sounds in poetry are overrated
JAS Carter
After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
What do you think?
--
Julie Carter
"Actually, I very well adjusted."--An Idiot Who Shall Remain Nameless
pandora
JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>
>It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
>priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>
>I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
>Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
>poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
I agree with this. To me, a poem must say *something* as well
as having a pleasing sound.
>This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
>about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
I think the word choices that poets make usually have a pleasing
sound (to the poet at least). If it just sounds nice but has NO
meaning, a poem tends to just sit there. It doesn't fly, for me.
pandora
leisha
> After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>
> It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
> priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>
> I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
> Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
> poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>
> This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
> about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>
> What do you think?
I think sound and rhythm work together and they are essential to a good
poem. Does it have to say something? I don't know. What does "Jabberwocky"
say?
Leisha
leisha
> I think the word choices that poets make usually have a pleasing
> sound (to the poet at least). If it just sounds nice but has NO
> meaning, a poem tends to just sit there. It doesn't fly, for me.
>
> pandora
Not necessarily pleasing, I think. Sounds can be jarring, unpleasant,
annoying, to illustrate strife, violence, dissonance.
I don't think sounds are overrated.
Leisha
Clockwork Orange
<jsgo...@yahoo.com> said:
> After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>
> It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
> priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>
> I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
> Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
> poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>
> This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
> about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>
> What do you think?
I think that I have said something along these lines before, but to my
mind, imagery is probably top of the list for me. Sound is vital, yes,
but it is possible to write a poem with wonderful sounds that lacks any
imagery whatsoever, and for me, that poem will fall flat. Image, sense,
language, sound, rhythm (not necessarily meter). The evocation of an
emotion, while unduly stressed by many new poets (but it's my
*feelings*, waaah) and (IMO) unduly overlooked by others, is also a
factor in how I view a poem, but since emotion is subjective, often it's
what the reader carries into the poem as well as what the writer brought
with it. I do believe you can have a "good" poem without any obvious
evocation of emotion, but I also think it's impossible to detach emotion
completely from a poem, inasmuch as detachment itself is an emotional
state. But I ramble.
In my humble opinion, a poem is not a "good" poem without ALL the above
elements working together as a whole. But if I had to pick one as
having the highest priority, well, I couldn't choose just once, since
for me, it would be a toss-up between image and sense.
Just mi dos centavos -
td
--
Never try to outstubborn a cat.
-- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love" by R. A. Heinlein
Tom Bishop
"JAS Carter" <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3dd6c462....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>
> It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
> priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>
> I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
> Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
> poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>
> This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
> about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> --
> Julie Carter
>
Seems a good thing to resolve.
Poems that I like (in my famously limited exp.)
are outstanding in at least one of:
images / cleverness / sound
..or perhaps not outstanding in one, but
at least cooking on all burners.
Images:
- standard concrete things, but I like more
startling ones generally. If it
doesn't have /some/ image it is just flat,
but sound and cleverness can overcome much
Cleverness:
- could be word choice, interesting idea,
allusion, pun, thesis, ..something new/twisted/different.
(sometimes it is a good line)
..somewhat of a wildcard.
Sound
- somewhat last for me, but if outstanding,
can /make it/.
If a work is metered and rhymed, I count that
somewhat to cleverness, somewhat to sound.
If a piece has some critical mass from the above,
it makes the limbo stick.
Otherwise I pummel it into proto-garbage.
..all the while, keeping in mind the innate
humanity of the asshole who wrote it.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
"If there is no right answer, I question the question,
so question my answer, I'll answer that question."
leisha
> Seems a good thing to resolve.
>
> Poems that I like (in my famously limited exp.)
> are outstanding in at least one of:
> images / cleverness / sound
> ..or perhaps not outstanding in one, but
> at least cooking on all burners.
>
> Images:
> - standard concrete things, but I like more
> startling ones generally. If it
> doesn't have /some/ image it is just flat,
> but sound and cleverness can overcome much
>
> Cleverness:
> - could be word choice, interesting idea,
> allusion, pun, thesis, ..something new/twisted/different.
> (sometimes it is a good line)
> ..somewhat of a wildcard.
I love your comments, Tom, and this is probably just semantics, but I think that anyone can be
clever. Cleverness does not suggest talent. Maybe I shouldn't use the word talent. I think of other
kinds of artists as talented or gifted, though. You can learn all the rules in the world but, given
that learning, what happens that makes a poem great or lasting?
> If a work is metered and rhymed, I count that
> somewhat to cleverness, somewhat to sound.
If a work is metered & rhymed, doesn't that suggest experience and a working desire to do this
poetry thing right, more than mere cleverness?
Leisha
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>
> It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
> priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>
> I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
> Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
> poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>
> This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
> about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>
> What do you think?
> --
> Julie Carter
Take care of the sounds and the sense will take care of itself.
-- A.E.Housman, quoting C.L.Dodgson
"Meaning" is the primary element in prose.
--
------(m+
~/:o)_|
ASCII stupid question,
you get a stupid ANSI.
http://scrawlmark.net
Dale Houstman
Clockwork Orange wrote:
> As I was young and easy under the apple boughs, JAS Carter
> <jsgo...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
>>After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>>
>>It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
>>priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>>
>>I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
>>Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
>>poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>>
>>This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
>>about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>>
>>What do you think?
>
>
> I think that I have said something along these lines before, but to my
> mind, imagery is probably top of the list for me.
I agree. When I re-write I usually spend the most time and energy
resolving abstractions into images.
dmh
Michael Cook
I think I my have recovered from the shock of the election sufficiently to
make a lucid statement. I think a balance between sound, meaning, cute
words rolled up into an image is the ideal, failing that (and I generally
do) I focus on meaning. I approach a poem, as I would prose; three parts
beginning, middle end, (order may vary) then comes content, fine tune with
sound top with cutesy words, bake for 30 min at 400 slice and serve.
Michael Cook
Hagbar
into meaning. In my petty attempts I've found that sometimes the word that
sounds "right" will pop into place and drive the poem in a completely new
direction, illuminating meaning maybe not noticed before. I dont know if
its a magic thing, a crazy goon thing, or a sub concious thing, but I do
know that its purely subjective depending upon the artist. Its as if
rhythms and sounds drive the poem in to what its suppose to be, but again
thats coming from my own writing style. I'm not the type to sit and fancy a
subject first (usually), and then pick the meter suited to the matter, I'm
more the type that gets caught on rhythm and word pairs and throws them into
place, with sometimes pleasing results.
As per imagery and concepts properly done out, ofcourse thats important,
but then I wonder how much the art of poetry sometimes gets pushed into the
realm of craft, or for the writer into the realm of over analysis until you
come up with that wich is flawless in form, imagery etc. . .but completely
lacking in anything profound or truly beautiful.
"Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote in message
news:3DCAE737...@arvig.net...
leisha
> In my opinion, and I'm a half crazed goon, sounds usually drive the poetry
> into meaning. In my petty attempts I've found that sometimes the word that
> sounds "right" will pop into place and drive the poem in a completely new
> direction, illuminating meaning maybe not noticed before. I dont know if
> its a magic thing, a crazy goon thing, or a sub concious thing, but I do
> know that its purely subjective depending upon the artist. Its as if
> rhythms and sounds drive the poem in to what its suppose to be, but again
> thats coming from my own writing style. I'm not the type to sit and fancy a
> subject first (usually), and then pick the meter suited to the matter, I'm
> more the type that gets caught on rhythm and word pairs and throws them into
> place, with sometimes pleasing results.
When attempting a form, I'll fix on a subject or theme that seems suited to the
form, as in, what in my experience is repetitive like this form? What subject,
theme, experience lends this type of rhythm to my life? What kind of idea can be
supported, carried through this many short or long stanzas?
But I only have the subject in my head, no specifics as I slide the words into
the form. That way, what you said above can happen -- the poem goes in its own
direction with its own sound.
Leisha
pandora
leisha <lei...@decisionresearch.org> wrote:
>pandora wrote:
>
>> I think the word choices that poets make usually have a pleasing
>> sound (to the poet at least). If it just sounds nice but has NO
>> meaning, a poem tends to just sit there. It doesn't fly, for me.
>>
>> pandora
>
>Not necessarily pleasing, I think. Sounds can be jarring, unpleasant,
>annoying, to illustrate strife, violence, dissonance.
T'would still be "pleasing" to the poet, not?
pandora
pandora
Although imagery isn't the top of the list, for me, it IS important,
IMO. I sent a poem to a good friend of mine (she was going through
some tough times recently) and even though she isn't exactly a
fan of poetry, she said she really enjoyed my poem, _Shifting Sands_.
It spoke to her and she said and I quote, "I was there with you on
that beach." The imagery must have done that.
pandora
>dmh
>
Tom Bishop
"leisha" <lei...@decisionresearch.org> wrote in message news:3DCAD716...@decisionresearch.org...
> Tom Bishop wrote:
>
> > Seems a good thing to resolve.
> >
> > Poems that I like (in my famously limited exp.)
> > are outstanding in at least one of:
> > images / cleverness / sound
> > ..or perhaps not outstanding in one, but
> > at least cooking on all burners.
> >
> > Images:
> > - standard concrete things, but I like more
> > startling ones generally. If it
> > doesn't have /some/ image it is just flat,
> > but sound and cleverness can overcome much
> >
> > Cleverness:
> > - could be word choice, interesting idea,
> > allusion, pun, thesis, ..something new/twisted/different.
> > (sometimes it is a good line)
> > ..somewhat of a wildcard.
>
> I love your comments, Tom, and this is probably just semantics, but I think that anyone can be
> clever.
Burp..
Then why are people so typically un-clever?
> Cleverness does not suggest talent.
No, it is a major indicator.
It might be expressed in subtleness, any number of things.
I say wildcard.
> Maybe I shouldn't use the word talent. I think of other
> kinds of artists as talented or gifted, though.
Make up your mind.. I can't attack you if you keep squishing
around.. hold still like a nice target!
> You can learn all the rules in the world but, given
> that learning, what happens that makes a poem great or lasting?
In the first place, poems that I enjoy do not necessarily have
to be great or lasting. (whatever that means)
But.. for great/lasting criteria,
See: http://here.nu/prosomain.htm it has a most excellent section
right near the beginning.
>
> > If a work is metered and rhymed, I count that
> > somewhat to cleverness, somewhat to sound.
>
> If a work is metered & rhymed, doesn't that suggest experience and a working desire to do this
> poetry thing right, more than mere cleverness?
Your vegetables don't blend for me.
I was saying that if the piece is rhymed and metered well,
that I would give it points on cleverness or sound.
Images are pretty much separate, and clearly I could include
images under cleverness, but images seem so important
they deserve to be first.
It is just my ordering and constructs.
(what I like.. as I express it at this time)
Everyone needs their own, mine only fit me,
and even then they need changing.
>
> Leisha
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
"Maybe we're ALL in the wrong place,
but - what the hell - let's stick around
for no good reason." --Dale Houstman
leisha
> > I love your comments, Tom, and this is probably just semantics, but I think that anyone can be
> > clever.
>
> Burp..
>
> Then why are people so typically un-clever?
> > Cleverness does not suggest talent.
>
> No, it is a major indicator.
>
> It might be expressed in subtleness, any number of things.
> I say wildcard.
Good points.
> > Maybe I shouldn't use the word talent. I think of other
> > kinds of artists as talented or gifted, though.
>
> Make up your mind.. I can't attack you if you keep squishing
> around.. hold still like a nice target!
You can attack me any time, if that's what you're doing here.
> In the first place, poems that I enjoy do not necessarily have
> to be great or lasting. (whatever that means)
I think it means that it lasts for you, you remember it, you use it, maybe you need it.
Leisha
leisha
> >Not necessarily pleasing, I think. Sounds can be jarring, unpleasant,
> >annoying, to illustrate strife, violence, dissonance.
>
> T'would still be "pleasing" to the poet, not?
>
> pandora
I see what you mean. BTW, pandora, I noticed that you're in Corvallis. I
grew up in Philomath and I'm now in Eugene. Can you get tickets to the
civil war game? I need four!
Leisha
pandora
Well, my ISP is in Corvallis, but I'm living on the coast now.
I can TRY to get you tickets. Don't know how successful I'll
be.
pandora
>Leisha
>
Thomas Dillion
>
> It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
> priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>
> I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
> Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
> poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>
> This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
> about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>
> What do you think?
>
>
poetry was only a clever way of telling a story, and poems based mainly on
sound were overlooked as pointless. I've come to realise that the
combination of words to form a harmony not unlike music is as skilful and
impressive as a poem which is a well written vehicle to convey a meaning. I
now see it as for example, painting art, where sounds could equal abstract
art- no immediate recognisable image, but thrilling in design, and the
story, or meaning rich poetry as contemporary art (or whatever the name for
the 'normal' art is, portrait, landscape etc.) which is easily recognisable
as excellent, when done by a master.
When the two overlap, the results can be truly phenomenal, IMO,
Thomas
Lutin Enchante
"Clockwork Orange" <dag...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:aqeije$9b7d7$1...@ID-141776.news.dfncis.de...
Set, setting, and other influences such as leimotif are also important
to poetry as message/communication. Bob Dylan's song lyrics for example
or Emile Hirsch's reading of Blake's Tyger in The Dangerous Lives of Altar
Boys movie; also, the poetry in The Dead Poets Society movie.
--
Lutin
JAS Carter
Cook" <coo...@ameritech.net> view hallooed:
> I think I my have recovered from the shock of the election sufficiently to
>make a lucid statement. I think a balance between sound, meaning, cute
>words rolled up into an image is the ideal, failing that (and I generally
>do) I focus on meaning. I approach a poem, as I would prose; three parts
>beginning, middle end, (order may vary) then comes content, fine tune with
>sound top with cutesy words, bake for 30 min at 400 slice and serve.
Do the words on top get crunchy? Ooh.
(Why do your posts not come to my home isp's nntp?)
JAS Carter
<lei...@decisionresearch.org> view hallooed:
People always use the example of Jabberwocky for why poems don't have
to have meaning.
Well, what does Jabberwocky say? It says nothing. It's cute and it's
harder than it looks, but it's not a great poem. It's not even a good
poem. It's a parlor trick.
I may have had a different opinion in the past, but my past is
checkered with lots of bad ideas!
Tom Bishop
"JAS Carter" <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3dcfd562....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:06:14 -0800, in alt.arts.poetry.comments leisha
<>
> harder than it looks, but it's not a great poem. It's not even a good
> poem. It's a parlor trick.
>
> I may have had a different opinion in the past, but my past is
> checkered with lots of bad ideas!
>
> --
> Julie Carter
A strawberry isn't a fruit,
and a tomato isn't a vegetable.
--
Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
"Whether you think that you can,
or that you can't, you are usually right."
-- Henry Ford
De nederlandsche Cacaofabriek
>
> After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
You've plagiarized a conclusion - pioneer M.H.Benders said the same
stuff in AAPC long ago, e.q. sound is not the driving engine of good
poetry. I drew a parallel with movies: dolby surround is nice but no
reason for a director to spent all his budget on sound. Special effects
are nice, but shouldn't be the main focus of a movie.
Good actors, Good story, and a fucking clue.
Good Actors are actors that don't necissarily follow the will of the
director. This is true of good metafors as well, which are the actors in
a poem.
I was ridiculed and killfiled here by the 'regulars' for my theories,
and after all this time I am proven right. You don't even have the
decency to adjust the credits.
M.H.Benders
JAS Carter
nederlandsche Cacaofabriek <in...@cacaofabriek.com> view hallooed:
Okay. I don't remember that conversation, and if I ridiculed you for
it I apologize. You were right.
One can't plagiarize an idea, however.
As for killfiling you, no. I killfiled you other things, but that
killfile has been gone for a bit.
Poe Witticism
> After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>
> It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
> priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>
> I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
> Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
> poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>
> This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
> about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>
> What do you think?
I personally believe that the sonics of a poem should be subserviant
to the point a poet is trying to make. In the case of poems with no
point (I'm thinking nonsense poems and so-forth), they should should
absolutely fucking amazingly good, or you're loosing something and
gaining nothing in return.
T.S.Eliot
Dale Houstman
JAS Carter wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:06:14 -0800, in alt.arts.poetry.comments leisha
> <lei...@decisionresearch.org> view hallooed:
>
>
>>JAS Carter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>>>
>>>It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
>>>priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>>>
>>>I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
>>>Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
>>>poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>>>
>>>This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
>>>about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>>>
>>>What do you think?
>>
>>I think sound and rhythm work together and they are essential to a good
>>poem. Does it have to say something? I don't know. What does "Jabberwocky"
>>say?
>
>
> People always use the example of Jabberwocky for why poems don't have
> to have meaning.
>
> Well, what does Jabberwocky say? It says nothing. It's cute and it's
> harder than it looks, but it's not a great poem. It's not even a good
> poem. It's a parlor trick.
It's a damn good parlor trick. As nonsense poems go it's a great poem.
dmh
GeorgeTolis
>
> After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>
> It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
> priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
Nah. Maybe most of people interested in sound are also the ones that are
naturally loudmouthed, exhibitionist wankers. They like to flaunt their
crap around.
> I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
> Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
> poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
Melody, imagery, argument. All in Pound, 'ABC of Reading', or 'How to
Read'. "Sacrifice" is an ugly word, too aggressive. If poems didn't
sound nice, I'd be pretty sceptical that the poem would be able to say
anything with emotional impact, whereas if the poem was all fireworks,
I'd be sceptical that it was saying anything at all.
I'd also be very sceptical of someone who says, "I don't believe in
sounds being that important". Mayhap I'd even be ready to flame her ass
off for being willing to lapse in the usage of one of the three key
elements of poetic construction.
> This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
> about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>
> What do you think?
But I do think there's an element of laziness when it comes to certain
poems. I don't believe crpytography is a bad thing in poetry and I
don't think people should be put off trying to find meaning in poems
that seem constructed primarily around sound and/or images. Poetry's
never been a 'quick-fix' medium for me and I don't think it should be
for anyone.
Probably why I'm so skint (broke, for all you USsers).
GT
JAS Carter
"GeorgeTolis" <catal...@ukonline.co.uk> view hallooed:
>> I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
>> Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
>> poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>
>Melody, imagery, argument. All in Pound, 'ABC of Reading', or 'How to
>Read'. "Sacrifice" is an ugly word, too aggressive. If poems didn't
>sound nice, I'd be pretty sceptical that the poem would be able to say
>anything with emotional impact, whereas if the poem was all fireworks,
>I'd be sceptical that it was saying anything at all.
All sounds do is give a sugar-coating to whatever it is that the
person is saying.
>I'd also be very sceptical of someone who says, "I don't believe in
>sounds being that important". Mayhap I'd even be ready to flame her ass
>off for being willing to lapse in the usage of one of the three key
>elements of poetic construction.
Flame away.
In his followup thread, Martijn says he used a movie analogy way back
when. That's probably a good analogy. The sounds are like the
special effects, or how the movie looks. Great movies can and are
made that look like they're filmed with a home video camera. Terrible
terrible terrible movies are made that look nice and slick.
How it looks is a bonus--something that will make it appeal to more
people. But it's not particularly important.
Of course, I'm taking a harder line position than I probably will in a
few months; but for now, I can't see the point in sounds sounds sounds
sounds sounds. If you have nothing to say, don't write a goddamned
poem!
>> This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
>> about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>>
>> What do you think?
>
>But I do think there's an element of laziness when it comes to certain
>poems. I don't believe crpytography is a bad thing in poetry and I
>don't think people should be put off trying to find meaning in poems
>that seem constructed primarily around sound and/or images. Poetry's
>never been a 'quick-fix' medium for me and I don't think it should be
>for anyone.
Images are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
M.H.Benders
Dale Houstman wrote:
> > Well, what does Jabberwocky say? It says nothing. It's cute and it's
> > harder than it looks, but it's not a great poem. It's not even a good
> > poem. It's a parlor trick.
>
> It's a damn good parlor trick. As nonsense poems go it's a great poem.
Jabberwocky is a really bad example of a poem that depends on sound.
It's not a 'sound' poem at all, but rather a conceptual one and as all
conceptual art it is fueled by a gimmick which is very exclusive. These
sort of things are one-of-a-kind, but unfortunately a lot of poets and
artists don't realize that. When Malevich made his 'black square on a
white canvas' it was a risky and original work - no one ever did
something like that before, and the social and political conditions
under which he made it made it rather dangerous to do so. However, even
nowadays there are contemporary 'artists' who try to mimick these sort
of paintings which is of course completely clueless if not downright
gutless plagiarism. 'Jabberwocky' was sort of mimicked in dutch by Cees
Buddingh as 'De Blauwbilgorgel', a poem which was universally praised
and standardized into the highschool curriculum but which was hardly
orginal if you know the Lewis one.
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
GeorgeTolis wrote:
> Melody, imagery, argument. All in Pound, 'ABC of Reading', or 'How to
> Read'.
Pound is the most overrated poet of the 20th century.
M.H.Benders
Dennis M. Hammes
In point of fact, "Jabberwocky" says rather a lot (it's even been
illustrated severally, and the various illustrators are all agreed
on the story though not on the demons). And it says that such
things can be said /accurately/ even if the demons /always/ remain
gobbledygook: it was written as a comment-parody on a whole rash of
mock-heroic Victorian pomes, popular fare in the time.
It is also a comment on what the congregation make of unspecified
gods and demons and powers. Though the comment could not be blatant
at the time, it runs through Dodgson's works.
Dodgson would have repied to Cummings (and does, here) that
"syntax is everything." A mathematician, Dodgson routinely blows
his characters (variables) all over the universe, and by keeping the
math (syntax) right, he does so /believeably/.
That would be routinely good art.
Dennis M. Hammes
If the poet expects sounds to jar or annoy the reader, they /have
to/ jar or annoy him in the same sense; how else does he know to use
them so?
His competence at annoying would be pleasing to the poet (cf. even
chuckles); that the sounds annoyed where he wanted them to, would be
pleasing to the poet; but they would still annoy him as hard (or
harder) than they annoyed the reader.
/He/ can overlay that annoyance with his pleasure at technique
immediately; the reader can't (in the first approximation).
Dale Houstman
GeorgeTolis wrote:
> JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3dd6c462....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
>>After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>>
>>It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
>>priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>
>
> Nah. Maybe most of people interested in sound are also the ones that are
> naturally loudmouthed, exhibitionist wankers. They like to flaunt their
> crap around.
>
Not a very reasoned arguement, and as subjective and unevidenced as any
I've see of late. Many poets often speak of the "oral tradition" and so
they should - of all people - be aware that many "primitive" cultures
chant "nonsense" sounds as incantations, and these represent as early a
poetic tradition as any.
>
>>I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
>>Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
>>poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>
>
> Melody, imagery, argument. All in Pound, 'ABC of Reading', or 'How to
> Read'. "Sacrifice" is an ugly word, too aggressive. If poems didn't
> sound nice, I'd be pretty sceptical that the poem would be able to say
> anything with emotional impact, whereas if the poem was all fireworks,
> I'd be sceptical that it was saying anything at all.
Poetry As incantation is as vital as any "intellectual" Western
tradition. Ideas and logical arguments and "confessions" make for many
fine poems, but the prejudice against sound as an important element in
itself doesn't mean much more than just another preference. Aty least as
far as I'm concerned.
dmh
Dale Houstman
JAS Carter wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 16:52:51 -0000, in alt.arts.poetry.comments
> "GeorgeTolis" <catal...@ukonline.co.uk> view hallooed:
>
>
>>>I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
>>>Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
>>>poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>>
>>Melody, imagery, argument. All in Pound, 'ABC of Reading', or 'How to
>>Read'. "Sacrifice" is an ugly word, too aggressive. If poems didn't
>>sound nice, I'd be pretty sceptical that the poem would be able to say
>>anything with emotional impact, whereas if the poem was all fireworks,
>>I'd be sceptical that it was saying anything at all.
>
>
> All sounds do is give a sugar-coating to whatever it is that the
> person is saying.
I disagree. The sound of words is often the most vital element of a poem.
>
>
>
> In his followup thread, Martijn says he used a movie analogy way back
> when. That's probably a good analogy. The sounds are like the
> special effects, or how the movie looks.
I find the analogy weak in many ways. Dolby sound isn't the same thing
as poetic sound. It more equates to better microphones at readings.
Sound - to movies - isn't as central as it is to poetry. While there is
a rich tradition of silent cinema (many of the best movies are silents),
there is NO corresponding tradition in poetry. Even poetry on the page
is - to some degree - dependent on the relation between the written
symbols and the spoken sounds. And - historically - poetry was FIRST
conveyed by sound, and remembered by oral reiteration.
dmh
Dale Houstman
M.H.Benders wrote:
>
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, what does Jabberwocky say? It says nothing. It's cute and it's
>>>harder than it looks, but it's not a great poem. It's not even a good
>>>poem. It's a parlor trick.
>>
>>It's a damn good parlor trick. As nonsense poems go it's a great poem.
>
>
>
> Jabberwocky is a really bad example of a poem that depends on sound.
Well - I didn't really bring it up as an example of sound poetry. I was
only defending it as nonsense.
> It's not a 'sound' poem at all, but rather a conceptual one and as all
> conceptual art it is fueled by a gimmick which is very exclusive. These
> sort of things are one-of-a-kind, but unfortunately a lot of poets and
> artists don't realize that. When Malevich made his 'black square on a
> white canvas' it was a risky and original work - no one ever did
> something like that before, and the social and political conditions
> under which he made it made it rather dangerous to do so. However, even
> nowadays there are contemporary 'artists' who try to mimick these sort
> of paintings which is of course completely clueless if not downright
> gutless plagiarism. 'Jabberwocky' was sort of mimicked in dutch by Cees
> Buddingh as 'De Blauwbilgorgel', a poem which was universally praised
> and standardized into the highschool curriculum but which was hardly
> orginal if you know the Lewis one.
Correct. Jabberwocky has been translated (badly for the most part) in
many languages. And I don't know about "a lot of poets" but I do know I
appreciate the bravery of Malevich's art, and of many other early Soviet
artists (until the wrecking balls started swinging in).
dmh
JAS Carter
Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> view hallooed:
>> In his followup thread, Martijn says he used a movie analogy way back
>> when. That's probably a good analogy. The sounds are like the
>> special effects, or how the movie looks.
>
>I find the analogy weak in many ways. Dolby sound isn't the same thing
>as poetic sound. It more equates to better microphones at readings.
>Sound - to movies - isn't as central as it is to poetry.
No, the analogy is between sound in poetry and the appearance of the
movie.
pandora
Dennis M. Hammes <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote:
>pandora wrote:
>>
>> In article <3DCACD4C...@decisionresearch.org>,
>> leisha <lei...@decisionresearch.org> wrote:
>> >pandora wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think the word choices that poets make usually have a pleasing
>> >> sound (to the poet at least). If it just sounds nice but has NO
>> >> meaning, a poem tends to just sit there. It doesn't fly, for me.
>> >>
>> >> pandora
>> >
>> >Not necessarily pleasing, I think. Sounds can be jarring, unpleasant,
>> >annoying, to illustrate strife, violence, dissonance.
>>
>> T'would still be "pleasing" to the poet, not?
>>
>> pandora
>
>If the poet expects sounds to jar or annoy the reader, they /have
>to/ jar or annoy him in the same sense; how else does he know to use
>them so?
So? Your point? The sounds can be pleasing (to the poet) and
yet still not be *pleasant* sounds, sounds intended to jar/annoy.
> His competence at annoying would be pleasing to the poet (cf. even
>chuckles); that the sounds annoyed where he wanted them to, would be
>pleasing to the poet; but they would still annoy him as hard (or
>harder) than they annoyed the reader.
> /He/ can overlay that annoyance with his pleasure at technique
>immediately; the reader can't (in the first approximation).
Then the reader simply has to reread or move along, eh?
pandora
leisha
> > /He/ can overlay that annoyance with his pleasure at technique
> >immediately; the reader can't (in the first approximation).
>
> Then the reader simply has to reread or move along, eh?
>
> pandora
I always have to read good a poem more than once. If I feel compelled to read
it again I know it's captured me.
Leisha
Aidan Tynan
M.H.Benders wrote in message <3DCBFD95...@chello.nl>...
>
>
>Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>> > Well, what does Jabberwocky say? It says nothing. It's cute and it's
>> > harder than it looks, but it's not a great poem. It's not even a good
>> > poem. It's a parlor trick.
>>
>> It's a damn good parlor trick. As nonsense poems go it's a great poem.
>
>
>Jabberwocky is a really bad example of a poem that depends on sound.
>It's not a 'sound' poem at all, but rather a conceptual one and as all
>conceptual art it is fueled by a gimmick which is very exclusive. These
>sort of things are one-of-a-kind, but unfortunately a lot of poets and
>artists don't realize that. When Malevich made his 'black square on a
>white canvas' it was a risky and original work - no one ever did
>something like that before, and the social and political conditions
>under which he made it made it rather dangerous to do so.
The non-objectivists (which, as Matthew Collings describes, attempted
'painting abstracions that symbolise dynamic energies and cosmic order'), of
which Malevich was a part, were interested in farm more than simply being
controversial, although this is often soley what they are remembered for.
Black Square means something different today than it did in Malevich's
Russia. If non-objectivity (which isn't concept art at all, or rather just
as 'conceptual' as Cezanne or Giotto) depended simply on novelty, then there
wouldn't have been minimalism, or the likes of Carl Andre, Donald Judd and
Mark Rothko. And if you dismiss Malevich, you'd also have to dismiss
Mondrian (the former being the better painter too, imo).
However, even
>nowadays there are contemporary 'artists' who try to mimick these sort
>of paintings which is of course completely clueless if not downright
>gutless plagiarism.
I presume you're talking about Reinhardt, Ryman, Klein etc here.
So, it's okay to paint figuratively for hundreds of years but as soon as
people begin to explore something like non-objectivity for more than a
generation of artists it becomes plagiarism?
-Aidan
Aidan Tynan
leisha wrote in message <3DCB0D8E...@decisionresearch.org>...
>I see what you mean. BTW, pandora, I noticed that you're in Corvallis. I
>grew up in Philomath and I'm now in Eugene. Can you get tickets to the
>civil war game? I need four!
This is a fine example of something which sounds nice but has no meaning to
me whatsoever. Cultural difference is a fine thing.
-Aidan
is a civil war game like a military re-enactment?
>
>Leisha
>
leisha
> is a civil war game like a military re-enactment?
Somewhat. It's THE football game of the season. Around here, it's when the two
Oregon teams go at it -- Oregon State University vs. the University of Oregon.
I never go football games, but this year we have a Swedish family visiting, and
I would like to take them to an American football game. So for them it will
also be a cultural novelty. Most of our international guests come during the
beautiful summer months and I take them to an American baseball game, which is
far more pleasant.
Leisha
Aidan Tynan
>
>I think that I have said something along these lines before, but to my
>mind, imagery is probably top of the list for me. Sound is vital, yes,
>but it is possible to write a poem with wonderful sounds that lacks any
>imagery whatsoever,
But can't you have two versions of the same image (using similar words)
structured differently, which have different effects?
When the evening is spread out against the sky
Like a patient etherised upon a table;
Up
there the the night sky looks like
a person awaiting surgery asleep
on
a
slab.
Obviously, the first one's better than my rewrite, yet there've been no
significant changes on the level of the signifieds. Or do the sounds of
words, and the way they 'feel', next to each other, create their meanings
(my opinion)? I don't think you can separate sound from meaning since words,
and their meanings, *are* sounds, and sounds *are* meanings, or non-meanings
(mantras).
-Aidan
and for me, that poem will fall flat. Image, sense,
>language, sound, rhythm (not necessarily meter). The evocation of an
>emotion, while unduly stressed by many new poets (but it's my
>*feelings*, waaah) and (IMO) unduly overlooked by others, is also a
>factor in how I view a poem, but since emotion is subjective, often it's
>what the reader carries into the poem as well as what the writer brought
>with it. I do believe you can have a "good" poem without any obvious
>evocation of emotion, but I also think it's impossible to detach emotion
>completely from a poem, inasmuch as detachment itself is an emotional
>state. But I ramble.
>In my humble opinion, a poem is not a "good" poem without ALL the above
>elements working together as a whole. But if I had to pick one as
>having the highest priority, well, I couldn't choose just once, since
>for me, it would be a toss-up between image and sense.
>
>Just mi dos centavos -
>
>
>td
>--
>Never try to outstubborn a cat.
> -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love" by R. A. Heinlein
>
>
>
Aidan Tynan
> - could be word choice, interesting idea,
> allusion, pun,
Pun is basically a sonic device.
-Aidan
thesis, ..something new/twisted/different.
> (sometimes it is a good line)
> ..somewhat of a wildcard.
>
>Sound
> - somewhat last for me, but if outstanding,
> can /make it/.
>
>
>If a work is metered and rhymed, I count that
>somewhat to cleverness, somewhat to sound.
>
>If a piece has some critical mass from the above,
>it makes the limbo stick.
>
>Otherwise I pummel it into proto-garbage.
>
>..all the while, keeping in mind the innate
>humanity of the asshole who wrote it.
>
>
>
>--
>Tom Bishop -- http://Poetry.Here.Nu
>"If there is no right answer, I question the question,
> so question my answer, I'll answer that question."
>
>
>
>
leisha
> Obviously, the first one's better than my rewrite, yet there've been no
> significant changes on the level of the signifieds. Or do the sounds of
> words, and the way they 'feel', next to each other, create their meanings
> (my opinion)? I don't think you can separate sound from meaning since words,
> and their meanings, *are* sounds, and sounds *are* meanings, or non-meanings
> (mantras).
>
> -Aidan
I agree with you. Words sound like what they mean, and what they have meant in
the past, as well. Like their associations. We get echoes of meanings that shift
& settle when words are jumbled together.
Leisha
Aidan Tynan
>
>I agree with you. Words sound like what they mean,
That's entirely conventional of course, apart from onomatopoeia, and, in
fact, the rift between sounds and their meanings is the locus of the genesis
of poetry in that a poem attempts is to make its own sounds identical to its
meaning on a level that defies convention (in that poems have a meaning for
every reading) while exploiting it (in that words must either meaning one
thing or the other). Poetry tries to get language to do what it says,
failing graciously.
-Aidan
Aidan Tynan
>
>I personally believe that the sonics of a poem should be subserviant
>to the point a poet is trying to make. In the case of poems with no
>point
If sound alone coundn't make a point, then Beethoven's 9th would be
meaningless to anyone who didn't speak German. Music in general would be
'pointless'.
-Aidan
M.H.Benders
Aidan Tynan wrote:
> >Jabberwocky is a really bad example of a poem that depends on sound.
> >It's not a 'sound' poem at all, but rather a conceptual one and as all
> >conceptual art it is fueled by a gimmick which is very exclusive. These
> >sort of things are one-of-a-kind, but unfortunately a lot of poets and
> >artists don't realize that. When Malevich made his 'black square on a
> >white canvas' it was a risky and original work - no one ever did
> >something like that before, and the social and political conditions
> >under which he made it made it rather dangerous to do so.
>
> The non-objectivists (which, as Matthew Collings describes, attempted
> 'painting abstracions that symbolise dynamic energies and cosmic order')
New Age poppycock. All catagories of painting bleat something about
'dynamic energies' sooner or later.
, of
> which Malevich was a part,
Yeah, sure. He was part of it because some English art historian thought
up the catagory 'non-objectivists' while he was a suprematal
symbologist. Now that really makes sense!
were interested in farm more than simply being
> controversial,
This is sheer ignorance, even would it make sense as an English
sentence. Are you saying that Malevich was more interested in farming?
> although this is often soley what they are remembered for.
Were you drunk when you wrote this post?
> Black Square means something different today than it did in Malevich's
> Russia.
Everything means something different today than it did in Malevich's
Russia, so this statement doesn't really sound very amazing.
If non-objectivity (which isn't concept art at all, or rather just
> as 'conceptual' as Cezanne or Giotto)
And as I didn't claim it to be conceptual art the point is daft. As to
the 'non objective' part: that's the sheer illiteracy of art historians.
Symbols and squares are objects, so there's nothing 'non-objective'
about the work of Malevich.
Art historians are quack philosophers and terrible philologists. The
result? These sort of misqualifications which become 'acceptable' on
their own turf: the coffeetable and university of bad haircuts.
depended simply on novelty, then there
> wouldn't have been minimalism, or the likes of Carl Andre, Donald Judd and
> Mark Rothko. And if you dismiss Malevich, you'd also have to dismiss
> Mondrian (the former being the better painter too, imo).
Mondrian was a boring painter, a boring guy and an excellent example of
an artistic failure.
> So, it's okay to paint figuratively for hundreds of years but as soon as
> people begin to explore something like non-objectivity for more than a
> generation of artists it becomes plagiarism?
Yes. Painting a square is only interesting as a gimmick, not as an art
catagory. As to the 'non-objective':
that's illiterate crap no one with an education would takje serious.
M.H.Benders
Aidan Tynan
>
>Flame away.
>
>In his followup thread, Martijn says he used a movie analogy way back
>when. That's probably a good analogy. The sounds are like the
>special effects, or how the movie looks. Great movies can and are
>made that look like they're filmed with a home video camera. Terrible
>terrible terrible movies are made that look nice and slick.
Nice images can also act as mere 'sugar coating', while sounds can make an
impact in a way which the meanings of words alone can't. But I find such a
dichotomy is over-simplification.
-Aidan
M.H.Benders
Dale Houstman wrote:
> > Jabberwocky is a really bad example of a poem that depends on sound.
>
> Well - I didn't really bring it up as an example of sound poetry. I was
> only defending it as nonsense.
You didn't bring it up in the first place, but let's just skip that
detail and get to the heart of the matter: it isn't nonsense either.
'Jabberwocky' was sort of mimicked in dutch by Cees
> > Buddingh as 'De Blauwbilgorgel', a poem which was universally praised
> > and standardized into the highschool curriculum but which was hardly
> > orginal if you know the Lewis one.
>
> Correct. Jabberwocky has been translated (badly for the most part) in
> many languages.
I wouldn't trust you to draft any V.N. resolutions, that much is sure.
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
Dale Houstman wrote:
> > All sounds do is give a sugar-coating to whatever it is that the
> > person is saying.
>
> I disagree. The sound of words is often the most vital element of a poem.
Baks lemoow anaylamp ginivoesh
Does that look like a good line to you? It does sound nice, doesn't it?
> > In his followup thread, Martijn says he used a movie analogy way back
> > when. That's probably a good analogy. The sounds are like the
> > special effects, or how the movie looks.
>
> I find the analogy weak in many ways.
That's because she's twisting it. Sound and special effects are not the
same, as anyone with brain capacity can tell.
Dolby sound isn't the same thing
> as poetic sound.
In practise it's quite easy to tell which poems are in Dolby and which
are incredibly mono. So I don't see what the fuck wouldn't be the same
about it. You're just too old to see the light.
M.H.Benders
Dale Houstman
Aidan Tynan wrote:
>>Cleverness:
>> - could be word choice, interesting idea,
>> allusion, pun,
>
>
> Pun is basically a sonic device.
>
I'm not so sure about that. Freud saw the pun mainly as a visual
concept, and it does appear to be at the basis of what passes for "dream
imagery." Puns can drive imagery, and the best ones do. The pun has been
debased a bit by bad comics, but in my experience (reading and writing)
puns have at the very least a strong visual component.
>
dmh
Tom Bishop
"Aidan Tynan" <aty...@eircom.net> wrote in message news:PtZy9.27591$zX3....@news.indigo.ie...
> >Cleverness:
> > - could be word choice, interesting idea,
> > allusion, pun,
>
> Pun is basically a sonic device.
True, but for me it plays to meaning, and
the /pun/ word may not sonically mix with
the line. By sound I (more) mean the sounds
that the words play with each other, disconnected
from meaning completely.
The image / cleverness / sound thing isn't very pretty,
but I can't reduce to 3 better words. But perhaps these
don't convey it to you, or seem /right/ to you, or anyone
else.
image - visual/intellectual (what you see)
cleverness - word/language (what mind games/puzzles)
sound - auditory/sonic (what you hear)
Clearly overlap, best to hope for.
This is simply something that seems to /come up/ when
I am reading poetry.
JAS Carter
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>> > In his followup thread, Martijn says he used a movie analogy way back
>> > when. That's probably a good analogy. The sounds are like the
>> > special effects, or how the movie looks.
>>
>> I find the analogy weak in many ways.
>
>That's because she's twisting it. Sound and special effects are not the
>same, as anyone with brain capacity can tell.
No one is attempting to argue that they are the same thing. I am
equating sounds in a poem with the special effects and cinematography
in a movie. They make things look nice, but if they are bad is the
film irrevocably ruined?
By the way, now I remember why I killfiled you.
--
Julie Carter
M.H.Benders
JAS Carter wrote:
> >That's because she's twisting it. Sound and special effects are not the
> >same, as anyone with brain capacity can tell.
>
> No one is attempting to argue that they are the same thing. I am
> equating sounds in a poem with the special effects and cinematography
> in a movie. They make things look nice, but if they are bad is the
> film irrevocably ruined?
I agree with Dale that sound is too essential in a poem to be written
away as a 'special effect'. However, I still don't think sound is the
main drive of a poem. The main drive of a poem is thought. These are
written thoughts, and you are dealing with the thoughts of the readers.
You're not writing down sounds nor are you dealing with the sounds of
the reader.
> By the way, now I remember why I killfiled you.
Yeah: you expect people to be nice to you while you're free to be as
unintelligent and agogic as you want.
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
"M.H.Benders" wrote:
> I agree with Dale that sound is too essential in a poem to be written
> away as a 'special effect'. However, I still don't think sound is the
> main drive of a poem. The main drive of a poem is thought. These are
> written thoughts, and you are dealing with the thoughts of the readers.
> You're not writing down sounds nor are you dealing with the sounds of
> the reader.
Isn't that quite the same as saying all poetry drives on feelings?
Well, yes and no. First of all I do not believe that there are such
things as feelings, not as some sort of seperate entity from thought,
anyway. Feelings are thoughts, and thoughts are feelings. People who
don't realize that go through life in a very handicapped way - the
victim of a false duality who go from one extreme to the next without
any consciousness about the process. Secondly as we are dealing with
readers it is the manipulation of thoughts that counts, and this is very
hard from a dualistic perspective. You can't manipulate something in
others what you cannot manipulate in yourself. Therefore you do need
some sort of ability to step out of your own mind, or find the quiet
centre of it, the third wheel, the sexeless perspective. Objectivity,
maybe. There's something fatally objective about great poetry, which is
precisely why it can get closer to the truths on being human than any
dualistic emotional garbage or whatnot.
M.H.Benders
JAS Carter
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>JAS Carter wrote:
>
>
>> >That's because she's twisting it. Sound and special effects are not the
>> >same, as anyone with brain capacity can tell.
>>
>> No one is attempting to argue that they are the same thing. I am
>> equating sounds in a poem with the special effects and cinematography
>> in a movie. They make things look nice, but if they are bad is the
>> film irrevocably ruined?
>
>I agree with Dale that sound is too essential in a poem to be written
>away as a 'special effect'.
Most people would consider cinematography fairly important. It isn't
a special effect.
>> By the way, now I remember why I killfiled you.
>
>Yeah: you expect people to be nice to you while you're free to be as
>unintelligent and agogic as you want.
No, I expect people to be able to carry on a discourse without resort
to Martijnisms.
No one would killfile you for not agreeing with them ,as you claim to
believe. You are only killfiled because of your violent arrogance.
--
Julie Carter
M.H.Benders
JAS Carter wrote:
> >> No one is attempting to argue that they are the same thing. I am
> >> equating sounds in a poem with the special effects and cinematography
> >> in a movie. They make things look nice, but if they are bad is the
> >> film irrevocably ruined?
> >
> >I agree with Dale that sound is too essential in a poem to be written
> >away as a 'special effect'.
>
> Most people would consider cinematography fairly important. It isn't
> a special effect.
Blame your own lousy writing skills. You are equating sounds in poetry
with both
cinematography and special effects. Which one is it? Make up your mind.
In this
way a discussion is impossible and that's not because of me.
> >> By the way, now I remember why I killfiled you.
> >
> >Yeah: you expect people to be nice to you while you're free to be as
> >unintelligent and agogic as you want.
>
> No, I expect people to be able to carry on a discourse without resort
> to Martijnisms.
Obviously you expect me to behave differently than my nature requires.
This is typical of a moralist and agoge, who wants to see his own ego
reflected in the world around him.
> No one would killfile you for not agreeing with them ,as you claim to
> believe. You are only killfiled because of your violent arrogance.
Both violence and arrogance are natural phenomena, which I do not
oppress but rather use in a creative way. This evokes jealousy in people
who'd rather surpress natural instincts and be an idealistic hypocrite
than follow the true nature of their energies.
M.H.Benders
Dale Houstman
It strikes me as suspicious that Martijn - when he was in the pompous
mode of accusing you of stealing his idea - didn't bother to mention you
had stolen it so badly!
At any rate, I am speaking to Martijn's own explication of his analogy
when I state that I find it weak.
But - as I explained at length - there is very little useful equivalence
between sound in film and sound in poetry, if only because the two
traditions have such different historical beginning points: film was
born silent and poetry wasn't. I don't really think any work of art has
effects that are entirely superfluous. And if there is any relation
between the two it might lie rather in the fact that much early cinema
was not narrative, but rather magical and "incantatory" in effect: the
early cinema is replete with almost purely abstract experiments (the
Russians did a lot of this, as did the French, etc.) and it was only
later that narrative became the "thing" and an overwhelming (and - I
think - less poetic) drive toward realism took over. This is why the
surrealists mainly were put off by the advent of sound, as it heralded
(to them) a movement away from free imagination and towards a
domesticated art. One may prefer poems that are not strictly experiments
in sound, but I don't find this preference compelling in general.
dmh
>
>
>
> --
>
> Julie Carter
JAS Carter
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>JAS Carter wrote:
>
>
>> >> No one is attempting to argue that they are the same thing. I am
>> >> equating sounds in a poem with the special effects and cinematography
>> >> in a movie. They make things look nice, but if they are bad is the
>> >> film irrevocably ruined?
>> >
>> >I agree with Dale that sound is too essential in a poem to be written
>> >away as a 'special effect'.
>>
>> Most people would consider cinematography fairly important. It isn't
>> a special effect.
>
>Blame your own lousy writing skills. You are equating sounds in poetry
>with both
>cinematography and special effects. Which one is it? Make up your mind.
>In this
>way a discussion is impossible and that's not because of me.
I'm equating the way a poem SOUNDS with the way a film LOOKS.
You can find whatever fault you want with that analogy, but at least
accept what the analogy IS. Reread the damned posts. So, I blame
your lousy reading skills.
Though my writing "skills" are completely nonexistent.
>> >> By the way, now I remember why I killfiled you.
>> >
>> >Yeah: you expect people to be nice to you while you're free to be as
>> >unintelligent and agogic as you want.
>>
>> No, I expect people to be able to carry on a discourse without resort
>> to Martijnisms.
>
>Obviously you expect me to behave differently than my nature requires.
>This is typical of a moralist and agoge, who wants to see his own ego
>reflected in the world around him.
I've seen you at quite a few moments behave with civilty. Then it all
melts away and suddenly people are being attacked for their
nationalities.
>> No one would killfile you for not agreeing with them ,as you claim to
>> believe. You are only killfiled because of your violent arrogance.
>
>Both violence and arrogance are natural phenomena, which I do not
>oppress but rather use in a creative way.
Well, Jesus, Martijn. Flatulence is natural, too, but that doesn't
mean I want you to share yours with me.
>This evokes jealousy in people who'd rather surpress natural instincts and be an idealistic hypocrite
>than follow the true nature of their energies.
There's nothing hypocritical about suppressing instincts and then
wishing others would, as well.
If you think no one here is your intellectual equal, and therefore
cannot possibly be party to any discourse of note, then fine. Say so.
But then don't act like your lack of dialogue is a matter of others
being jealous of your marvelous brain along with your bounteous coif.
--
Julie Carter
JAS Carter
wrote:
>But - as I explained at length - there is very little useful equivalence
>between sound in film and sound in poetry, if only because the two
>traditions have such different historical beginning points: film was
>born silent and poetry wasn't. I don't really think any work of art has
>effects that are entirely superfluous. And if there is any relation
>between the two it might lie rather in the fact that much early cinema
>was not narrative, but rather magical and "incantatory" in effect: the
>early cinema is replete with almost purely abstract experiments (the
>Russians did a lot of this, as did the French, etc.) and it was only
>later that narrative became the "thing" and an overwhelming (and - I
>think - less poetic) drive toward realism took over. This is why the
>surrealists mainly were put off by the advent of sound, as it heralded
>(to them) a movement away from free imagination and towards a
>domesticated art. One may prefer poems that are not strictly experiments
>in sound, but I don't find this preference compelling in general.
Well, if the two of us were coming from any further apart on any sort
of poetry scale, we'd be... um... us.
Let's face it, Dale. We both may call what we write "poetry," but we
have little enough in common that we could easily use different words.
You write smootlie and I write jabick.
Or, rather, you write smootlie and I write nothing at all!
Is it any wonder we don't agree on what this beast is?
--
Julie Carter
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> >Cleverness:
> > - could be word choice, interesting idea,
> > allusion, pun,
>
> Pun is basically a sonic device.
>
> -Aidan
The pun is basically a sound device.
Puns may have five levels, and only the first is sonic. If that's
all there is to one, it doesn't remain funny.
--
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> JAS Carter wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 16:52:51 -0000, in alt.arts.poetry.comments
> > "GeorgeTolis" <catal...@ukonline.co.uk> view hallooed:
> >
> >
> >>>I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
> >>>Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
> >>>poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
> >>
> >>Melody, imagery, argument. All in Pound, 'ABC of Reading', or 'How to
> >>Read'. "Sacrifice" is an ugly word, too aggressive. If poems didn't
> >>sound nice, I'd be pretty sceptical that the poem would be able to say
> >>anything with emotional impact, whereas if the poem was all fireworks,
> >>I'd be sceptical that it was saying anything at all.
> >
> >
> > All sounds do is give a sugar-coating to whatever it is that the
> > person is saying.
>
> I disagree. The sound of words is often the most vital element of a poem.
>
What he said.
CasualTee
>After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>
>It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
>priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>
>I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
>Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
>poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>
>This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
>about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>
>What do you think?
>
>
Michael Cook
JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3dcbccf0....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 23:25:57 GMT, in alt.arts.poetry.comments "Michael
> Cook" <coo...@ameritech.net> view hallooed:
>
> > I think I my have recovered from the shock of the election sufficiently
to
> >make a lucid statement. I think a balance between sound, meaning, cute
> >words rolled up into an image is the ideal, failing that (and I generally
> >do) I focus on meaning. I approach a poem, as I would prose; three parts
> >beginning, middle end, (order may vary) then comes content, fine tune
with
> >sound top with cutesy words, bake for 30 min at 400 slice and serve.
>
> Do the words on top get crunchy? Ooh.
>
> (Why do your posts not come to my home isp's nntp?)
>
>
>
> --
> Julie Carter
>
> "Actually, I very well adjusted."--An Idiot Who Shall Remain Nameless
I have no idea; I have the same problem here with yours.
I post using Ameritech, but if I want to get all the posts
I have to read using Mammoth or Sucknews.
Must be that Dues Ex dude hard at work again.
mdc
>
M.H.Benders
JAS Carter wrote:
> >Obviously you expect me to behave differently than my nature requires.
> >This is typical of a moralist and agoge, who wants to see his own ego
> >reflected in the world around him.
>
> I've seen you at quite a few moments behave with civilty. Then it all
> melts away and suddenly people are being attacked for their
> nationalities.
Absurd. I have never attacked a single person on basis of their
nationality. I have said some stuff about Americans in general and some
people are obviously so attached to their 'nationality' that they can't
seperate the general from the specific.
> >> No one would killfile you for not agreeing with them ,as you claim to
> >> believe. You are only killfiled because of your violent arrogance.
> >
> >Both violence and arrogance are natural phenomena, which I do not
> >oppress but rather use in a creative way.
>
> Well, Jesus, Martijn. Flatulence is natural, too, but that doesn't
> mean I want you to share yours with me.
And yet the very suggestion that 'arrogance' and 'violence' should be
sketeletons in a closet, that it are shameful things one should keep to
oneself, is typically fundamentalist hypocrite american attitude
straight from the black socks department of biblethumpers. There is
nothing wrong with either arrogance or violence, both are useful and
powerful tools for expression.
> >This evokes jealousy in people who'd rather surpress natural instincts and be an idealistic hypocrite
> >than follow the true nature of their energies.
>
> There's nothing hypocritical about suppressing instincts and then
> wishing others would, as well.
There is something immensely hypocritical in wanting the world to be
just as fucked up as you are.
> If you think no one here is your intellectual equal, and therefore
> cannot possibly be party to any discourse of note, then fine.
This is a false sentimental manipulation.
Say so.
> But then don't act like your lack of dialogue is a matter of others
> being jealous of your marvelous brain along with your bounteous coif.
Jealousy is one of the main drives of human beings, yet it is always
completely absent whenever humans discuss their motives. Curious, isn't
it.
M.H.Benders
Dale Houstman
No - of course not - and that is why my very first response to this
thread was to the effect that you have to make your own aesthetic.
Dale "Composer Of Smootlie For Over 3,000 years" Houstman
Mick
> pandora wrote:
> >
> > In article <3DCACD4C...@decisionresearch.org>,
> > leisha <lei...@decisionresearch.org> wrote:
> > >pandora wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think the word choices that poets make usually have a pleasing
> > >> sound (to the poet at least). If it just sounds nice but has NO
> > >> meaning, a poem tends to just sit there. It doesn't fly, for me.
> > >>
> > >> pandora
> > >
> > >Not necessarily pleasing, I think. Sounds can be jarring, unpleasant,
> > >annoying, to illustrate strife, violence, dissonance.
> >
> > T'would still be "pleasing" to the poet, not?
> >
> > pandora
>
> If the poet expects sounds to jar or annoy the reader, they /have
> to/ jar or annoy him in the same sense; how else does he know to use
> them so?
Huh? It wouldn't bother me to be called 'gay' but it's pretty clear to
me that many people would absolutely hate it. I don't have to
personally find a word/sound grating to be confident that others do, I
might simply have observed so.
> His competence at annoying would be pleasing to the poet (cf. even
> chuckles); that the sounds annoyed where he wanted them to, would be
> pleasing to the poet; but they would still annoy him as hard (or
> harder) than they annoyed the reader.
I don't think you've made this case.
> /He/ can overlay that annoyance with his pleasure at technique
> immediately; the reader can't (in the first approximation).
Mick
> After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>
> It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
> priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>
> I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
> Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
> poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>
> This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
> about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>
> What do you think?
I've never praised a whole piece in that way - phrases, lines or even
sections, yes; whole piece, no. Sound doesn't do enough for me to
appreciate a whole poem with great sound but little else to recommend
it, and one which seems to raise sound above meaning tends to leave me
cold.
Mick
> On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:06:14 -0800, in alt.arts.poetry.comments leisha
> <lei...@decisionresearch.org> view hallooed:
>
> >JAS Carter wrote:
> >
> >> After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
> >>
> >> It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
> >> priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
> >>
> >> I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
> >> Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
> >> poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
> >>
> >> This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
> >> about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >
> >poem. Does it have to say something? I don't know. What does "Jabberwocky"
> >say?
>
> People always use the example of Jabberwocky for why poems don't have
> to have meaning.
>
> Well, what does Jabberwocky say? It says nothing. It's cute and it's
> harder than it looks, but it's not a great poem. It's not even a good
> poem. It's a parlor trick.
Hmmm. It's a parlour trick, and a very clever one, but I don't think
it doesn't say anything or is meaningless. On a basic level it's a
story about defeating a beastie. On a more interesting level it's
about what words mean and what meaning we might give to words because
of their sound (or look, or semantic context, or juxtaposition with
other words). This is the parlour trick level - very clever melding
and mashing of words for effect (I can still see them mimsy
borogoves). On another level it's about how (apparently) easily a sort
of scaremongering tone and atmosphere can be created and thus a moral
note about what to take seriously.
Mick
> JAS Carter wrote:
>
>
> > >Obviously you expect me to behave differently than my nature requires.
> > >This is typical of a moralist and agoge, who wants to see his own ego
> > >reflected in the world around him.
> >
> > I've seen you at quite a few moments behave with civilty. Then it all
> > melts away and suddenly people are being attacked for their
> > nationalities.
>
> Absurd. I have never attacked a single person on basis of their
> nationality. I have said some stuff about Americans in general and some
> people are obviously so attached to their 'nationality' that they can't
> seperate the general from the specific.
>
>
> > >> No one would killfile you for not agreeing with them ,as you claim to
> > >> believe. You are only killfiled because of your violent arrogance.
> > >
> > >Both violence and arrogance are natural phenomena, which I do not
> > >oppress but rather use in a creative way.
> >
> > Well, Jesus, Martijn. Flatulence is natural, too, but that doesn't
> > mean I want you to share yours with me.
>
> And yet the very suggestion that 'arrogance' and 'violence' should be
> sketeletons in a closet, that it are shameful things one should keep to
> oneself, is typically fundamentalist hypocrite american attitude
> straight from the black socks department of biblethumpers. There is
> nothing wrong with either arrogance or violence, both are useful and
> powerful tools for expression.
There is something wrong with any statement beginning 'There is
nothing wrong with...'.
Mick
[...]
> I'm coming to this from the other end, so to speak. Before reading here,
> poetry was only a clever way of telling a story, and poems based mainly on
> sound were overlooked as pointless. I've come to realise that the
> combination of words to form a harmony not unlike music is as skilful and
> impressive as a poem which is a well written vehicle to convey a meaning. I
> now see it as for example, painting art, where sounds could equal abstract
> art- no immediate recognisable image, but thrilling in design, and the
> story, or meaning rich poetry as contemporary art (or whatever the name for
> the 'normal' art is, portrait, landscape etc.) which is easily recognisable
> as excellent, when done by a master.
> When the two overlap, the results can be truly phenomenal, IMO,
>
> Thomas
I'm not much of a fan of sound, perhaps similar in view to Thomas
before reading here, as above, and yet to discover the wonders Thomas
describes, so I'd appreciate any offerings of posters' favourite poems
when sound is the criteria for favouritism.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:06:14 -0800, in alt.arts.poetry.comments leisha
><lei...@decisionresearch.org> view hallooed:
>
>People always use the example of Jabberwocky for why poems don't have
>to have meaning.
>
>Well, what does Jabberwocky say? It says nothing. It's cute and it's
>harder than it looks, but it's not a great poem. It's not even a good
>poem. It's a parlor trick.
Seems to me it says, "These elements of language and poetry can be
detached from specific referents and yet remain recognizable for what
they are. Much of currently-fashionable poetry consists of a certain
type of bombast which, however, is seen to be ridiculous when made
apparent through isolation." And it's great because of the genius (=
doing something new and clever) with which Carrol excerpted those
elements.
One shouldn't, I think, make the mistake of assuming that because
something /departs from the conventional/ to make a specific point
it's not great. If you think about it, most great works have something
/wrong/ with them: Poe's poetry is all technical pyrotechnics,
Shakespeare uses too too many adjectives, Emily Dickinson was
astoundingly sloppy when it came to technical matters, T S Eliot is
erudite to the point of lunacy, Dylan Thomas doesn't always make
sense, William Blake writes nursery rhymes with psychotic punctuation;
and so forth. The merely good typically doesn't have such "flaws":
it's written according to the book. It's also typically forgotten
after one has nodded one's head in tepid-tea appreciation.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<scraw...@arvig.net> wrote:
>JAS Carter wrote:
>> People always use the example of Jabberwocky for why poems don't have
>> to have meaning.
>>
>> Well, what does Jabberwocky say? It says nothing. It's cute and it's
>> harder than it looks, but it's not a great poem. It's not even a good
>> poem. It's a parlor trick.
>>
>> I may have had a different opinion in the past, but my past is
>> checkered with lots of bad ideas!
>>
>> --
>> Julie Carter
>
>In point of fact, "Jabberwocky" says rather a lot (it's even been
>illustrated severally, and the various illustrators are all agreed
>on the story though not on the demons). And it says that such
>things can be said /accurately/ even if the demons /always/ remain
>gobbledygook: it was written as a comment-parody on a whole rash of
>mock-heroic Victorian pomes, popular fare in the time.
> It is also a comment on what the congregation make of unspecified
>gods and demons and powers. Though the comment could not be blatant
>at the time, it runs through Dodgson's works.
> Dodgson would have repied to Cummings (and does, here) that
>"syntax is everything." A mathematician, Dodgson routinely blows
>his characters (variables) all over the universe, and by keeping the
>math (syntax) right, he does so /believeably/.
What he said.
That was Carroll's great gift, wasn't it? Lots of writers could write
fantasy books for little children, and lots of mathematicians a tome
about logic. But how many could combine them in a convincing way?
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>JAS Carter wrote:
>
>
>> >> No one is attempting to argue that they are the same thing. I am
>> >> equating sounds in a poem with the special effects and cinematography
>> >> in a movie. They make things look nice, but if they are bad is the
>> >> film irrevocably ruined?
>> >
>> >I agree with Dale that sound is too essential in a poem to be written
>> >away as a 'special effect'.
>>
>> Most people would consider cinematography fairly important. It isn't
>> a special effect.
>
>Blame your own lousy writing skills. You are equating sounds in poetry
>with both
>cinematography and special effects. Which one is it? Make up your mind.
>In this
>way a discussion is impossible and that's not because of me.
>
>
>> >> By the way, now I remember why I killfiled you.
>> >
>> >Yeah: you expect people to be nice to you while you're free to be as
>> >unintelligent and agogic as you want.
>>
>> No, I expect people to be able to carry on a discourse without resort
>> to Martijnisms.
>
>Obviously you expect me to behave differently than my nature requires.
>This is typical of a moralist and agoge, who wants to see his own ego
>reflected in the world around him.
This from the fellow who called the sheriff about Lysaght and tried to
turn AAPC into a puppet show?
Go figure.
>
>> No one would killfile you for not agreeing with them ,as you claim to
>> believe. You are only killfiled because of your violent arrogance.
>
>Both violence and arrogance are natural phenomena, which I do not
>oppress but rather use in a creative way. This evokes jealousy in people
>who'd rather surpress natural instincts and be an idealistic hypocrite
>than follow the true nature of their energies.
Oh, I see. In other words, we should rape women who make us horny, rob
banks when we need money, and party all day?
Well, do what you want -- but have the kindness not to whine when, as
they inevitably do, people put you down.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
Funny, ain't it, that the very violence and arrogance you consider
permissible are precisely what critics are accusing the United States
of.
>> >This evokes jealousy in people who'd rather surpress natural instincts and be an idealistic hypocrite
>> >than follow the true nature of their energies.
>>
>> There's nothing hypocritical about suppressing instincts and then
>> wishing others would, as well.
>
>There is something immensely hypocritical in wanting the world to be
>just as fucked up as you are.
>
>> If you think no one here is your intellectual equal, and therefore
>> cannot possibly be party to any discourse of note, then fine.
>
>This is a false sentimental manipulation.
>
> Say so.
>> But then don't act like your lack of dialogue is a matter of others
>> being jealous of your marvelous brain along with your bounteous coif.
>
>Jealousy is one of the main drives of human beings, yet it is always
>completely absent whenever humans discuss their motives. Curious, isn't
>it.
Here we go again. Martijn, you have a remarkable ability to create
self-protective fantasies. Pretty much everyone has told you the same
thing at one time or another, and always, you've adjusted your
tricorn, placed your hand between your shirt buttons, and shouted at
the nurses and attendants, "You're all just jealous of my
magnificence!" One can only be thankful that you haven't been visited
by Burns's giftie: you would never show your face in public again.
But, to settle this: I have a challenge for you: try being civil for a
while. A month should do. No put-downs, no yakking about how great you
are and how terrible everybody else -- or their country -- is. And
then -- see what happens. If people are in fact acting out of
jealousy, they'll keep at you, no?
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>
>GeorgeTolis wrote:
>
>> Melody, imagery, argument. All in Pound, 'ABC of Reading', or 'How to
>> Read'.
>
>Pound is the most overrated poet of the 20th century.
>
>M.H.Benders
Hey, is there any great artist that you /do/ actually like? -- And no,
I'm not talking about Prince.
Josh
Rik Roots
>
> If you have nothing to say, don't write a goddamned poem!
>
Welcome to the dark side of the muse, sister.
Rik, knee deep.
--
http://www.kalieda.org/poems/index.html
Pop in for a browse, when you have a moment to spare
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>
>After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>
>It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
>priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>
>I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
>Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
>poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>
>This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
>about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>
>What do you think?
This is I think a bit like asking what's more important about music,
the rhythm or the pitch. One can have music without pitch -- a single
drum will do the trick -- and one can have music without recognizable
rhythm -- but each sacrifices something.
Dylan Thomas doesn't always make sense (would that I could not make
sense as well as he can!), and some write "proems," which have only
the most elemental rhythms; prose translations of poetry, too, are in
that category. But taken to extremes, neither technique seems
particularly effective. Genius, perhaps, can get away with such
things, but the rest of us can't.
Josh
Rik Roots
>
> After discussion with TomW, I've come to a conclusion.
>
> It seems that many poets and poetry readers say that sound is the top
> priority of a poem. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument.
>
I've never understood it.
> I now realize that I don't believe in sounds being that important.
> Important, yes. But important enough to sacrifice meaning? No. The
> poem must sound nice and it also must say something. Anything.
>
> This is something of a break for me. I have praised poems in the past
> about which I've said, "I don't get it, but it sounds wonderful!"
>
> What do you think?
>
Poets who over-rely on sounds in their work should not be surprised when
the work doesn't weave its magic for people who speak in a different
dialect.
Recording the work is the only way for a "sound poet" to definitively set
the sounds of her piece. This is a big plus in favour of internet poetry.
But when I see people comment in a text-only medium about how well they
enjoyed the sound of a poem, I think of it as a filler comment. It might
sound nice in the reader's idiolect, but the poet's idiolect is (usually)
unknown, and might be very different.
Nonsense verse has a better chance of surviving evolutionary sound changes
because the nonsense words parody real words: their sound will change
alongside the changes in the real language without great detriment to the
fun of the piece (I enjoy reading Lear out loud with maximum use of glottal
stops).
That's what I think.
Rik, knee dep
>
> --
> Julie Carter
>
> "Actually, I very well adjusted."--An Idiot Who Shall Remain Nameless
--
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> "Dennis M. Hammes" <scraw...@arvig.net> wrote in message news:<3DCC1616...@arvig.net>...
> > pandora wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3DCACD4C...@decisionresearch.org>,
> > > leisha <lei...@decisionresearch.org> wrote:
> > > >pandora wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I think the word choices that poets make usually have a pleasing
> > > >> sound (to the poet at least). If it just sounds nice but has NO
> > > >> meaning, a poem tends to just sit there. It doesn't fly, for me.
> > > >>
> > > >> pandora
> > > >
> > > >Not necessarily pleasing, I think. Sounds can be jarring, unpleasant,
> > > >annoying, to illustrate strife, violence, dissonance.
> > >
> > > T'would still be "pleasing" to the poet, not?
> > >
> > > pandora
> >
> > If the poet expects sounds to jar or annoy the reader, they /have
> > to/ jar or annoy him in the same sense; how else does he know to use
> > them so?
>
> Huh? It wouldn't bother me to be called 'gay' but it's pretty clear to
> me that many people would absolutely hate it. I don't have to
> personally find a word/sound grating to be confident that others do, I
> might simply have observed so.
Hm. I can grant that a Shapiro or Bukowski might wallow in his
noises because he liked them /and/ because he noticed that others
hated them. But they, like your example, are jarring primarily
because of their /content/; we're speaking here of the sheer fit of
the noises to each other, i.e., music without its content, music as
fit to its content, music as opposing its content. To fit or unfit
sounds, one has to hear them /and/ be aware of their effect on the
/general/ readership.
Poets like musicians pretty much have to rely on the public's
reacting to sounds rather the way /they/ do. And for both, sounds
are manipulable objects.
But poets are poets precisely because they do /not/ react to the
/content/ the way the public do. In the very first place, content
is a manipulable object to the poet, where it's the unalterable
bedrock of the public's universe -- why they need Gods to alter it
and other Gods to keep the first bunch from Going Too Far.
>
> > His competence at annoying would be pleasing to the poet (cf. even
> > chuckles); that the sounds annoyed where he wanted them to, would be
> > pleasing to the poet; but they would still annoy him as hard (or
> > harder) than they annoyed the reader.
>
> I don't think you've made this case.
Then let Dodgson.
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimbal in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."
The piece is a mimetic (and emetic) of the popular mock-heroic. One
"ooo"s and "aah"s at a Hero:
wa r ov/ im wa/ or-o-ro/ mo ou
But Dodgson has the speaker actually making kissing motions at him:
br ov/ gy imb ab/ mim we bo gr ov/ mom ra ou ab.
The reader's mouth is working /overtime/ on this one, to sucky at
his Hero. Is it "deliberate"? Well -- look at how many of the
words were /made up/, apparently to do just that since they don't do
much else.
>
> > /He/ can overlay that annoyance with his pleasure at technique
> > immediately; the reader can't (in the first approximation).
More than a little of Dodgson's annoyance was at the general
readership (that runs through the works, too), so he turned them
into sock-puppets for shits and grins and to prove that they already
were.
Call it telekinesis ('cos it is). And you can insist you Jus'
Don' Gat Eet as much as you wish; neither did they. This /isn't/ a
Kids' Pome; most kids have no use for it, because it imparts no
information of use to them. It is appreciated by those as already
have some database in this sort of thing, and it can be shown that
the reason /most/ of them like it is one they can't explain no
matter how they rearrange the portmanteau: simply, it sucks
bettern' they do, which justifies theirs (i.e., it backfired on him;
he never understood his popularity, or that sarcasm is always taken
at face below a certain threshold).
Humpty-Dumpty's explanation of it to Alice Liddell imparted
information of use to her about /content/. Or so he said. But
/then/ he said "Take care of the sounds and the sense will take care
of itself."
Alice thought Humpty was making fun of the old saying, "Take care
of the pounds and the pence will take care of themselves."
So did her English teachers. And her priest.
Dennis M. Hammes
> > (Why do your posts not come to my home isp's nntp?)
> > --
> > Julie Carter
>
> I post using Ameritech, but if I want to get all the posts
> I have to read using Mammoth or Sucknews.
> Must be that Dues Ex dude hard at work again.
>
> mdc
I just use NetScrape, the commo window. It's faster'n anything else
I've used, /at least/ as good as a typewriter, the filing system is
as good as I need and accessible to a w/p, and I see no references
on any froup to posts that haven't shown up /unless/ I'm on a
time-purged binary.
May be something about news /servers/, though, rather than
readers. Mine's private, paid monthly, and unedited for source or
content.
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments squeezed the following precious droplets from
Joshua P. Hill <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS>:
>On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 12:42:19 +0100, "M.H.Benders"
><maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
<snip>
>Funny, ain't it, that the very violence and arrogance you consider
>permissible are precisely what critics are accusing the United States
>of.
How many defenceless countries has Martijn bombed indiscriminately in
the past few decades?
Martijn expresses his opinions forcibly using a wide variety of
rhetorical techniques. It's Usenet. Get over it.
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments squeezed the following precious droplets from
Joshua P. Hill <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS>:
>On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:18:29 -0500, jsgo...@yahoo.com (JAS Carter)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:06:14 -0800, in alt.arts.poetry.comments leisha
>><lei...@decisionresearch.org> view hallooed:
>>
>>People always use the example of Jabberwocky for why poems don't have
>>to have meaning.
>>
>>Well, what does Jabberwocky say? It says nothing. It's cute and it's
>>harder than it looks, but it's not a great poem. It's not even a good
>>poem. It's a parlor trick.
>
>Seems to me it says, "These elements of language and poetry can be
>detached from specific referents and yet remain recognizable for what
>they are.
Not quite. Every single portmanteau word is meaningful. A cursory
reading, in which such words as "slithy" and "chortled" aren't
analysed for meaning, will deprive them of most of their point.
Also, the sounds in places, far from being the only point, actually
conflict with the meaning. Take "galumphing", for instance. The word
is now widely used to indicate rushing around in a clumsy way, but in
fact it was intended to be a combination of "galloping" and
"triumphant".
I'll need some persuading before I abandon my view that Jabberwocky
would have been the greatest of all Victorian poems if the same author
hadn't produced the incomparable "Hunting of the Snark".
<snip, but not because it's wrong>
--
PJR :-)
Dennis M. Hammes
...
> There is something immensely hypocritical in wanting the world to be
> just as fucked up as you are.
> M.H.Benders
Actually, that would be known as Luuuve (or rather the desire to
achieve it): /sama/, /ama/, /amore/, /ami/, /amicus/, /amo/,
/amas/, /amat/, /amare/, "same."
And it is the impetus that drives most poets and all teachers paid
or otherwise.
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments squeezed the following precious droplets from
Joshua P. Hill <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS>:
>On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 04:50:50 +0100, "M.H.Benders"
Lysaght has committed crimes. Harassing phone calls, incitement to
violence, intimidation and the sending of computer viruses are
criminal offences. Friends of yours and mine have also contacted the
Sheriff of Jacksonville about Lysaght, and they were right to do so.
>and tried to
>turn AAPC into a puppet show?
Eh? Explain.
>Go figure.
>
>>
>>> No one would killfile you for not agreeing with them ,as you claim to
>>> believe. You are only killfiled because of your violent arrogance.
>>
>>Both violence and arrogance are natural phenomena, which I do not
>>oppress but rather use in a creative way. This evokes jealousy in people
>>who'd rather surpress natural instincts and be an idealistic hypocrite
>>than follow the true nature of their energies.
>
>Oh, I see. In other words, we should rape women who make us horny, rob
>banks when we need money, and party all day?
He's talking about sublimation, Josh.
>Well, do what you want -- but have the kindness not to whine when, as
>they inevitably do, people put you down.
I've yet to see Matijn whine about being "put down".
--
PJR :-)
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 04:50:50 +0100, "M.H.Benders"
> <maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
> >Both violence and arrogance are natural phenomena, which I do not
> >oppress but rather use in a creative way. This evokes jealousy in people
> >who'd rather surpress natural instincts and be an idealistic hypocrite
> >than follow the true nature of their energies.
>
> Oh, I see. In other words, we should rape women who make us horny, rob
> banks when we need money, and party all day?
"Works for me."
(j r speaks highly of it on occasion, too, so when's the party?)
Even if Martijn preaches and practices the principle poorly (and
he does; lawyers and other torturers are "creative" as hell), your
condemning it entirely ensures that you'll never be able to defend
yourself (with word or sword) because you'd hafta touch That Nasty
Stuff to do so.
And in short, you've already been defeated by other people's
/noises/. I mention this because it's not a survivable condition
for a poet.
Yet you fairly routinely insist that others should be so defeated,
too, to prove they're "nice." (One or both of you had an "everybody
should" or two in this very thread.)
Keep insisting that any who practice the sword (or the words for
it) are going to be rapists and robbers. You might actually manage
to piss me off. (Bearing false witness is a summary capital
offense. So is poisoning the student body.)
But a lifetime of priests and other babies who said exactly this
to my face haven't managed to do so (not where /they/ can see it).
I'll probably just kill you with the simplest weapon I've got:
doing nothing about you at all. Because you're killing yourself
very nicely with your own religion.
Thing is, Kid, suicides go to hell.
And you can look that up.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> GeorgeTolis wrote:
>
> > Melody, imagery, argument. All in Pound, 'ABC of Reading', or 'How to
> > Read'.
>
> Pound is the most overrated poet of the 20th century.
>
> M.H.Benders
The /Cantos/ aside, he's almost underrated as a poet. And he's
vastly underrated as a teacher, primarily because he let Eliot, even
Frost, do the talking.
His real problem is that he never truly finished much of what he
wrote, but hopped off to the next experiment. His acolytes finished
him, but put their /own/ names on the product, leaving his roughs to
produce comments like yours.
That the kiddies mostly copy his (and their) mistakes and failures
to prove they're Good Enough doesn't devalue his experiments, his
results, or his lessons.
That the pomes are often so damned rough doesn't make them any
better, either.
Dennis M. Hammes
>
> Overrated? No way! What would words be without sound? Flat.
Flatliners. We don't write pictures (as some do); we write our
sounds.
JAS Carter
wrote:
>I've yet to see Matijn whine about being "put down".
Actually, he posted a thread just to whine that I was "plagiarizing"
his idea about sound not being that important and to say that everyone
killfiled him when he suggested it.
--
Julie Carter
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments squeezed the following precious droplets from
I don't see it as whining. I see it as Martijn having a gigantic
opinion of himself ;-)
--
PJR :-)
JAS Carter
wrote:
>>>I've yet to see Matijn whine about being "put down".
>>
>>Actually, he posted a thread just to whine that I was "plagiarizing"
>>his idea about sound not being that important and to say that everyone
>>killfiled him when he suggested it.
>
>I don't see it as whining. I see it as Martijn having a gigantic
>opinion of himself ;-)
Aha! Okay. I'll go along with that. :D
--
Julie Carter
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 12:56:01 -0500, the heavy rollers of
>alt.arts.poetry.comments squeezed the following precious droplets from
>Joshua P. Hill <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS>:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:18:29 -0500, jsgo...@yahoo.com (JAS Carter)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:06:14 -0800, in alt.arts.poetry.comments leisha
>>><lei...@decisionresearch.org> view hallooed:
>>>
>>>People always use the example of Jabberwocky for why poems don't have
>>>to have meaning.
>>>
>>>Well, what does Jabberwocky say? It says nothing. It's cute and it's
>>>harder than it looks, but it's not a great poem. It's not even a good
>>>poem. It's a parlor trick.
>>
>>Seems to me it says, "These elements of language and poetry can be
>>detached from specific referents and yet remain recognizable for what
>>they are.
>
>Not quite. Every single portmanteau word is meaningful. A cursory
>reading, in which such words as "slithy" and "chortled" aren't
>analysed for meaning, will deprive them of most of their point.
Good point.
>Also, the sounds in places, far from being the only point, actually
>conflict with the meaning. Take "galumphing", for instance. The word
>is now widely used to indicate rushing around in a clumsy way, but in
>fact it was intended to be a combination of "galloping" and
>"triumphant".
But is that meaning a result of the sound or the context?
>I'll need some persuading before I abandon my view that Jabberwocky
>would have been the greatest of all Victorian poems if the same author
>hadn't produced the incomparable "Hunting of the Snark".
>
><snip, but not because it's wrong>
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 13:09:35 -0500, the heavy rollers of
>alt.arts.poetry.comments squeezed the following precious droplets from
>Joshua P. Hill <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS>:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 04:50:50 +0100, "M.H.Benders"
>><maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>JAS Carter wrote:
>>
>>>> No, I expect people to be able to carry on a discourse without resort
>>>> to Martijnisms.
>>>
>>>Obviously you expect me to behave differently than my nature requires.
>>>This is typical of a moralist and agoge, who wants to see his own ego
>>>reflected in the world around him.
>>
>>This from the fellow who called the sheriff about Lysaght
>
>Lysaght has committed crimes. Harassing phone calls, incitement to
>violence, intimidation and the sending of computer viruses are
>criminal offences. Friends of yours and mine have also contacted the
>Sheriff of Jacksonville about Lysaght, and they were right to do so.
Absolutely. But when Martijn called the Sheriff, it wasn't over those
crimes, which Lysaght hadn't yet committed: it was rather because he
was talking racist crap. And while I fully agreed with Martijn's
opinion in that case, and was one of those who argued strongly against
what Lysaght had done, I did not then and I do not now think it was
right to attempt to abrogate Lysaght's freedom of speech (albeit
Martijn's attempt to do so was Quixotic, given that its protected
under the American Constitution).
In short, Martijn was attempting to impose his moral view on Lysaght.
And that makes his statement above -- "Obviously you expect me to
behave differently than my nature requires. This is typical of a
moralist and agoge, who wants to see his own ego reflected in the
world around him." -- seem rather hypocritical, does it not?
>>and tried to
>>turn AAPC into a puppet show?
>
>Eh? Explain.
The "FAQ." Setting up, unasked, a mechanism to promote and demote
people according to whether they provided the "right" kind of
contribution -- and then, as if to prove the adage about absolute
power, ignoring his own guidelines and procedures to elevate and
demote people at whim. "This is typical of a moralist and agoge, who
wants to see his own ego reflected in the world around him."
>>Go figure.
>>
>>>
>>>> No one would killfile you for not agreeing with them ,as you claim to
>>>> believe. You are only killfiled because of your violent arrogance.
>>>
>>>Both violence and arrogance are natural phenomena, which I do not
>>>oppress but rather use in a creative way. This evokes jealousy in people
>>>who'd rather surpress natural instincts and be an idealistic hypocrite
>>>than follow the true nature of their energies.
>>
>>Oh, I see. In other words, we should rape women who make us horny, rob
>>banks when we need money, and party all day?
>
>He's talking about sublimation, Josh.
?
Seems to me that repression and sublimation are inextricably linked
(add reaction formation to get Freud's definition of "neurosis").
>>Well, do what you want -- but have the kindness not to whine when, as
>>they inevitably do, people put you down.
>
>I've yet to see Matijn whine about being "put down".
I see it all the time. To use an extreme example, his reaction to the
birthday poem, which, admittedly, I now regret, much as you guys
regret Bomber Harris. Lesser examples are fairly abundant, and
typically take the form of "why do you pick on me"; even more
commonly, it's "you pick on me because."
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
There's quite a gulf, I think, between niceness and the passivity of
defeat. And some don't seem to get that. Certainly, the likes of bin
Laden don't: they see the United States responding to one or another
situation with restraint, and conclude that we've grown weak. And the
same thing is true on the Internet. So violence, verbal or physical,
may indeed be necessary -- but always with reluctance, and never as a
brute expression of instinct. In the case of violence, that leads to
self-defeating acts like suicide bombings, to unsuccessful, warlike
cultures, on a personal level, to people who go to prison or end up
dead over a trivial slight. And verbal violence, indiscriminately
employed, leads to ostracism and failure. As to arrogance, well, half
of us have testosterone, don't we? Only some of us are bright enough
to keep it under wraps, given that expressing it is counterproductive
-- massively so if, like Martijn, one lacks the firepower to back it
up.
Josh
M.H.Benders
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
> >Obviously you expect me to behave differently than my nature requires.
> >This is typical of a moralist and agoge, who wants to see his own ego
> >reflected in the world around him.
>
> This from the fellow who called the sheriff about Lysaght and tried to
> turn AAPC into a puppet show?
I called the sheriff because I didn't want to read Lysaght's crap
anymore. He is an american golem, the ultimate product of american
culture, a jerry springer show on his own. I have repeatedly asked if
the american brothers on the newsgroup could take care of business and
make sure that the rednecks and garbage bags keep quiet. When I saw that
they didn't plan to do so I thought it would be a good idea to call some
back up - fight garbage with garbage. There was no puppet show - freedom
of speech, that's a puppet show.
> >Both violence and arrogance are natural phenomena, which I do not
> >oppress but rather use in a creative way. This evokes jealousy in people
> >who'd rather surpress natural instincts and be an idealistic hypocrite
> >than follow the true nature of their energies.
>
> Oh, I see. In other words, we should rape women who make us horny, rob
> banks when we need money, and party all day?
There are indeed some primates who need to be oppressed in order to
function properly. Your assumption that everyone is such a primate is a
miscalculation. You are projecting your own fantasies unto me, whileas
anyone with a bit of intellect would understand that both 'raping women'
and 'robbing banks' are not profitable because they are both too risky
and unoriginal. I know you have problems getting a girlfriend but
believe me, it's better to pay for a prostitute than to go out and rape
women.
M.H.Benders
M.H.Benders
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
> >And yet the very suggestion that 'arrogance' and 'violence' should be
> >sketeletons in a closet, that it are shameful things one should keep to
> >oneself, is typically fundamentalist hypocrite american attitude
> >straight from the black socks department of biblethumpers. There is
> >nothing wrong with either arrogance or violence, both are useful and
> >powerful tools for expression.
>
> Funny, ain't it, that the very violence and arrogance you consider
> permissible are precisely what critics are accusing the United States
> of.
Not even close. The USA is a treehugger nation full of 'touchy feely'
scary types. Simpletons, hypocrites and cry babies. Whenever they go to
'war' (which is at best a parody of war) they bomb everything flat from
a few thousands meters on high. That's cowardism, as people know who
still have any clue as to what that word means. So violent - yes, but of
a very cowardish kind. Arrogant? One could compare stupidity with that
beautiful emotion, but that's like comparing carpet bombing with sowing
seeds.
M.H.Benders
Peter J Ross
alt.arts.poetry.comments squeezed the following precious droplets from
Joshua P. Hill <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS>:
>On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 20:45:14 +0000, Peter J Ross <heres...@meow.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 13:22:09 -0500, the heavy rollers of
>>alt.arts.poetry.comments squeezed the following precious droplets from
>>Joshua P. Hill <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS>:
>>
>>>On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 12:42:19 +0100, "M.H.Benders"
>>><maan...@chello.nl> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Funny, ain't it, that the very violence and arrogance you consider
>>>permissible are precisely what critics are accusing the United States
>>>of.
>>
>>How many defenceless countries has Martijn bombed indiscriminately in
>>the past few decades?
>
>Exactly the same number as the United States, I daresay.
Er, no. Mr M H Benders hasn't bombed Serbia, Vietnam or Grenada, for
instance.
>Course, they
>haven't bombed at all, but that likely has something to do with the
>fact that they call us every time they need someone to do the bombing,
>doesn't it.
The only practical assistance my country received in the Falklands War
was from Chile, not the USA, so shut up already.
>>Martijn expresses his opinions forcibly using a wide variety of
>>rhetorical techniques. It's Usenet. Get over it.
>
>Martijn's a flaming asshole, and in case you haven't noticed, he's
>more than a little bit in-your-face about it.
So are you. As I said: get over it.
>I don't argue with his
>right to do that, but surely, I have every right to argue with him for
>doing it, or, more often, simply to argue with positions that I
>consider wrong -- and agree, as I do periodically, when he says
>something I consider right.
Of course, and I have the same right to disagree with you. Let's have
fun together, we trolls, eh?
--
PJR :-)
Peter J Ross
Yes, I disagree with Martijn about that. Nevetheless, chuckles's
racist remarks are illegal in Europe, and Martijn's mistake may have
been his contacting a local authority instead of an international one.
>In short, Martijn was attempting to impose his moral view on Lysaght.
Hate speech isn't protected in Europe as it is in the USA. Our
attitude is practical rather than principled.
>And that makes his statement above -- "Obviously you expect me to
>behave differently than my nature requires. This is typical of a
>moralist and agoge, who wants to see his own ego reflected in the
>world around him." -- seem rather hypocritical, does it not?
No, I don't think it does. Martijn has trolled your arse off
sometimes, but he isn't guilty of hatred.
>>>and tried to
>>>turn AAPC into a puppet show?
>>
>>Eh? Explain.
>
>The "FAQ." Setting up, unasked, a mechanism to promote and demote
>people according to whether they provided the "right" kind of
>contribution -- and then, as if to prove the adage about absolute
>power, ignoring his own guidelines and procedures to elevate and
>demote people at whim. "This is typical of a moralist and agoge, who
>wants to see his own ego reflected in the world around him."
I rolled on the floor laughing at the wit of Martijn's spoof FAQ. Did
you really not get the joke at all? Not even when he included a jpeg
of himself as Stalin accompanied by the Soviet Anthem?
I find it hard to believe that you're really devoid of a sense of
humour.
And it was *art*, too.
>>>Go figure.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> No one would killfile you for not agreeing with them ,as you claim to
>>>>> believe. You are only killfiled because of your violent arrogance.
>>>>
>>>>Both violence and arrogance are natural phenomena, which I do not
>>>>oppress but rather use in a creative way. This evokes jealousy in people
>>>>who'd rather surpress natural instincts and be an idealistic hypocrite
>>>>than follow the true nature of their energies.
>>>
>>>Oh, I see. In other words, we should rape women who make us horny, rob
>>>banks when we need money, and party all day?
>>
>>He's talking about sublimation, Josh.
>
>?
He isn't saying that he intends to be violent towards other human
beings, but that he intends to use the violent tendencies that we all
share to produce art.
>Seems to me that repression and sublimation are inextricably linked
>(add reaction formation to get Freud's definition of "neurosis").
>
>>>Well, do what you want -- but have the kindness not to whine when, as
>>>they inevitably do, people put you down.
>>
>>I've yet to see Matijn whine about being "put down".
>
>I see it all the time. To use an extreme example, his reaction to the
>birthday poem, which, admittedly, I now regret,
Ehrrm, he spanked the people who flamed him in that thread quite
comprehensively.
>much as you guys
>regret Bomber Harris. Lesser examples are fairly abundant, and
>typically take the form of "why do you pick on me"; even more
>commonly, it's "you pick on me because."
Post proof.
--
PJR :-)
JAS Carter
wrote:
>>>>>> No one would killfile you for not agreeing with them ,as you claim to
>>>>>> believe. You are only killfiled because of your violent arrogance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Both violence and arrogance are natural phenomena, which I do not
>>>>>oppress but rather use in a creative way. This evokes jealousy in people
>>>>>who'd rather surpress natural instincts and be an idealistic hypocrite
>>>>>than follow the true nature of their energies.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, I see. In other words, we should rape women who make us horny, rob
>>>>banks when we need money, and party all day?
>>>
>>>He's talking about sublimation, Josh.
>>
>>?
>
>He isn't saying that he intends to be violent towards other human
>beings, but that he intends to use the violent tendencies that we all
>share to produce art.
Um, actually, he just said that violence and arrogance were a natural
part of him and that he expressed them in a creative way. I don't
think he's talking art; he's talking trolling.
Nevertheless, a long thread about Martijn's glories and failures is
pretty much as fun as DIY root canals, innit?
*poke*
--
Julie Carter