive consonants is likely to be
read more slowly than a passage that is more strictly iambic and
that contains more polysllables and liquid consonants."
Exercise:
Does the poem do anything (for example, with its rhythm, sounds,
and variations thereof) that the prose paraphrase doesn't? Can
you see any reason why Pope's passage is still frequently quoted,
printed in _Bartlett's_, etc., almost 300 years after it was
written, while my prose paraphrase certainly won't be?
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
Joshua P. Hill
In and of itself, no. But overall, I think I'd rather read the
mediocre comprensible than the mediocre unfathomable!
Josh
Bruce Tindall
> When my kids were young, I
>read them a lot of poetry. I liked Mother Goose and Milne and some of Riley's
>Child Rhymes (the scary ones), and also Shel Silverstein's poems. There are so
>many good poetry books for kids. THEY actually communicate!
Since we've both done our share of reading nursery rhymes aloud to
children, let me use them to explain what I've been talking about.
A lot of the poems children (and adults) enjoy are nonsense rhymes,
right? They have no "message" in the sense in which you've been
using the word -- they have no rational narrative, no didactic purpose,
often no semantic meaning in the words at all. Yet they make people
smile and laugh. Yes, they "communicate," but they do so solely
by means of rhythms, sounds, and other poetic devices besides what
you call "meaning" or "message."
Take tongue-twisters, for example. "How much wood could a woodchuck
chuck," or "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers." Nobody
enjoys these because of their literal "message," but mainly because
of the juxtaposition of similar sounds, the difficulty of saying
them quickly out loud, etc. They communicate, but not through the
dictionary definitions of their words.
Now ratchet this up several orders of magnitude to something like
Joyce's _Finnegans Wake_. Much of that book makes no literal sense,
it's nonsense, but on the other hand it contains so many puns and
almost-puns and ambiguities and this, that, and the other, that it
suggests *many* possible meanings and communicates *more* than a
simple straight narrative ("And then Mr. Earwicker went to sleep.
The End.") would have had.
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
*Offensive* Non
Re: My new theory of poetry
Lemme guess?
- readable
- twangy
- extra twangy
or even chewy
Wriggly even...?
spearmint?
--
Paul. (when it dies, it dies for good...)
____________________________________________
JAS Carter
into the wind, melodiously:
>Well, talk about nerve! Yes, I have a new theory of poetry, based on what I
>have read in my long life and what I am reading here on the board.
Okey dokey.
>I am calling it The Bell Curve Theory of poetry. Imagine a bell curve, if you
>will. Very far to the right, under the thinnest part of it farest to the
>right, are those beautifully crafted, full-of literary and mythological
>references and arcane words you have to look up in a dictionary, and preferably
>the OED, that one might find in The New Yorker. TOTALLY inaccessible by the
>ordinary person. Apparently meant for some extremely erudite group of readers
>(my husband, a nuclear physicist, used to tell me that some of the papers he
>wrote were completely understandable only by about 12 people in the world --
>seems the same is true of some poetry). I don't like this kind of poetry
>because I can't understand it. I haven't seen much of that here, thank
>goodness.
I see lots of it everywhere, or at least I see lots of poetry that
really wants to be really obscure and damn! people work awfully hard
at it, really.
>The great middle.of the curve: fortunately, most people who write poetry hope
>to communicate so there are words I can understand without looking them up, and
>what references there are to outside personages and events at least hold some
>meaning for me, because they are in the common experience of people like me
>living here and now. Also under this part of the curve are old and famous poems
>(Shakespeare's sonnets). Though written in an English that is no longer spoken,
>we can "get it" because enough words are used to pass the meaning on to us.
Hrm. So, you think that most poems written are comprehensible to most
people? I'm doing the paraphrase thing!
I think I would tend not to agree. Most poems are not readily
comprehensible to most people.
>The far left side of the curve -- oh dear. That's what I see here, and so much
>of it. There's the Japanese guy, who strings phrases together I can only guess
>he's gotten out of some computer translation program, Japanese into English.
>There's the rhyming lines -- that's all they are, lines that rhyme. Might as
>well be nonsense. There's the words and phrases thrown together in a kind of
>blank verse melange with the hope that something will be gleaned from them
>through the clever mind of the astute and searching reader. These poems do not
>repay a read because there's no message, and thus no communication.
This is where most poems lie.
>Now, get this -- the interesting thing is that the far right and the far left
>intersect! Yet you know the poet who wrote the poem on the far right side is
>termendously skilled. Very intelligent and capable. And the one on the left
>just throws down some words and calls it a poem. The effect is the same.
To some extent, yes. A person with no language skills can be just as
incomprehensible as someone with advanced language skills.
One can listen to William F. Buckley and recognize that he knows lots
of words, but one can often not glean the tiniest shred of meaning
from him because he: 1. uses the wordsidiosyncratically, 2. uses the
words incorrectly, 3. uses the words in concert with an annoying
inability to string together a complete sentence without stumbling,
stopping, and rephrasing.
Or, as you give in your example, it's possible to attempt to read a
highly technical document and be baffled so much that a dictionary
can't help.
>NO Communication.
>
>The Bell Curve -- that's what I'm talking about.
Well, okay, but I guess I disagree with your premise. I don't think
the majority of poetry is readily comprehensible to the majority of
people. Some of the fault lies in the writer, and some lies in the
reader. Too many writers slap down abstract, nonsensical, unmusical,
abstruse garbage and hand it to you on a plate. It communicates
nothing because it is too specific, or it communicates nothing because
it is too general. It communicates nothing because it is too erudite,
or it communicates nothing because it is too illiterate.
Most of the time, it communicates nothing because the author's intent
wasn't to communicate because that writer does not see communication
as the point of poetry.
You've determined that poetry can kinda be split into three camps, two
of which intersect. And the bulging part of the bell curve lies on
the "communicates" side, while the wispy parts are on the "doesn't
communicate" side. But since I disagree where the curve lies, I can't
see a real "theory" at work here.
--
Julie Carter
You put Ohiohills in; you take the Yahoo out;
you put Ohiohills in and you type your message out.
You do the hokey pokey and you drop Julie a line.
That's what email's about.
*Offensive* Non
Re: My new theory of poetry
He paints
happy little
afros.
Underneath
the overpass
with spraypaint.
Paul Heslop
>
> Sorry I will just stick with Juicy fruit
Ooooooh Matron!
--
Paul. (Choose your future. Choose life....)
____________________________________________________________
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Zinc
news:20020823163713...@mb-fl.aol.com...
> >my god, where is Pete Ross when you need him most?
>
> Who is Pete Ross?
> >
One of the best at analyzing a work-in-progress that I'd seen. He was also an
excellent shot. He could pop the pointed little ears off a troll at a hundred
paces, flay it, and prepare it with garnish. All while it was still jabbering
on, limbless, on the plate. A true culinary artist: he served only the freshest
troll.
Tom Bishop
"Zinc" <zin...@honospamtmail.com> wrote in message news:ABY99.5748$ob2.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Bah..
He was a troll himself, who posed as a clown.
His antics were funny though.
--
Tom Bishop ,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,
http://Poetry.Here.Nu - Poetry web hosting, with audio.
http://Composer.Here.Nu - Poetry Composition Tool!!
http://Spoiled-Poems.Here.Nu - Master poetry explained.
Zinc
news:ak9kv2$1gjuke$1...@ID-138561.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Zinc" <zin...@honospamtmail.com> wrote in message
news:ABY99.5748$ob2.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "CarolynGlo" <carol...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20020823163713...@mb-fl.aol.com...
> > > >my god, where is Pete Ross when you need him most?
> > >
> > > Who is Pete Ross?
> > > >
> >
> > One of the best at analyzing a work-in-progress that I'd seen. He was also
an
> > excellent shot. He could pop the pointed little ears off a troll at a
hundred
> > paces, flay it, and prepare it with garnish. All while it was still
jabbering
> > on, limbless, on the plate. A true culinary artist: he served only the
freshest
> > troll.
> >
> >
>
> Bah..
>
> He was a troll himself, who posed as a clown.
Chuckisms.
> His antics were funny though.
He knew what he was talking about, and wasn't likely to encourage the bullshit
that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
Tom Bishop
"Zinc" <zin...@honospamtmail.com> wrote in message news:xkZ99.5825$ob2.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> He knew what he was talking about, and wasn't likely to encourage the bullshit
> that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
Quite true, but our minds clashed,
on too many points.
Zinc
>
> "Zinc" <zin...@honospamtmail.com> wrote in message
news:xkZ99.5825$ob2.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> >
> > He knew what he was talking about, and wasn't likely to encourage the
bullshit
> > that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
>
> Quite true, but our minds clashed,
> on too many points.
Q: When you argue points with someone who - admittedly - knows better than you,
without gaining knowledge, you are:
A: Santa Claus just killing time in the off-season.
B: A bandwidth hog with illusions of 'cashing-in' on the poetry goldmine.
C: A polemic who's tired of the S&M newsgroups.
D: A windbag who is too lazy to do the groundwork.
I have a hunch it's not A.
Paul Heslop
>
> He knew what he was talking about, and wasn't likely to encourage the bullshit
> that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
>
Oh dear, here we go again. Why are you here if it's so tortuous?
Paul Heslop
he could also be very very offensive and have as much compassion as a
wet fish. I still like Peter. :O)
Paul Heslop
When you pointedly sling insults at all and everyone you are:
A: An asshole...
B) errrr... that's it.
Tom Bishop
"Zinc" <zin...@honospamtmail.com> wrote in message news:uI_99.5669$ld4.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Tom Bishop" <t...@truly.nu> wrote in message
> news:ak9po4$1g2p81$1...@ID-138561.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Zinc" <zin...@honospamtmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xkZ99.5825$ob2.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > >
> > > He knew what he was talking about, and wasn't likely to encourage the
> bullshit
> > > that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
> >
> > Quite true, but our minds clashed,
> > on too many points.
>
>
> Q: When you argue points with someone who - admittedly - knows better than you,
> without gaining knowledge, you are:
rocky boy among others.
..who knows nothing particular about programming.
Which was the discussion with Ross.
He thought I should just wait till Netscape supported
the functionality that I was requiring, and other nutty things,
as well as being truly boring with his "be creative" drone.
Hell, you argue with me about a scanner you refuse to try.
I certainly know better than you do about it, and yet you continue.
Ross told me to fuck off and die.. and you think that is someone
who deserves respect from me?
Good Question!
Tom Bishop
"Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3D689FA0...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Zinc wrote:
> >
> > "Tom Bishop" <t...@truly.nu> wrote in message
> > news:ak9po4$1g2p81$1...@ID-138561.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > "Zinc" <zin...@honospamtmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:xkZ99.5825$ob2.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > He knew what he was talking about, and wasn't likely to encourage the
> > bullshit
> > > > that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
> > >
> > > Quite true, but our minds clashed,
> > > on too many points.
> >
> > Q: When you argue points with someone who - admittedly - knows better than you,
> > without gaining knowledge, you are:
> >
> > A: Santa Claus just killing time in the off-season.
> >
> > B: A bandwidth hog with illusions of 'cashing-in' on the poetry goldmine.
> >
> > C: A polemic who's tired of the S&M newsgroups.
> >
> > D: A windbag who is too lazy to do the groundwork.
> >
> > I have a hunch it's not A.
>
> When you pointedly sling insults at all and everyone you are:
Don Rickles?
>
> A: An asshole...
Even assholes need love, or is it lube?
>
> B) errrr... that's it.
> --
> Paul. (Choose your future. Choose life....)
> ____________________________________________________________
> http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Paul I just want to say how much your presence here means
to me.
You are like the heartbeat of the group!
;-)
Paul Heslop
> You are like the heartbeat of the group!
>
> ;-)
>
:O) you silver tongued devil you!
Zinc
> Zinc wrote:
>
> >
> > He knew what he was talking about, and wasn't likely to encourage the
bullshit
> > that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
> >
> Oh dear, here we go again. Why are you here if it's so tortuous?
Well, if it's not a rhetorical question, although it probably was, since you've
become the group's conscience things have really taken a downturn, but there's
always a chance that you'll get on with some aspect of your life that you're
actually competent at and have less time to moderate people's
less-than-civil-per-Paul-Tom-or-Chuck crits of the daily drivel.
It's a small chance, I know, but be kind and don't crush my hopes - it would
just be mean of you.
Paul Heslop
>
> "Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3D689F5E...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Zinc wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > He knew what he was talking about, and wasn't likely to encourage the
> bullshit
> > > that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
> > >
> > Oh dear, here we go again. Why are you here if it's so tortuous?
>
> Well, if it's not a rhetorical question, although it probably was, since you've
> become the group's conscience things have really taken a downturn, but there's
> always a chance that you'll get on with some aspect of your life that you're
> actually competent at and have less time to moderate people's
> less-than-civil-per-Paul-Tom-or-Chuck crits of the daily drivel.
>
> It's a small chance, I know, but be kind and don't crush my hopes - it would
> just be mean of you.
>
remember that as we are indeed the people using the group most nowadays
we are now the regs, so we, like the old gang, don't have to give a shit
about other people's feelings.
Zinc
>
> "Zinc" <zin...@honospamtmail.com> wrote in message
news:uI_99.5669$ld4.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "Tom Bishop" <t...@truly.nu> wrote in message
> > news:ak9po4$1g2p81$1...@ID-138561.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > "Zinc" <zin...@honospamtmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:xkZ99.5825$ob2.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > He knew what he was talking about, and wasn't likely to encourage the
> > bullshit
> > > > that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
> > >
> > > Quite true, but our minds clashed,
> > > on too many points.
> >
> >
> > Q: When you argue points with someone who - admittedly - knows better than
you,
> > without gaining knowledge, you are:
>
> rocky boy among others.
Is that what they're calling stupid nowadays? I really can't keep up anymore.
> ..who knows nothing particular about programming.
> Which was the discussion with Ross.
> He thought I should just wait till Netscape supported
> the functionality that I was requiring, and other nutty things,
> as well as being truly boring with his "be creative" drone.
Yeah, creativity is so boring.
> Hell, you argue with me about a scanner you refuse to try.
> I certainly know better than you do about it, and yet you continue.
I didn't argue about it, but why should one feel compelled to jump on your
bandwagon? The "Hey, look what I found" infomercial promotion alone is enough to
put me off. Besides, there's something to be said for the discovery - among
other things - one finds in actually doing the necessary work to assemble a
metrical poem (if one wanted to assemble a metrical poem) rather than using the
tools you offer. Why use a shovel if a pick does the job?
> Ross told me to fuck off and die.. and you think that is someone
> who deserves respect from me?
Heh, he did have a way with words didn't he? Some of his best stuff was on the
Pome-o-matic, and, in the old days, the dairy entries. He could make a grown man
cry.
Zinc
> Zinc wrote:
> >
> > "Tom Bishop" <t...@truly.nu> wrote in message
> > news:ak9po4$1g2p81$1...@ID-138561.news.dfncis.de...
> > >
> > > "Zinc" <zin...@honospamtmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:xkZ99.5825$ob2.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > He knew what he was talking about, and wasn't likely to encourage the
> > bullshit
> > > > that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
> > >
> > > Quite true, but our minds clashed,
> > > on too many points.
> >
> > Q: When you argue points with someone who - admittedly - knows better than
you,
> > without gaining knowledge, you are:
> >
> > A: Santa Claus just killing time in the off-season.
> >
> > B: A bandwidth hog with illusions of 'cashing-in' on the poetry goldmine.
> >
> > C: A polemic who's tired of the S&M newsgroups.
> >
> > D: A windbag who is too lazy to do the groundwork.
> >
> > I have a hunch it's not A.
>
> When you pointedly sling insults at all and everyone you are:
>
> A: An asshole...
>
> B) errrr... that's it.
When you jump in and sling judgments at everyone whom /you/ deem to be mean, you
are:
A: A judgmental busybody know-it-all who should be tending his own rose garden.
B: On a poetry newsgroup witch-hunt with the other trolls.
(Where you the one who slipped Dale the Prozac? C'mon, there's a bet on this.)
*Offensive* Non
Neither Tom, nor Paul has said anything good about my poetry but they
did give me helpful comments, and weren't assholes about it. Making a
point doesn't require being evil. If you think it is, than all this
really is is a who-has-the-bigger-dick contest in poetry form.
Re: My new theory of poetry
Group: alt.arts.poetry.comments Date: Sun, Aug 25, 2002, 6:15pm (EDT+4)
From: zin...@honospamtmail.com (Zinc)
Tom Bishop
> I didn't argue about it, but why should one feel compelled to jump on your
> bandwagon?
They needn't.
> The "Hey, look what I found" infomercial promotion alone is enough to
> put me off. Besides, there's something to be said for the discovery - among
> other things - one finds in actually doing the necessary work to assemble a
> metrical poem (if one wanted to assemble a metrical poem) rather than using the
> tools you offer.
If you say so.
> Why use a shovel if a pick does the job?
Use a bull dozer if you have one.
WHY NOT use the best tool for the job?
Mine is just the best online tool. If there is another, please inform.
I am seriously not aware.
>
>
> > Ross told me to fuck off and die.. and you think that is someone
> > who deserves respect from me?
>
>
> Heh, he did have a way with words didn't he? Some of his best stuff was on the
> Pome-o-matic, and, in the old days, the dairy entries. He could make a grown man
> cry.
Never struck me as such.
He was a lightweight clown.
Zinc
news:19204-3D6...@storefull-2374.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> You don't have to be a complete ass to make a good critique of a poem.
Never came close to implying such. Some of the best critiques, however, are the
ones that save bandwidth by discouraging - in no uncertain terms - those who
spend a few seconds spewing their heart's desires onto the ng with no real
interest in writing - then, of course, they cry when it's called the crap that
it is. But maybe some people actually enjoy reading the profuse amounts of
garbage that get dumped in here on a daily basis. Maybe it makes /them/ feel
like better poets.
> Neither Tom, nor Paul has said anything good about my poetry but they
> did give me helpful comments, and weren't assholes about it. Making a
> point doesn't require being evil. If you think it is, than all this
> really is is a who-has-the-bigger-dick contest in poetry form.
Look, this get-the-mean-person crap is what the trolls want. Maybe you are one
too, I don't know. Why can't the nice people hang out in RAP, and the mean
people stay in AAPC (where they started)? It's a simple solution. No?
Zinc
> Zinc wrote:
> >
> > "Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3D689F5E...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > Zinc wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > He knew what he was talking about, and wasn't likely to encourage the
> > bullshit
> > > > that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
> > > >
> > > Oh dear, here we go again. Why are you here if it's so tortuous?
> >
> > Well, if it's not a rhetorical question, although it probably was, since
you've
> > become the group's conscience things have really taken a downturn, but
there's
> > always a chance that you'll get on with some aspect of your life that you're
> > actually competent at and have less time to moderate people's
> > less-than-civil-per-Paul-Tom-or-Chuck crits of the daily drivel.
> >
> > It's a small chance, I know, but be kind and don't crush my hopes - it would
> > just be mean of you.
> >
> Oh, i see, you're of the Martijn Benders school of Wanking.
His opinions on poetry at least count for something. He's insane and obnoxious,
but he can write decent poetry. I wouldn't belong to any /school/ of his,
however. Although it's no worse than Heslop's School of Jack-Offs, really.
> Fine. But
> remember that as we are indeed the people using the group most nowadays
> we are now the regs, so we, like the old gang, don't have to give a shit
> about other people's feelings.
See, you /can/ be mean! I knew you had it in you (can you say 'hypocrite'?).
Enter the new, dumbed-down AAPC - and be nice (haw).
Carolyn Gloeckner
>bullshit
>that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
Take me to him, zinc. I speak my mind, too. Maybe we could have a meeting of
the minds.
Or maybe not.
But it would be interesting...
"Some have relied on what they know;
Others on being simply true.
What worked for them may work for you."
--- Robert Frost, "Provide, Provide"
Paul Heslop
:O) I just fail to see what the kick is in constant mud slinging. The
current thing with you guys is that because people post regularly they
are imbeciles. You have no idea who or why and I don't recall the last
time you criticised any of my poems which proved popular, again
something a certain MR BENDERS is guilty of. Quick enough to jump in if
he smells blood, a lesser work, but not even a blip when the poem
attracts attention because then he would have to defend himself against
others instead of a lone target.
I post here and other places because I'm a social animal. If that isn't
your bag then don't read it, killfile me or whatever, but don't insult
me if you can't offer something helpful.
Of course, as with anyone else (even marty) I hold no grudges and if
this is an end to the animosity between us that's okay by me too.
Carolyn Gloeckner
>you,
>without gaining knowledge,
(snipped)
you are a waste of space. BUT -- who admits this Pete Ross guy knows more
than the rest of us?
Paul Heslop
>
> "Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3D6921E0...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Zinc wrote:
> > >
> > > "Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:3D689F5E...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > > Zinc wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > He knew what he was talking about, and wasn't likely to encourage the
> > > bullshit
> > > > > that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
> > > > >
> > > > Oh dear, here we go again. Why are you here if it's so tortuous?
> > >
> > > Well, if it's not a rhetorical question, although it probably was, since
> you've
> > > become the group's conscience things have really taken a downturn, but
> there's
> > > always a chance that you'll get on with some aspect of your life that you're
> > > actually competent at and have less time to moderate people's
> > > less-than-civil-per-Paul-Tom-or-Chuck crits of the daily drivel.
> > >
> > > It's a small chance, I know, but be kind and don't crush my hopes - it would
> > > just be mean of you.
> > >
> > Oh, i see, you're of the Martijn Benders school of Wanking.
>
> His opinions on poetry at least count for something. He's insane and obnoxious,
> but he can write decent poetry. I wouldn't belong to any /school/ of his,
> however. Although it's no worse than Heslop's School of Jack-Offs, really.
only ours is a circle jerk where Marty's is a solo event :O)
>
> > Fine. But
> > remember that as we are indeed the people using the group most nowadays
> > we are now the regs, so we, like the old gang, don't have to give a shit
> > about other people's feelings.
>
> See, you /can/ be mean! I knew you had it in you (can you say 'hypocrite'?) Can you say arrogance?.
> Enter the new, dumbed-down AAPC - and be nice (haw).
Yeah, bites don't it that we can't all trod on the little guy all the
time... oh well, maybe you should go find somewhere else you can grind
someone into dust eh? Otherwise you could just pull up a chair and enjoy
yourself.
Paul Heslop
>
> "*Offensive* Non" <Crank...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:19204-3D6...@storefull-2374.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> > You don't have to be a complete ass to make a good critique of a poem.
>
> Never came close to implying such. Some of the best critiques, however, are the
> ones that save bandwidth by discouraging - in no uncertain terms - those who
> spend a few seconds spewing their heart's desires onto the ng with no real
> interest in writing - then, of course, they cry when it's called the crap that
> it is. But maybe some people actually enjoy reading the profuse amounts of
> garbage that get dumped in here on a daily basis. Maybe it makes /them/ feel
> like better poets.
>
> > Neither Tom, nor Paul has said anything good about my poetry but they
> > did give me helpful comments, and weren't assholes about it. Making a
> > point doesn't require being evil. If you think it is, than all this
> > really is is a who-has-the-bigger-dick contest in poetry form.
>
> Look, this get-the-mean-person crap is what the trolls want. Maybe you are one
> too, I don't know. Why can't the nice people hang out in RAP, and the mean
> people stay in AAPC (where they started)? It's a simple solution. No?
>
groups, though the shit stirrers in RAP were mainly women. I was driven
out of here once before but decided I missed the fun, so I'm here and
all I can say is if you don't like it well, hey, there's loads of other
groups for you and Marty to get your rocks off, hell there might even be
groups which consist of teenage webtv users and you can really get your
rocks off. :O)
Paul Heslop
>
> >He knew what he was talking about, and wasn't likely to encourage the
> >bullshit
> >that people are calling poetry in this newsgroup lately. Spoke his mind.
>
> Take me to him, zinc. I speak my mind, too. Maybe we could have a meeting of
> the minds.
>
> Or maybe not.
>
> But it would be interesting...
Just stare into the bathroom mirror at midnight and say his name three
times. :O)
Carolyn Gloeckner
>who deserves respect from me?
>
I sure don't. If he tells me that I'll killfile him.
Zinc
This thread is where the mud-slinging is at. You jumped in uninvited. More
hypocrisy?
> The
> current thing with you guys
I'm not part of any "you guys". The old "regs" and I don't know - or really even
talk to - each other.
>is that because people post regularly they
> are imbeciles.
Not at all because people post regularly. Some of the best contributors
sometimes post the most often.
> You have no idea who or why and I don't recall the last
> time you criticised any of my poems which proved popular,
I'm not sure that I understand this, but it looks like you're using some
popularity scale to determine the merits of your work. I haven't said a thing
about your work, but I've heard Hallmark uses a similar scale. Lots of money and
success there too.
> again
> something a certain MR BENDERS is guilty of. Quick enough to jump in if
> he smells blood, a lesser work, but not even a blip when the poem
> attracts attention because then he would have to defend himself against
> others instead of a lone target.
> I post here and other places because I'm a social animal. If that isn't
> your bag then don't read it, killfile me or whatever, but don't insult
> me if you can't offer something helpful.
I didn't insult your work. You jumped in this thread to 'defend' someone who was
criticizing the absent PJR, and to call me - I assume - an "asshole". It seems a
bit schitzo from here.
> Of course, as with anyone else (even marty) I hold no grudges and if
> this is an end to the animosity between us that's okay by me too.
You started it, you ended it. See? I can be so very agreeable in the New AAPC.
Don't sick the Manners Nazis on me again, please! I'll be a good (read bad)
poet! Really! Give me another chance!
Paul Heslop
Zinc
news:20020825161723...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> >Q: When you argue points with someone who - admittedly - knows better than
> >you,
> >without gaining knowledge,
>
> (snipped)
>
>
> you are a waste of space. BUT -- who admits this Pete Ross guy knows more
> than the rest of us?
Who said he knows more than the rest of us? More than Tom, myself, even you,
sure, but not /everyone/. I would say the same of quite a few of the - lately
rather quiet - participants on this ng. The problem is this relativism that
fuels the ego of ignorant newbies: "Who's to tell /me/ how to write a poem?"
when they obviously haven't a clue. The better equipped people to offer
critiques get tired of wading through the usual junk - and that argument - and
sometimes say as much. The other newbies and trolls jump in and try to silence
the obnoxious know-it-all, who, it seems, /does/ know of what he speaks.
Business as usual here.
Tom Bishop
"Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:3D694263...@blueyonder.co.uk...
Well why don't you give Zinc another chance,
ya big gallut.. ;-)
--
Tom Bishop ,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,
http://Poetry.Here.Nu - Poetry web hosting, with audio.
http://Composer.Here.Nu - Poetry Composition Tool!!
http://Spoiled-Poems.Here.Nu - Master poetry explained.
>
>
Paul Heslop
papers... no... must be behind the printer... ah, bollocks.... which
reminds me, i didn't show you the latest entry into my guestbook!
Name : BOLLOX
Your Web Site : BOLLOX
Your Email : BOLLOX
Your Comments : YOU AND YOUR SITE ARE TOTAL BOLLOX.
You must admit he's got class.
--
Paul. (oh, you have empty eyes....)
____________________________________________________________
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Carolyn Gloeckner
very funny
>sure, but not /everyone/
well, of course not.
I would say the same of quite a few of the - lately
>rather quiet - participants on this ng. The problem is this relativism that
>fuels the ego of ignorant newbies:
Relativism...I hate it, too.
"Who's to tell /me/ how to write a poem?"
>when they obviously haven't a clue. The better equipped people to offer
>critiques get tired of wading through the usual junk - and that argument -
>and
>sometimes say as much. The other newbies and trolls jump in and try to
>silence
>the obnoxious know-it-all, who, it seems, /does/ know of what he speaks.
>Business as usual here.
I just got through with Hurricane -- a labor of love and source of grief for
me -- and I am wondering if the guy "Bill" will even read my comments. At some
point, too much is wrong -- either no effort was taken to try to turn out a
decent poem, or (and this is worse) it was taken, and the result is bad and
kinda heartbreaking. How do YOU choose what you'll comment on? (Right now, I
feel it's a learning experience -- but it is getting old fast.)
C.
Paul Heslop
>
> "Carolyn Gloeckner" <carol...@aol.comsinge> wrote in message
> news:20020825161723...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> > >Q: When you argue points with someone who - admittedly - knows better than
> > >you,
> > >without gaining knowledge,
> >
> > (snipped)
> >
> >
> > you are a waste of space. BUT -- who admits this Pete Ross guy knows more
> > than the rest of us?
>
> Who said he knows more than the rest of us? More than Tom, myself, even you,
> sure, but not /everyone/. I would say the same of quite a few of the - lately
> rather quiet - participants on this ng. The problem is this relativism that
> fuels the ego of ignorant newbies: "Who's to tell /me/ how to write a poem?"
> when they obviously haven't a clue. The better equipped people to offer
> critiques get tired of wading through the usual junk - and that argument - and
> sometimes say as much. The other newbies and trolls jump in and try to silence
> the obnoxious know-it-all, who, it seems, /does/ know of what he speaks.
> Business as usual here.
>
then you blow it because most of the information doesn't sink in, or at
least not in a useful way. if you try to be very nice about it then you
often miss the mark because you don't want to hurt feelings.
I think it's more a case of the better equipped not always doing their
thing properly and often leaving it to us lesser mortals to do their
thing for them.
I often try to explain to newbies I'm the last person they should ask,
though I may say that i like or dislike a work and even give a general
reason why, my brain stopped working logically enough to be of any real
use in a critical situation... but i'd still rather see my responses
than your preferred 'this is shit' response.
Carolyn Gloeckner
>times. :O)
I'll take it under advisement. Have to talk to my lawyer first.
Tom Bishop
"Carolyn Gloeckner" <carol...@aol.comsinge> wrote in message news:20020825174536...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> >Who said he knows more than the rest of us? More than Tom, myself, even you,
>
> very funny
No.. it is accurate. I don't know you that
well, but I can tell from your conversation
you are not as educated as Peter.
I certainly am not. At least in literature, or poetry.
You can see his poetry on links from the aapc website.
Things you have said would indicate to me that you
absolutely will not like it, but hey, maybe all those
months in the "Psychic Institute" were a waste.
>
> >sure, but not /everyone/
>
> well, of course not.
>
> I would say the same of quite a few of the - lately
> >rather quiet - participants on this ng. The problem is this relativism that
> >fuels the ego of ignorant newbies:
>
> Relativism...I hate it, too.
More than what?
>
> "Who's to tell /me/ how to write a poem?"
> >when they obviously haven't a clue. The better equipped people to offer
> >critiques get tired of wading through the usual junk - and that argument -
> >and
> >sometimes say as much. The other newbies and trolls jump in and try to
> >silence
> >the obnoxious know-it-all, who, it seems, /does/ know of what he speaks.
> >Business as usual here.
>
> I just got through with Hurricane -- a labor of love and source of grief for
> me -- and I am wondering if the guy "Bill" will even read my comments.
He just commented.
> At some
> point, too much is wrong -- either no effort was taken to try to turn out a
> decent poem, or (and this is worse) it was taken, and the result is bad and
> kinda heartbreaking. How do YOU choose what you'll comment on? (Right now, I
> feel it's a learning experience -- but it is getting old fast.)
Short-timer, eh.. ?
--
Tom Bishop ,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,
http://Poetry.Here.Nu - Poetry web hosting, with audio.
http://Composer.Here.Nu - Poetry Composition Tool!!
http://Spoiled-Poems.Here.Nu - Master poetry explained.
>
Paul Heslop
:O) Have you tried running a google on the group to see some of his
work? You'll either love it or hate it, but that's upto you to decide.
As for his criticisms, well, we don't always see eye to eye but that's
cos he comes over like some of my old teachers, the ones who were more
interested in helping those who can, rather than the people they should
be helping.
Aidan Tynan
Carolyn Gloeckner wrote in message
<20020824110332...@mb-de.aol.com>...
>>Carolyn, has it occurred to you (and I ask this never having read the
>>New Yorker, never mind it's poetry section), if maybe the fault lies
>>with you, the reader, rather than the author? maybe "problem" is a
>>better word than "fault".
>
>Yes, it sure has. I have gotten past that, fortunately. I now see that
>communication is the point of communication. If I can't understand it
without
>considerable effort -- and I'm pretty smart -- there are probably not many
who
>can. Why should a poem be a puzzle?
They're not, but you seem to think they are -- hence, your problem. Being
smart has nothing to do with it, because 'understanding' here has no
resemblance to what you believe understanding to be: the poetic word
perverts social signifying practice and apperception; that is its function,
that is the only way to conceive of it.
-Aidan
>
>Well, just keep that horrid feeling going -- because that's exactly what I
>mean. People should be able to read and understand a poem, not just react
to
>the rhythm of it, or the imagery, or etc.etc. I think artists have had this
>same argument about abstract art vs. representational art. I will go for
>surrealism and impressionism, but a white canvas on which plumbing has been
>attached that drips water constantly down over it -- I don't get it, it's
not
>art to me. The same with bundles of words, and even carefully crafted
poetry,
>full of images and references to mythology, literary heroes and demons.
etc.
>that does not give up its meaning without a huge effort.
>>
>><aside - it's very hard to convey "friendly discussion" rather than
>>"antagonism" on usenet. or in life, really>
>
>Let's not worry about friendly at this point. Let's go for communication.
>
>
>>ANYWAY.
>>one of the joys of poetry - or any artform - is that it introduces the
>>reader/viewer/audience to New Stuff. Stuff to get your teeth into, stuff
>>to interest you, stuff to take you off on tangents or blind alleys,
>>using your brain and imagination and thinking and learning.
>>I'm carried away, but you get my point.
>
>If I want NEW STUFF I can actually read a book about something new, or
study it
>personally, myself. I do not go looking for it in poetry. In other words,
I do
>not think a poem should be a puzzle. I think it should begin in beauty and
end
>in wisdom.
>
>>
>>>I have a DICTIONARY. I do not feel that I should have to use my
DICTIONARY
>>>when I read a poem any more than I should have to have my DICTIONARY at
my
>>>side when I read an article or a story!
>>
>>this is foolish, Carolyn. words are wonderful. learning new words is a
>>wonderful and useful thing. language is the very stuff that dreams -
>>sorry, poems - are made of, and to restrict it deliberately to the
>>pedestrian is kind of missing the point.
>>if you don't love words and language, how come you love poetry? poetry
>>_is_ words and language.
>>and if you _do_ love words and language, how come you don't love new
>>words? new concepts?
>
>I love them, yes I do. BUT I expect words and references to be
understandable
>in context. I do not want to have to be running to a textbook to find out
who
>this character or that one is, or what the meaning of that word is.
>>
>>>The bell curve I am talking about is the one of
>>>understandability, NOT quality.
>>
>>"understandability" ain't that important.
>>quality is.
>
>Well, now. We get right down to the crux of it here. I suspect -- no, I
KNOW
>-- that you are in that 90th percentile when it comes to writing poetry.
>
>
>>
>>>If your poem doesn't speak to me quickly and
>>>easily, why should I read it?
>>
>>!!!
>>
>>I'm genuinely speechless.
>>
>>!!!
>>
>>!!!
>
>You have answered my question already. Your answer seems to be: "To learn
new
>words by looking them up in a dictionary, or to find out about mythology or
>literature or history or ??? -- go take a course, Carolyn, so that you may
be
>with us, not on the outside looking in. My poems should engender in you a
>desire to spend the next several hours learning about the stuff I am
referring
>to and some other stuff I am just kind of pointing at. Have fun!"
>
>>
>>I'm interested in this because of your need to (and sometimes inability
>>to) understand/break down a poem/language/imagery to/on it's most
>>literal level; which is a characteristic pronounced enough in you for me
>>to remember it from postings of yours on aapc around four years ago.
>
>Was it that long ago? I know I didn't last long -- didn't have the time
and
>energy. But it was fun, and I must say most of the old names I still
>recognize. I remember your poem. It was something about a hag stirring a
pot
>and a lot of other associated stuff -- beautiful images, wonderful bunches
of
>words -- but I couldn't get it. I remember you were really polite and
thanked
>me for my effort.
>
>
>>It's a problem, for want of a better word, that most of the literate
>>posters here (and elsewhere, and habitual readers everywhere) don't
>>really have, and I'm curious about it - particularly the aversion to new
>>or unusual words, which is weird in a writer or reader,
>
>I don't have an aversion to unsual words. I think they should present their
>meanings by their context. I could throw in a few unusual words here in my
>reply -- would it make you feel like reading what I have to say, if the
meaning
>wasn't clear from context? I don't think so.
>
>and the
>>difficulty with imagery. It reminds me of some autistic-spectrum kids
>>(and no, I'm not suggesting you suffer from autism, and no, I'm not
>>using autism as an insult.)
>
> copied and moved: Sophie says:
>
>><aside - it's very hard to convey "friendly discussion" rather than
>>"antagonism" on usenet. or in life, really>
>
>Apparently.
>
>There is nothing missing in me. In fact, if anything, I have more than the
>normal amount.
>
>>
>>there's nothing to be scared of in the new, the unknown, the slightly
>>incomprehensible. that's what it's FOR.
>
>Sophie, I'm not scared, I'm concerned, for all of you. You are losing,
have
>lost, your audience. You speak only to each other -- nobody else has the
>paitence for it. I know I don't.
>
>Carolyn
*Offensive* Non
funny. Too bad he put me in the killifile (I think.)
Re: My new theory of poetry