More revision ...
Aidan Tynan
Parsimony
In the name of God, they said,
salvation is a wastrel, and the afterlife a river
of strange quartz-rookery places and sandmartins,
mud and muskrat bones and animal-indented rock.
Fishermen are as stationary as oil rigs at its banks
and look for minnows, cocktail fish and sturgeon,
big-eyed wraith-pike and tigerlillies.
Measuring the skull radius they decided they were more
than God-fearers, and so discovered other formulations:
zigurats, graphs and whirlwinds, the great estates of moving silt.
The drowned move as colonies of bathers, they see them:
colours all indigenous to the eye. Here
the bereaved throw shadows like exotic birds;
the men weep macaws, the women jays.
At night they lie awake just beneath the surface
and say that prayer is wasted on the saved.
-Aidan
suckme.com
- Matthew
Little Mr. Limp Dick is up to his old tricks.
Aidan Tynan
suckme.com wrote in message <20020104084231...@mb-cu.aol.com>...
>pointless..
maybe
>abstract to a strong fault....
no way, learn what abstract means.
pretentious..
>
to you maybe.
But then, am I really interested in the opinion of someone like you?
-Aidan
jef.
"Aidan Tynan" <aty...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:UxlZ7.23548$8s4.1...@news.indigo.ie...
>
> suckme.com wrote in message
<20020104084231...@mb-cu.aol.com>...
> >pointless..
>
> maybe
>
> >abstract to a strong fault....
>
> no way, learn what abstract means.
ab·stract (b-strkt, bstrkt)
adj.
1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
2. Not applied or practical; theoretical. See Synonyms at theoretical.
3. Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
4. Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract
words like truth and justice.
Impersonal, as in attitude or views.
Yes Aidan, this is highly abstract. Learn how to use a dictionary.
Jef.
suckme.com
>>
yeah.. bingo.
Aidan Tynan
>
>abæ–°tract (b-strkt, bstrkt)
>adj.
> 1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
>2. Not applied or practical; theoretical. See Synonyms at theoretical.
>3. Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
>4. Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract
>words like truth and justice.
>Impersonal, as in attitude or views.
>
>Yes Aidan, this is highly abstract. Learn how to use a dictionary.
everything in this poem I can imagine using one or more of my five senses,
in fact (given the right facilities) I could physically construct this scene
for you.
therefore i have to ask to give explicit examples of abstraction in my poem,
since i'm very curious.
anyway, abstractions aren't bad.
dictionaries can't teach you everything i guess.
-Aidan
>
>Jef.
>
>
jef.
>
>
> >
> >abæ–°tract (b-strkt, bstrkt)
> >adj.
> > 1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
> >2. Not applied or practical; theoretical. See Synonyms at theoretical.
> >3. Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
> >4. Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance:
abstract
> >words like truth and justice.
> >Impersonal, as in attitude or views.
> >
> >Yes Aidan, this is highly abstract. Learn how to use a dictionary.
>
> everything in this poem I can imagine using one or more of my five senses,
> in fact (given the right facilities) I could physically construct this
scene
> for you.
I know that, and that applies fully to what you think abstract means. Your
poem wasn't easy to follow (3), it's meaning was highly ambigous and
seemingly non-applicable to the real world, or the concrete world, as you
like to term it (1+3). It was, as the dictionary and most of the English
speaking world would term it 'abstract'. Failing to make sense to a large
audience qualifies something as abstract.
> therefore i have to ask to give explicit examples of abstraction in my
poem,
Well, I don't have to give them seeing as you don't own the word abstract
and it doesn't mean only what you'd like it to mean.
> since i'm very curious.
> anyway, abstractions aren't bad.
> dictionaries can't teach you everything i guess.
Well dah. They don't even have Britney Spears in them.
Jef.
Aidan Tynan
>
>I know that, and that applies fully to what you think abstract means. Your
>poem wasn't easy to follow (3),
hmm, something being easy or hard to follow has no impact on whether it is
abstract or not.
it's meaning was highly ambigous and
>seemingly non-applicable to the real world,
seemingly. just because something is hard to visualise doesn';t mean it
can't be visualised.
in fact, for all my images, i start with the visual and proceed to the
linguistic, so it would be hard for me to come up with an abstract image
even if i wanted to.
or the concrete world, as you
>like to term it (1+3). It was, as the dictionary and most of the English
>speaking world would term it 'abstract'.
most? there you go again with your love of the demos.
Failing to make sense to a large
>audience qualifies something as abstract.
no way jose!
>
>> therefore i have to ask to give explicit examples of abstraction in my
>poem,
>
>Well, I don't have to give them seeing as you don't own the word abstract
>and it doesn't mean only what you'd like it to mean.
okay, but it would lend credibility to your position.
remember: if you help me to understand something i did not understand
previously, you will be friend of mine.
if you merely take potshots at me for personal reasons, then you're not.
>
>> since i'm very curious.
>> anyway, abstractions aren't bad.
>> dictionaries can't teach you everything i guess.
>
>Well dah. They don't even have Britney Spears in them.
yeah, but more to the point: the term abstract in poetry studies has various
meanings not catered for by webster's or the OED. this is why we read books
about poetry, to find out how words like 'abstraction' are applied to the
study of poetry.
-Aidan
>
>Jef.
>
>
jef.
>
>
> >
> >I know that, and that applies fully to what you think abstract means.
Your
> >poem wasn't easy to follow (3),
>
> hmm, something being easy or hard to follow has no impact on whether it is
> abstract or not.
Why look here in the dictionary - "3. Difficult to understand; abstruse:
abstract philosophical problems." It does actually have a massive impact on
whether it's abstract or not. Infact - it IS abstract. Wow, isn't that just
the strangest thing?
> it's meaning was highly ambigous and
> >seemingly non-applicable to the real world,
>
> seemingly. just because something is hard to visualise doesn';t mean it
> can't be visualised.
I know: it just means it's abstract.
> in fact, for all my images, i start with the visual and proceed to the
> linguistic, so it would be hard for me to come up with an abstract image
> even if i wanted to.
Abstract image maybe. Abstract poem - oh no, you do it so well.
> or the concrete world, as you
> >like to term it (1+3). It was, as the dictionary and most of the English
> >speaking world would term it 'abstract'.
>
> most? there you go again with your love of the demos.
All but the extreme minority - being you and maybe a few other people that
can't accept what the dictionary has to offer.
>
> Failing to make sense to a large
> >audience qualifies something as abstract.
>
> no way jose!
Yes, it does. Abstract is not only the opposite of concrete. It means a
whole list of other things as well. Accept this point.
> >> therefore i have to ask to give explicit examples of abstraction in my
> >poem,
> >
> >Well, I don't have to give them seeing as you don't own the word abstract
> >and it doesn't mean only what you'd like it to mean.
>
> okay, but it would lend credibility to your position.
> remember: if you help me to understand something i did not understand
> previously, you will be friend of mine.
> if you merely take potshots at me for personal reasons, then you're not.
I have given you dictionary definitions, that is enough of my help. Not like
you ever went out of your way to help me Aidan. Abstract can mean something
as simple as 'difficult to understand'. Your poem was, a suckme.com was
right in saying that your poem was. Let him have that point, seeing as he
isn't right about much else.
Jef.
Aidan Tynan
>> hmm, something being easy or hard to follow has no impact on whether it
is
>> abstract or not.
>
>Why look here in the dictionary - "3. Difficult to understand; abstruse:
>abstract philosophical problems." It does actually have a massive impact on
>whether it's abstract or not.
well, no, that's not what I'm talking about when I mean abstract.
There isn't much philosophising in my poem.
Infact - it IS abstract. Wow, isn't that just
>the strangest thing?
>> seemingly. just because something is hard to visualise doesn';t mean it
>> can't be visualised.
>
>I know: it just means it's abstract.
if something can be visualised then it's not abstract, not in the sense that
i'm using the term to apply to poetics.
>
>> in fact, for all my images, i start with the visual and proceed to the
>> linguistic, so it would be hard for me to come up with an abstract image
>> even if i wanted to.
>
>Abstract image maybe. Abstract poem - oh no, you do it so well.
see above. i think the phrase 'abstract image' is a bit of a misnomer,
because our brains have a tendency to short circuit when they're confronted
with something it's not able to visualise. hence, we create images for
abstract concepts.
>
>> or the concrete world, as you
>> >like to term it (1+3). It was, as the dictionary and most of the English
>> >speaking world would term it 'abstract'.
>>
>> most? there you go again with your love of the demos.
>
>All but the extreme minority - being you and maybe a few other people that
>can't accept what the dictionary has to offer.
it's not that i can't accept it; rather, i've gone beyond the dictionary
definition to a more suitable meaning.
remember, the lexicon gives us the merest of building blocks. there is a
wealth of discussion about the nature of abstraction in poetics which goes
beyond what may be grasped from dictionary.com
>
>>
>> Failing to make sense to a large
>> >audience qualifies something as abstract.
>>
>> no way jose!
>
>Yes, it does. Abstract is not only the opposite of concrete.
It means a
>whole list of other things as well. Accept this point.
I'm not interested in those aspects on the word since it doesn't really
relate to my thesis, which is related to poetics.
>> okay, but it would lend credibility to your position.
>> remember: if you help me to understand something i did not understand
>> previously, you will be friend of mine.
>> if you merely take potshots at me for personal reasons, then you're not.
>
>I have given you dictionary definitions, that is enough of my help.
yes, but you see, I already knew those definitions. It seems that you're not
interested in having a discussion about the nature of abstraction in poetry,
rather you seem to just want to prove me wrong by citing dictionary
definitions as if they were the word of god.
Not like
>you ever went out of your way to help me Aidan.
well, if you've learned *anything* from me, directly or indirectly, from
your time on this newsgroup, then I've helped you in some way.
Abstract can mean something
>as simple as 'difficult to understand'.
yes, but all good poems (as far as I am concerned) should be difficult to
understand to some degree, or rather: the poem should give the reader such a
pleurality of opportunities for understanding, each different to the other,
that no singular path shines through. That, as Empson pointed out, is one of
true qualifiers of good poetry. Things which aren't difficult to understand
are, at worst, called cliches, because they ask the reader to do no work
whatsoever. This is what we called 'boring'. My poem certainly isn't boring
and I get some satisfaction out of that.
-Aidan
suckme.com
think I just learned that Mr. Tynan seems to dish it out a lot better than he
can take it.
jef.
> >> seemingly. just because something is hard to visualise doesn';t mean it
> >> can't be visualised.
> >
> >I know: it just means it's abstract.
>
> if something can be visualised then it's not abstract, not in the sense
that
> i'm using the term to apply to poetics.
Ah - you see Aidan, suckme.com said it - not you. Therefore you must adhere
to his meaning of the word - and accept that your poem is abtract. Finito.
Jef.
Aidan Tynan
jef. wrote in message ...
okay, my poem is abtract, full of abtractions, abtractions everywhere! happy
damnit!!!!!!!!??????
btw, i'm adhering to *my* definition of the word 'abstract' which is
probably what you meant, and therefor my poem isn't very abstract at all ...
however, you've managed to bring this conversation down to the level of
schoolyard type 'is too, is not!' argumentation, so to waste any more time
on it would be a waste of time.
-Aidan
>
>Jef.
>
>
jef.
>
> jef. wrote in message ...
> >
> >> >> seemingly. just because something is hard to visualise doesn';t mean
> it
> >> >> can't be visualised.
> >> >
> >> >I know: it just means it's abstract.
> >>
> >> if something can be visualised then it's not abstract, not in the sense
> >that
> >> i'm using the term to apply to poetics.
> >
> >Ah - you see Aidan, suckme.com said it - not you. Therefore you must
adhere
> >to his meaning of the word - and accept that your poem is abtract.
Finito.
>
> okay, my poem is abtract, full of abtractions, abtractions everywhere!
happy
> damnit!!!!!!!!??????
No, it doesn't have any abstractions in it Aidan. It is abstract - difficult
to understand. Where am I losing you on this one?
>
> btw, i'm adhering to *my* definition of the word 'abstract' which is
> probably what you meant,
But we didn't adhere to your meaning.
and therefor my poem isn't very abstract at all ...
> however, you've managed to bring this conversation down to the level of
> schoolyard type 'is too, is not!' argumentation, so to waste any more time
> on it would be a waste of time.
Actually, you're doing that by blatantly refuting what I say. Or more, what
suckme.com says.
Jef.
Aidan Tynan
>
>No, it doesn't have any abstractions in it Aidan. It is abstract -
difficult
>to understand. Where am I losing you on this one?
okay, it's difficult for you and suckme to understand. i can live with that.
>
>>
>> btw, i'm adhering to *my* definition of the word 'abstract' which is
>> probably what you meant,
>
>But we didn't adhere to your meaning.
okay, i adhere to my meaning though.
>
> and therefor my poem isn't very abstract at all ...
>> however, you've managed to bring this conversation down to the level of
>> schoolyard type 'is too, is not!' argumentation, so to waste any more
time
>> on it would be a waste of time.
>
>Actually, you're doing that by blatantly refuting what I say. Or more, what
>suckme.com says.
okay, then let this be the final word on the mater: suckme and jef have
difficulty understanding my poem and therefore, as far as they and some
other people are concerned, my poem is abstract in some sense, however not
in the sense as I mean it, since i am concerned primarily with poetic
abstraction and concrete imagery.
end of thread.
-Aidan
>
>Jef.
>
>
Mark Thakkar
> No, it doesn't have any abstractions in it Aidan. It is abstract -
> difficult to understand. Where am I losing you on this one?
I've no real wish to get drawn into this, but you are talking so much
rot I feel I have to.
"Abstract" only means "difficult to understand" in the sense Aidan's
been talking about - i.e. removal from the concrete and the particular.
For example, if someone muttered too quietly, or gabbled their words,
you wouldn't say they were being "abstract". And if a paragraph
contained lots of words you didn't understand ("excoriated",
"circumforaneous", "abstract"), you wouldn't say it was "abstract". Or
again, if a sentence were strangled by sub-clauses, nests within nests
of them, all vying for space on the page, like survivors on a raft,
which is to say a life-saving boat of some kind, or perhaps of some
other kind, which may not be kind at all - if that were the case, you
would nonetheless still not say it was "abstract".
HTH,
Mark.
Aidan Tynan
>
>"Abstract" only means "difficult to understand" in the sense Aidan's
>been talking about - i.e. removal from the concrete and the particular.
Abstractions are 'hard to understand' only, i think, in the sense that we
all percieve (unserstand) the universe via our five senses, and
abstractions, as Aristotle noted, are withdrawn from the arena of sense and
as a result belong to a realm above or beyond (below?). I don't think my
poem, whatever its faults may be, refered to anything but sense experience
...
>
>For example, if someone muttered too quietly, or gabbled their words,
>you wouldn't say they were being "abstract". And if a paragraph
>contained lots of words you didn't understand ("excoriated",
>"circumforaneous", "abstract"), you wouldn't say it was "abstract". Or
>again, if a sentence were strangled by sub-clauses, nests within nests
>of them, all vying for space on the page, like survivors on a raft,
>which is to say a life-saving boat of some kind, or perhaps of some
>other kind, which may not be kind at all - if that were the case, you
>would nonetheless still not say it was "abstract".
i agree with all this, thanks mark ...
-Aidan
>
>HTH,
>
>Mark.
jef.
"Mark Thakkar" <mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.16a3effec...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Jef,
>
> > No, it doesn't have any abstractions in it Aidan. It is abstract -
> > difficult to understand. Where am I losing you on this one?
>
> I've no real wish to get drawn into this, but you are talking so much
> rot I feel I have to.
>
> "Abstract" only means "difficult to understand" in the sense Aidan's
> been talking about - i.e. removal from the concrete and the particular.
Literature can be difficult to understand even without moving from the
concrete.
> For example, if someone muttered too quietly, or gabbled their words,
> you wouldn't say they were being "abstract". And if a paragraph
> contained lots of words you didn't understand ("excoriated",
> "circumforaneous", "abstract"), you wouldn't say it was "abstract". Or
> again, if a sentence were strangled by sub-clauses, nests within nests
> of them, all vying for space on the page, like survivors on a raft,
> which is to say a life-saving boat of some kind, or perhaps of some
> other kind, which may not be kind at all - if that were the case, you
> would nonetheless still not say it was "abstract".
You have taken specific examples of things being difficult to understand,
and applied them to an argument in which they do not belong. This is
ridiculous, Mark. For your absolute pleasure, I will change "difficult to
understand" for "hard to comprehend in a literary sense".
Jef.
Mark Thakkar
>> "Abstract" only means "difficult to understand" in the sense Aidan's
>> been talking about - i.e. removal from the concrete and the
>> particular.
>
> Literature can be difficult to understand even without moving from
> the concrete.
Yes, it can. That doesn't make it abstract.
> You have taken specific examples of things being difficult to
> understand, and applied them to an argument in which they do not
> belong. This is ridiculous, Mark. For your absolute pleasure, I will
> change "difficult to understand" for "hard to comprehend in a
> literary sense".
For what it's worth, I think Aidan's poem /is/ quite abstract. But
that's not because it's difficult to understand. It may OTOH be /why/
it's difficult to understand. (There is a difference.)
"Salvation is a wastrel": the poem's very theme, i.e. the misallocation
of precious prayer time and the subsequent seething masses in the
underworld, is abstract. (Unless someone here knows something about the
"afterlife" that I don't, that is.)
Aidan, some things I don't understand: Who are the fishermen? And are
they fishers of men, or of fish? And are the skull radii too /large/
for them to be God-fearers? And why "like exotic birds"?
Mark.
jef.
Please. Look at the fucking dictionary definitions I posted for the word
'abstract'. I'll even post them again. Expand your horizons. Accept that
this conversation is about the many uses of the word abstract. The sense of
abstract, which means difficult to comprehend of literature, can be applied
to this poem, as was done so by suckme.com.
abæ–°tract (b-strkt, bstrkt)
adj.
1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
2. Not applied or practical; theoretical. See Synonyms at theoretical.
3. Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
4. Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract
words like truth and justice.
Impersonal, as in attitude or views.
Jef. utterly frustrating
Mark Thakkar
> Please. Look at the fucking dictionary definitions I posted for the
> word 'abstract'. I'll even post them again. Expand your horizons.
> Accept that this conversation is about the many uses of the word
> abstract. The sense of abstract, which means difficult to
> comprehend of literature, can be applied to this poem, as was done
> so by suckme.com.
You fail to understand. Let me try something else. Consider these two
sentences:
1. The poem is difficult to understand, because it is abstract.
2. The poem is abstract, because it is difficult to understand.
The only reason "abstract" ever means "difficult to understand" is
because the one follows from the other. In other words, the general
principle is:
If something is abstract, it is difficult to understand.
This principle does /not/ work the other way round. Plenty of things
are difficult to understand without being abstract.
In other words, if you find a poem difficult to understand, you should
say as much. It's confusing when people say "It's too abstract" as a
euphemism for "I don't get it."
(I notice that suckme.com has not moved to clarify his original
statement.)
Mark.
jef.
> Jef,
>
> > Please. Look at the fucking dictionary definitions I posted for the
> > word 'abstract'. I'll even post them again. Expand your horizons.
> > Accept that this conversation is about the many uses of the word
> > abstract. The sense of abstract, which means difficult to
> > comprehend of literature, can be applied to this poem, as was done
> > so by suckme.com.
>
> You fail to understand. Let me try something else. Consider these two
> sentences:
>
> 1. The poem is difficult to understand, because it is abstract.
> 2. The poem is abstract, because it is difficult to understand.
>
> The only reason "abstract" ever means "difficult to understand" is
> because the one follows from the other. In other words, the general
> principle is:
>
> If something is abstract, it is difficult to understand.
>
> This principle does /not/ work the other way round. Plenty of things
> are difficult to understand without being abstract.
No. How can you say it doesn't work the other way around? Why shouldn't it?
Abstract, via dictionary definiton means, difficult to understand.
Therefore, when something is difficult to understand, it is abstract. If
someone is talking all over the place, jumping through subjects and events
without an order, they are speaking in an abstract manner.
>
> In other words, if you find a poem difficult to understand, you should
> say as much. It's confusing when people say "It's too abstract" as a
> euphemism for "I don't get it."
>
> (I notice that suckme.com has not moved to clarify his original
> statement.)
suckme.com is a moron. He was however, correct.
You will never be able to change my opinion.
Jef.
Mark Thakkar
> Abstract, via dictionary definiton means, difficult to understand.
> Therefore, when something is difficult to understand, it is abstract.
> If someone is talking all over the place, jumping through subjects
> and events without an order, they are speaking in an abstract manner.
Crikey. That's possibly the worst misuse of a dictionary I've ever
seen.
Such a person is /not/ speaking in an abstract manner. They are
speaking incoherently and confusedly. They are rambling. They may well
be faltering or even inarticulate. But they are /not/ being abstract.
If we disagree over that, we're never going to resolve this, so we might
as well leave it.
Mark.
Aidan Tynan
>
>For what it's worth, I think Aidan's poem /is/ quite abstract. But
>that's not because it's difficult to understand. It may OTOH be /why/
>it's difficult to understand. (There is a difference.)
>
>"Salvation is a wastrel": the poem's very theme, i.e. the misallocation
>of precious prayer time and the subsequent seething masses in the
>underworld, is abstract.
All notions of this kind are abstract. Any particular *understanding* of any
particular poem is a process of abstraction. Themes themselves are abstract,
so to accuse my poem of being abstract simply because you think it has a
theme is ridiculous.
(Unless someone here knows something about the
>"afterlife" that I don't, that is.)
there're a few abstract lines in it, the salvation line is one, but mostly
it's full of concrete imagery, although there's a vein of experimentation
(Vallejo and Prynne, my two influences for this poem) running through it
which could be, in some sense, abstract simply because it doesn't lean
itself to easy conceptualisation or *understanding*, the way of most
Surrealist poetry, another strong influence for me. For example, Edith
Sitwell is often cited as being an abstract poet, perhaps because of her
plethora of concrete imagery which doesn't cohere to a satisfactory model.
Abstract poetry in this sense does not equal abstractions.
>
>Aidan, some things I don't understand: Who are the fishermen? And are
>they fishers of men, or of fish? And are the skull radii too /large/
>for them to be God-fearers? And why "like exotic birds"?
Someone once said 'Never ask a poet what his poems mean'.
-Aidan
>
>Mark.
Mark Thakkar
> All notions of this kind are abstract. Any particular *understanding*
> of any particular poem is a process of abstraction. Themes themselves
> are abstract, so to accuse my poem of being abstract simply because
> you think it has a theme is ridiculous.
Firstly, it's not just that it has a theme: it has an abstract theme.
There is nothing concrete about the afterlife.
Secondly, why are you so obsessed with denying the abstract? I'm not
"accusing" your poem of being abstract, as if it were a crime. What is
wrong with things being abstract? Maybe it's just because I do Maths &
Philosophy, but to my mind the abstract is what's interesting about the
world.
>> Aidan, some things I don't understand: Who are the fishermen? And
>> are they fishers of men, or of fish? And are the skull radii too
>> /large/ for them to be God-fearers? And why "like exotic birds"?
>
> Someone once said 'Never ask a poet what his poems mean'.
Why not? You're on hand to ask, and I'm wondering about your imagery.
This is, of course, assuming there's rhyme or reason [1] in your poem.
(If not, I'm not particularly interested in it.)
It's not like I'm asking for a complete deconstruction.
Mark.
[1] Interesting dichotomy - or is it?
Aidan Tynan
Mark Thakkar wrote in message ...
>Aidan,
>
>> All notions of this kind are abstract. Any particular *understanding*
>> of any particular poem is a process of abstraction. Themes themselves
>> are abstract, so to accuse my poem of being abstract simply because
>> you think it has a theme is ridiculous.
>
>Firstly, it's not just that it has a theme: it has an abstract theme.
You think the theme of this poem is the afterlife. Fair enough. That's your
hermenuetical perogative, but there is no way you will ever get me to agree
that the theme of this poem is the afterlife, or anything else.
>There is nothing concrete about the afterlife.
I can think of nothing more concrete than the fires of hell or the whiteness
of heaven, or rather, if we try to construct an afterlife for ourselves in
the world it will be a concrete afterlife, for example an irish poet (i
forget his name) wrote of the poetry section in waterstones as his
afterlife. The afterlife is a very polysemic notion anyway (at this point in
history), so an empirical afterlife is just as valid as a metaphysical one.
But then, you're the only one here who thinks the afterlife is the theme of
this poem.
>
>Secondly, why are you so obsessed with denying the abstract?
Language, a digital system, fails to work without abstract qualities.
Poetry, like painting, is in some sense analogical, in the sense that it
lacks a code, it simply *is*, but uses a digital system. What are you going
to do? Anyway, I've never denied the abstract, thanks very much.
I'm not
>"accusing" your poem of being abstract, as if it were a crime.
I know.
What is
>wrong with things being abstract? Maybe it's just because I do Maths &
>Philosophy, but to my mind the abstract is what's interesting about the
>world.
However, nothing abstract actually *exists* does it?
A quote from Hardy: 'the business of the poet is to show the sorriness
underlying the grandest things, and the granduer underlying the sorriest
things.'
>> Someone once said 'Never ask a poet what his poems mean'.
>
>Why not?
Because once you've read it, it is your poem (but I retain copyrights!).
>You're on hand to ask, and I'm wondering about your imagery.
Why would my answers be any more interesting or valid than anyone else's?
>This is, of course, assuming there's rhyme or reason [1] in your poem.
>(If not, I'm not particularly interested in it.)
Ah! Then you only become interested in the poem after the fact of reading,
or perhaps rereading? After you've discovered by, presumably, asking the
poet if it has 'rhyme or reason'? I'm sorry Mark (maybe it's my critical
bias) but that's the reader's job, it's exatcly the thing that makes reading
poetry enjoyable (re: Barthes's pleasure of the text), and if you disagree
then I have little to no regard for your opinion of my, or any, poetry.
btw, as of yet you have given no indication as to me whether or not you
*like* the poem, which is strange since we've been talking about the damn
thing for several days.
>
>It's not like I'm asking for a complete deconstruction.
you're asking me to take my clothes off in public rather than offering to do
a strip tease for me, which I'm more used to.
>
>Mark.
>
>[1] Interesting dichotomy - or is it?
Fairly well worn ground but interesting, yes.
-Aidan
Mark Thakkar
> You think the theme of this poem is the afterlife. Fair enough.
> That's your hermenuetical perogative, but there is no way you will
> ever get me to agree that the theme of this poem is the afterlife,
> or anything else.
"All is text"? Give me a break. Take a leaf from Wittgenstein's book,
if you will. We should look at how sentences are actually used, in
order to find out what they mean. So, for example:
"What does this poem mean?"
When someone asks this question - either of themselves or of someone
else - what they want to know is what the poet meant when he wrote it.
Obviously different people will come to different interpretations.
However, insofar as we can use phrases like "this poem means" without
reference to ourselves, such phrases are shorthand for "the poet had so-
and-so in mind", or "the poet was a revolutionary, so his attitude was",
etc.
For example, take Shelley's "Ozymandias". When I first read that, many
moons ago, I thought it was a despairing poem, a lament for humanity and
its ephemeral achievements. But when, years later, I was told that
Shelley was a revolutionary who despised tyranny of all kinds, I
realized that far from being born of desperation, "Ozymandias" is
actually a defiant and triumphant celebration, a fist raised to
overbearing authority in the smug knowledge that it, too, will fade and
die.
There is a world of difference between the two interpretations, and when
it comes to the question "What does the poem mean?", the latter is much
closer to the truth than the former, /even though/ the poem can mean
different things to different people - because /divorced from/ the
qualificatory "to me/you", the question means nothing other than "What
did the poet mean by this poem?"
>> There is nothing concrete about the afterlife.
>
> I can think of nothing more concrete than the fires of hell or the
> whiteness of heaven, or rather, if we try to construct an afterlife
> for ourselves in the world it will be a concrete afterlife, for
> example an irish poet (i forget his name) wrote of the poetry section
> in waterstones as his afterlife. The afterlife is a very polysemic
> notion anyway (at this point in history), so an empirical afterlife is
> just as valid as a metaphysical one.
Surely only the dumbest of Jesus' flock think the afterlife is physical?
I thought we'd got past the notion of "heavens above, hell below".
Besides, I thought "our brains have a tendency to short circuit when
they're confronted with something it's not able to visualise. hence, we
create images for abstract concepts"?
> But then, you're the only one here who thinks the afterlife is the
> theme of this poem.
If the question makes you feel any more comfortable phrased this way,
then, what does the poem mean /to you/? The lovelorn hurrying through
the streets on Valentine's Day? Something else?
>> Secondly, why are you so obsessed with denying the abstract?
>
> I've never denied the abstract, thanks very much.
Not only do you repeatedly assert that your poems are in no way
abstract, but you also say "nothing abstract actually *exists* does it?"
This is a strange use of the word "never".
As for nothing abstract actually existing, well, I'm working on it.
It's possible that abstract objects might exist, but that their
existence or otherwise makes no difference to us either way. It's also
possible that it makes no sense to say that there are abstract objects.
This is a hugely important point in general, but particularly in the
Philosophy of Mathematics, which (as you might guess from the course
title) I'm trying to get my head round.
>>> Someone once said 'Never ask a poet what his poems mean'.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Because once you've read it, it is your poem
I'm not sure how far I can push this analogy, but you'd think this was a
strange thing for a parent to say of a child. (Perhaps it'd be better
as: once a parent's raised a child - say, it's grown up and is now 18 -
the parent completely washes his hands of the child and wishes no
further contact with it. In particular, when someone asks the parent
about his son/daughter, the parent gets all fidgety and says "It's not
mine any more. It's in the public domain", or words to that effect.)
>> You're on hand to ask, and I'm wondering about your imagery.
>
> Why would my answers be any more interesting or valid than anyone
> else's?
How about: because you wrote it, and no one else did? Assuming you
don't just sit there and do automatic writing, you thought about the
poem before and during its production. For example, you decided to
write "zigurats" [sic]. Why? Poetry is the most considered form of
writing. Every word is there for a reason. As I am interested in the
poem, I am interested in the reasons for the words being there. You are
my best bet on this front.
> Then you only become interested in the poem after the fact of reading,
> or perhaps rereading? After you've discovered by, presumably, asking
> the poet if it has 'rhyme or reason'?
Think of it this way. If someone turns up with a poem and says "here's
something generated by a random poetry generator", I'm not going to be
interested in that poem. This is because it is no more and no less than
a random jumble of words. (See, for example, my "Christmas Cheer,
Bright New Year" post.)
> that's the reader's job, it's exatcly the thing that makes reading
> poetry enjoyable (re: Barthes's pleasure of the text)
Enjoyment and understanding are different things.
> and if you disagree then I have little to no regard for your opinion
> of my, or any, poetry.
Appreciation of poetry is not limited by views on Continental
philosophers, you know.
> btw, as of yet you have given no indication as to me whether or not
> you *like* the poem, which is strange since we've been talking about
> the damn thing for several days.
Is it that strange? As it happens, I do like the poem. Does that
surprise you? (I'm not saying it should.)
>> It's not like I'm asking for a complete deconstruction.
>
> you're asking me to take my clothes off in public rather than offering
> to do a strip tease for me, which I'm more used to.
The "show, don't tell" maxim implies that there is something to tell.
When showing proves inadequate, for whatever reason (including reader
stupidity), surely it can't be too difficult to tell.
Mark.
Aidan Tynan
>"All is text"? Give me a break. Take a leaf from Wittgenstein's book,
I have the tractatus sitting on the floor next to me.
>if you will. We should look at how sentences are actually used, in
>order to find out what they mean. So, for example:
>
>"What does this poem mean?"
>
>When someone asks this question - either of themselves or of someone
>else - what they want to know is what the poet meant when he wrote it.
>Obviously different people will come to different interpretations.
>However, insofar as we can use phrases like "this poem means" without
>reference to ourselves, such phrases are shorthand for "the poet had so-
>and-so in mind", or "the poet was a revolutionary, so his attitude was",
>etc.
>
>For example, take Shelley's "Ozymandias".
Ever read Gilbert Adair's lippogramatic version? It's fun to test your
friends with.
When I first read that, many
>moons ago, I thought it was a despairing poem, a lament for humanity and
>its ephemeral achievements. But when, years later, I was told that
>Shelley was a revolutionary who despised tyranny of all kinds, I
>realized that far from being born of desperation, "Ozymandias" is
>actually a defiant and triumphant celebration, a fist raised to
>overbearing authority in the smug knowledge that it, too, will fade and
>die.
read Wimsatt's Intentional Fallacy. I hate to cite New Critics, but I agree
with that part. I mean, who cares what Shelly thought his poem meant?
Intention, as most people know, is not the be all and end all of poem's
meaning. Maybe you should investigate some reception theory, or simply
broaden your horizons. They need broadening.
>
>There is a world of difference between the two interpretations, and when
>it comes to the question "What does the poem mean?", the latter is much
>closer to the truth than the former,
that's an incredibly naive attitude for someone like you, mark, who I
thought was some way intelligent.
The idea of an object truth is a borgoise notion. This was where the new
critics got it wrong. Shelly's hermenuetic is about as relevant as mine.
There *is* no truth, only a pleurality of versions. For example, when
looking for the *truth* in a Shakespeare play, say Hamlet, do we try to
examine what the play meant to Shakespeare in his time, and to his audience?
Or do we take a more culturally materialist view, and examine what the play
means to us, what kind of Hamlet will arise from a 21st century staging of
the play? No, ask yourself, which is *truer*?
/even though/ the poem can mean
>different things to different people - because /divorced from/ the
>qualificatory "to me/you", the question means nothing other than "What
>did the poet mean by this poem?"
Again, incredibly naive.
>
>Surely only the dumbest of Jesus' flock think the afterlife is physical?
>I thought we'd got past the notion of "heavens above, hell below".
I'm not necesarily talking of a Christian afterlife. What about a secular
afterlife?
I have to tell you, and this goes back to what I was saying above, what I
was inculcated into thinking when I was at school was a physical afterlife,
and so it's the first thing that comes to mind.
>Besides, I thought "our brains have a tendency to short circuit when
>they're confronted with something it's not able to visualise. hence, we
>create images for abstract concepts"?
Yeah, which is what the concrete afterlife is, or could be.
>
>> But then, you're the only one here who thinks the afterlife is the
>> theme of this poem.
>
>If the question makes you feel any more comfortable phrased this way,
>then, what does the poem mean /to you/? The lovelorn hurrying through
>the streets on Valentine's Day? Something else?
I'm not going to tell you, simply because I don't want to, I don't think
it's necesary for your understanding of it, more over I think it would
adversely affect your understanding of it.
I feel it's one of my better poems, though.
>
>>> Secondly, why are you so obsessed with denying the abstract?
>>
>> I've never denied the abstract, thanks very much.
>
>Not only do you repeatedly assert that your poems are in no way
>abstract,
I've kind of covered this. All poems, all language, is abstract. But my
poems are not really abstract in the sense that they have abstract imagery,
which they don't, mostly.
>but you also say "nothing abstract actually *exists* does it?"
As in, by definition, the abstract tends to describe that which does not
exist.
>This is a strange use of the word "never".
>
>As for nothing abstract actually existing, well, I'm working on it.
>It's possible that abstract objects might exist, but that their
>existence or otherwise makes no difference to us either way.
But that the abstract object, whatever the hell that would be, would be
contrary to physical phenomena.
It's also
>possible that it makes no sense to say that there are abstract objects.
>This is a hugely important point in general, but particularly in the
>Philosophy of Mathematics, which (as you might guess from the course
>title) I'm trying to get my head round.
Yeah. Has to real relevence to art, though.
>> Because once you've read it, it is your poem
>
>I'm not sure how far I can push this analogy, but you'd think this was a
>strange thing for a parent to say of a child.
Yes, but true. That's the pleasure and pain of letting others read your
work. It becomes *theirs*. Nevertheless, they also remain *yours*. Auden,
for example, tried to disown some of his early poems, but never managed it.
They were no longer his, they belonged to those who read them.
(Perhaps it'd be better
>as: once a parent's raised a child - say, it's grown up and is now 18 -
>the parent completely washes his hands of the child and wishes no
>further contact with it. In particular, when someone asks the parent
>about his son/daughter, the parent gets all fidgety and says "It's not
>mine any more. It's in the public domain", or words to that effect.)
As Howard Nemerov said: I love all my children, even the ugly ones.
>
>>> You're on hand to ask, and I'm wondering about your imagery.
>>
>> Why would my answers be any more interesting or valid than anyone
>> else's?
>
>How about: because you wrote it, and no one else did?
Doesn't cut it.
Assuming you
>don't just sit there and do automatic writing, you thought about the
>poem before and during its production.
Indeed I did, although some of the poem (some of the lists, for example)
were done automatically.
For example, you decided to
>write "zigurats" [sic]. Why? Poetry is the most considered form of
>writing. Every word is there for a reason.
Don't patronise me. I'm sure we've all read about Yeats' 'stitching'.
As I am interested in the
>poem, I am interested in the reasons for the words being there.
And yet, you're incapable of doing anything but asking me for the reasons?
You are
>my best bet on this front.
Believe me, I'm not.
If I could find Wimsatt's book (probably somewhere in my bookpile) I'd quote
you some passages.
>Think of it this way. If someone turns up with a poem and says "here's
>something generated by a random poetry generator", I'm not going to be
>interested in that poem.
I would be. Are you aware of the Surrealists? Or even the notion of chance
in art? You can't possibly be as bourgoise as you make yourself out to be.
This is because it is no more and no less than
>a random jumble of words. (See, for example, my "Christmas Cheer,
>Bright New Year" post.)
>
>> that's the reader's job, it's exatcly the thing that makes reading
>> poetry enjoyable (re: Barthes's pleasure of the text)
>
>Enjoyment and understanding are different things.
Yeah, but the two interact.
>
>> and if you disagree then I have little to no regard for your opinion
>> of my, or any, poetry.
>
>Appreciation of poetry is not limited by views on Continental
>philosophers, you know.
What's that supposed to mean?
>
>> btw, as of yet you have given no indication as to me whether or not
>> you *like* the poem, which is strange since we've been talking about
>> the damn thing for several days.
>
>Is it that strange? As it happens, I do like the poem. Does that
>surprise you? (I'm not saying it should.)
Well, not really, since I doubt you'd spend so long talking about it if you
didn't like it in some way.
But, if I told you *now* that it was written entirely randomly, with little
thought to *meaning*, would you still like it?
>
>>> It's not like I'm asking for a complete deconstruction.
>>
>> you're asking me to take my clothes off in public rather than offering
>> to do a strip tease for me, which I'm more used to.
>
>The "show, don't tell" maxim implies that there is something to tell.
Well, who knows.
>When showing proves inadequate, for whatever reason (including reader
>stupidity), surely it can't be too difficult to tell.
Not difficult, just unpleasant and harmful.
-Aidan
>
>Mark.
Mark Thakkar
>> Take a leaf from Wittgenstein's book,
>
> I have the tractatus sitting on the floor next to me.
Not that one, the other one: "Philosophical Investigations". A
complete change of heart (as well as over 35 years) divides the two.
> read Wimsatt's Intentional Fallacy. I hate to cite New Critics, but I
> agree with that part. I mean, who cares what Shelly thought his poem
> meant? Intention, as most people know, is not the be all and end all
> of poem's meaning.
The problem with Wimsatt and Beardsley is that (as far as I understand
it) their argument is roughly this: since we don't really /know/ what
the author meant to say, we can only tease out meaning by close reading.
Firstly, in this case the author is alive and well and living in
Ireland, unlike (for example) Shelley or Shakespeare. Secondly, for a
general case, the argument suggests that if we /did/ really know what
the author meant to say, that would make a difference. This seems to be
at odds with what you're trying to argue, which brings me on to:
The problem with your argument is that you take a good idea (that
perhaps more can be gleaned from a poem than was originally intended by
the author) and take it to its logical but unreasonable extreme (that
the author's intentions have nothing to do with the poem). Your comment
above ("Intention [...] is not the be all and end all of poem's
meaning") is a bit of a dodge, because what you have been saying all
along is rather: intention is nothing to do with a poem's meaning.
Intention, for you, is in no way related to meaning.
Suppose I find a watch on the ground. I ask myself, "What is this thing
for?" A bit of experimentation reveals that I can swat flies with it,
at a pinch. I conclude that the watch is for swatting flies. Then the
watchmaker, passing by, sees what I'm doing with his watch. "What are
you doing?", he cries. "Just swatting flies," I reply. The watchmaker
patiently explains to me about watches. Am I then to say, "What has the
watchmaker got to do with the watch? As far as I'm concerned this thing
is for swatting flies with!", and deny that the watch has anything to do
with telling the time?
> Maybe you should investigate some reception theory, or simply broaden
> your horizons. They need broadening.
OK, then. Tell me about reception theory.
> The idea of an object truth is a borgoise notion.
The idea of bourgeois notions is daft. But you seem to have missed my
point. My point is that *given* that there is no objective truth about
the "meaning" of a poem, but also *given* that we use questions like
"What does this poem mean?", we have to give an account of what we mean
by such sentences - and the only sensible candidate seems to be, "What
is this poem supposed to mean?" Remember that we always have the option
of adding the "to you" or "to me" should we need to.
>> Surely only the dumbest of Jesus' flock think the afterlife is
>> physical? I thought we'd got past the notion of "heavens above, hell
>> below".
>
> I'm not necesarily talking of a Christian afterlife. What about a
> secular afterlife?
I was assuming that anyone daft enough to believe in an afterlife had to
be religious, and given that Christianity is the predominant religion
around these parts, it seemed the one to mention. What possible ground
can there be for a /secular/ afterlife?
>> Besides, I thought "our brains have a tendency to short circuit when
>> they're confronted with something it's not able to visualise. hence,
>> we create images for abstract concepts"?
>
> Yeah, which is what the concrete afterlife is, or could be.
Er, no. We may only be able to conceive of an afterlife in concrete
terms. But that does not mean we think the afterlife will be concrete -
in fact, I'm sure most people don't. My point was that your poem has an
abstract theme, despite the (perhaps necessarily) concrete imagery.
>> what does the poem mean /to you/? The lovelorn hurrying through
>> the streets on Valentine's Day? Something else?
>
> I'm not going to tell you, simply because I don't want to, I don't
> think it's necesary for your understanding of it, more over I think it
> would adversely affect your understanding of it.
How would it adversely affect my understanding of it?
>>> I've never denied the abstract, thanks very much.
>>
>> but you also say "nothing abstract actually *exists* does it?"
>
> As in, by definition, the abstract tends to describe that which does
> not exist.
Not necessarily. The abstract is not that which does not exist. The
abstract is that which is not physical or (metaphorically) tangible.
For example, love is abstract. That doesn't mean that love doesn't
exist. (I'm not saying it does.)
>> It's possible that abstract objects might exist, but that their
>> existence or otherwise makes no difference to us either way.
>
> But that the abstract object, whatever the hell that would be, would
> be contrary to physical phenomena.
"Different from", not "contrary to", but yes.
> It's also possible that it makes no sense to say that there are
> abstract objects. This is a hugely important point in general, but
> particularly in the Philosophy of Mathematics
>
> Yeah. Has to real relevence to art, though.
Assuming you meant "no" there, yes, it does. It has enormous
implications for art. What if beauty can exist and be aspired to,
rather than just being subjective?
>> For example, you decided to write "zigurats" [sic]. Why? Poetry
>> is the most considered form of writing. Every word is there for a
>> reason.
>
> Don't patronise me. I'm sure we've all read about Yeats' 'stitching'.
Eh? I haven't. (If you were referring to the misspelling of
"ziggurat", I wasn't. I just didn't want to misquote you. I was
interested rather in why you'd mentioned ziggurats.)
>> If someone turns up with a poem and says "here's something generated
>> by a random poetry generator", I'm not going to be interested in
>> that poem.
>
> I would be. Are you aware of the Surrealists? Or even the notion of
> chance in art?
Yes, I am aware of the Dadaists and the Surrealists. However, a random
poetry generator would be more Dada than Surrealist, as the Surrealists
sought to exploit the subconscious. Computers don't have a
subconscious. And Dadaism is just rubbish.
> You can't possibly be as bourgoise as you make yourself out to be.
Can you define for me what you mean by "bourgeois"? Or do I have to
work that out for myself too?
>>> and if you disagree then I have little to no regard for your opinion
>>> of my, or any, poetry.
>>
>> Appreciation of poetry is not limited by views on Continental
>> philosophers, you know.
>
> What's that supposed to mean?
It's not very cryptic. It means that I don't see why you should "have
little to no regard" for my opinion of any poetry, just because I
disagree with you over hermeneutics. (The "Continental" refers to the
fact that your views seem to be taken from people like Derrida and
Barthes - correct me if I'm wrong.)
> But, if I told you *now* that it was written entirely randomly, with
> little thought to *meaning*, would you still like it?
I'd be less interested in it. Similarly, if I saw a strange series of
symbols on a piece of paper, I might think it was a cryptogram of some
sort. If I spent hours trying to decipher it, I might come up with
fragments of things that looked like words. But if someone came up to
me and told me it was doodled by a three-year-old, I'd stop looking for
the hidden meaning, because there would be none.
Mark.
Aidan Tynan
>
>The problem with Wimsatt and Beardsley is that (as far as I understand
>it) their argument is roughly this: since we don't really /know/ what
>the author meant to say, we can only tease out meaning by close reading.
>Firstly, in this case the author is alive and well and living in
>Ireland, unlike (for example) Shelley or Shakespeare. Secondly, for a
>general case, the argument suggests that if we /did/ really know what
>the author meant to say, that would make a difference.
For new critics, and most other critical paradigms (except maybe
phenomenologist criticism) what the author had in mind makes *no
difference*. Hence, TS Eliot didn't really care when people started picking
his poems apart to look for meaning.
This seems to be
>at odds with what you're trying to argue, which brings me on to:
>
>The problem with your argument is that you take a good idea (that
>perhaps more can be gleaned from a poem than was originally intended by
>the author) and take it to its logical but unreasonable extreme (that
>the author's intentions have nothing to do with the poem).
I'm not really saying *that*; the poet always intends something, and that
will always impact on the end product, language, being both syntagmatic and
paradigmatic. For the most part that intention comes through, but the
hermenuetic of the poet is only one of millions, and the point of reading
poetry is not to find out what was going on in the author's head (this would
be psychology) but to somehow engage with the poem, and make it *your own*
by personally experiencing it.
Your comment
>above ("Intention [...] is not the be all and end all of poem's
>meaning") is a bit of a dodge, because what you have been saying all
>along is rather: intention is nothing to do with a poem's meaning.
>Intention, for you, is in no way related to meaning.
Of course not, look at what I said. The poem is intentionally *shaped* by
the author, but there will always be semantic gaps which you look to the
author's intention in order to find answers. But this is not, imo, the best
way of doing things. Nor am I promulgating the NC doctrine that there is
one, immutable, objective meaning lurking at the centre of each poem that
can only be picked out by close reading. It's far more complex than all
that, and many modern poets like to exploit that complexity, the syntactic
slide that naturally thwarts meaning, things like that.
>
>Suppose I find a watch on the ground. I ask myself, "What is this thing
>for?" A bit of experimentation reveals that I can swat flies with it,
>at a pinch. I conclude that the watch is for swatting flies. Then the
>watchmaker, passing by, sees what I'm doing with his watch. "What are
>you doing?", he cries. "Just swatting flies," I reply. The watchmaker
>patiently explains to me about watches. Am I then to say, "What has the
>watchmaker got to do with the watch? As far as I'm concerned this thing
>is for swatting flies with!", and deny that the watch has anything to do
>with telling the time?
Well, what is a poem for? It's obvious that there is no easy answer to this
question. You could swat flies with my poem and I would not object. The fact
is that what a poem is for has changed radically in the past few hundred
years. Poetry is concerned with the obvious ambiguity in langauge, and in
poetry itself.
>
>> Maybe you should investigate some reception theory, or simply broaden
>> your horizons. They need broadening.
>
>OK, then. Tell me about reception theory.
Nah, you can find out from better sources than me.
If you want a good overview of the various critical paradigms, I reccomend
Eagleton's Literary Criticism (this has a natural Marxist slant, which I
like), or Barry's Beginning Theory (an attempt at a 'neutral' analysis'), or
maybe The Modernist Shakespeare, which covers a lot of the critical
paradigms not simply in relation to WS but in general.
>
>> The idea of an object truth is a borgoise notion.
>
>The idea of bourgeois notions is daft.
You say this yet later on you ask me to explain bourgeois.
But you seem to have missed my
>point. My point is that *given* that there is no objective truth about
>the "meaning" of a poem, but also *given* that we use questions like
>"What does this poem mean?",
As I already might have made clear, such questions are nonsense.
What does the Wasteland mean?
we have to give an account of what we mean
>by such sentences - and the only sensible candidate seems to be, "What
>is this poem supposed to mean?" Remember that we always have the option
>of adding the "to you" or "to me" should we need to.
Is it me or are you trying to do analytic philosophy here?
>> I'm not necesarily talking of a Christian afterlife. What about a
>> secular afterlife?
>
>I was assuming that anyone daft enough to believe in an afterlife had to
>be religious, and given that Christianity is the predominant religion
>around these parts, it seemed the one to mention. What possible ground
>can there be for a /secular/ afterlife?
Many secular people believe in an afterlife. It's become an almost secular
idea for some, part of the fragmentation of religion: bibles in hotel rooms,
religious icons used to decorate non-religious objects etc ...
Moreover, we can see phenomenom as the secularisation of the sacred, in the
way that art is a secularisation of the sacred (Adorno's idea).
>> Yeah, which is what the concrete afterlife is, or could be.
>
>Er, no.
But the afterlife is an abstract notion, yeah? So our brains automatically
'shortcut' and concretise it, hence the flames for hell and the whiteness
for heaven. Hence the concrete afterlife. But if the afterlife can be
concrete, why should we have to be dead in order to experience it? Surely,
the afterlife is merely a ritualisation or moralisation of situation. I'm
making reference to the Situationists here, and may be getting off the
point, but I think all art is in some way a *secular ritualisation* of
sacred ideolects.
We may only be able to conceive of an afterlife in concrete
>terms. But that does not mean we think the afterlife will be concrete -
>in fact, I'm sure most people don't. My point was that your poem has an
>abstract theme, despite the (perhaps necessarily) concrete imagery.
As I've already said, any theme you chose to attribute to my poem will be
abstract.
Themes are rarely concrete, they usually operate on the abstract, symbolic
or obtuse level.
>
>How would it adversely affect my understanding of it?
Because you would be reading the poem with a particular idea in mind, my
idea, which you would feel you'd have to stick to. It would prevent, or at
least hinder, you from making up your own mind.
>> As in, by definition, the abstract tends to describe that which does
>> not exist.
>
>Not necessarily. The abstract is not that which does not exist. The
>abstract is that which is not physical or (metaphorically) tangible.
>For example, love is abstract. That doesn't mean that love doesn't
>exist. (I'm not saying it does.)
Fair enough, but it relates to symbolic, metaphysical ideals (usually).
>> But that the abstract object, whatever the hell that would be, would
>> be contrary to physical phenomena.
>
>"Different from", not "contrary to", but yes.
Why would it not be contrary to? Surely, the abstract and concrete forms a
binary pair.
>
>Assuming you meant "no" there, yes, it does. It has enormous
>implications for art. What if beauty can exist and be aspired to,
>rather than just being subjective?
I misunderstood you, then.
>
>>> For example, you decided to write "zigurats" [sic]. Why? Poetry
>>> is the most considered form of writing. Every word is there for a
>>> reason.
>>
>> Don't patronise me. I'm sure we've all read about Yeats' 'stitching'.
>
>Eh? I haven't. (If you were referring to the misspelling of
>"ziggurat", I wasn't. I just didn't want to misquote you. I was
>interested rather in why you'd mentioned ziggurats.)
I meant the 'poetry is the most considered form of writing' part.
I'm sure you didn't 'intend' it though.
>
>Yes, I am aware of the Dadaists and the Surrealists. However, a random
>poetry generator would be more Dada than Surrealist,
Yeah, but my point was that the Surrealists used automatic writing, which,
presumably, you would find uninteresting since the poet would not be able to
tell you what his poem 'meant'.
as the Surrealists
>sought to exploit the subconscious. Computers don't have a
>subconscious.
Yeah, but computers can write 'automatically' if given a lexicon, and this
would relate to the Surrealist project. They weren't interested so much in
unearthing meaning from depths of the mind than with ridding the mind of the
conscious bias in order to free art to the playful mysteries of the
marvelous.
>And Dadaism is just rubbish.
>
Then I suppose you should inform all those critics who cite Duchamp as a
genius and, along with Picasso, the 'inventor' of modern art.
As Tzara said, 'Dada means nothing!' but until you realise that 'means
nothing' isn't the same as 'rubbish' then you have no hope of understanding
Dada.
>> You can't possibly be as bourgoise as you make yourself out to be.
>
>Can you define for me what you mean by "bourgeois"? Or do I have to
>work that out for myself too?
You're attached to certain naive, middle class, philistine notions about
art. Hence your 'Dada is rubbish' remark. Dada and Surrealism were
anti-bourgeois.
>>> Appreciation of poetry is not limited by views on Continental
>>> philosophers, you know.
>>
>> What's that supposed to mean?
>
>It's not very cryptic.
Yes, but I'm a little slow.
It means that I don't see why you should "have
>little to no regard" for my opinion of any poetry, just because I
>disagree with you over hermeneutics. (The "Continental" refers to the
>fact that your views seem to be taken from people like Derrida and
>Barthes - correct me if I'm wrong.)
Okay. My views on poetry are taken from general 20th century study of the
subject, and from reading poetry. I haven't read any Derrida. Barthes is one
of my favourites.
>
>> But, if I told you *now* that it was written entirely randomly, with
>> little thought to *meaning*, would you still like it?
>
>I'd be less interested in it. Similarly, if I saw a strange series of
>symbols on a piece of paper, I might think it was a cryptogram of some
>sort.
Do you think poetry is a cryptogram of some sort? I mean, that's the
impression I get, that you see poetry as a sort of crossword puzzle that has
to be filled out, and hence you're looking to me for the *right* solutions.
But you're wasting your time, assuming that's what you're trying to do. If
that's really what you think poetry should be, then it's pretty pointless
for me to be arguing with you, but believe me: poetry is much more.
-Aidan
Mark Thakkar
I've been putting off replying to your post in order to do some work for
a change - revision for next term's exams. (Yes, next term - there's a
lot to be done...)
> the point of reading poetry is not to find out what was going on in
> the author's head (this would be psychology) but to somehow engage
> with the poem, and make it *your own* by personally experiencing it.
Well, there we differ. My aim in reading poetry is to try to work out
what the author was on about. Yours isn't.
>>> The idea of an object truth is a borgoise notion.
>>
>> The idea of bourgeois notions is daft.
>
> You say this yet later on you ask me to explain bourgeois.
I'm aware of its (several) meanings. I just wondered which you meant,
as none of them seemed applicable.
> Is it me or are you trying to do analytic philosophy here?
Is there something wrong with analytic philosophy?
> Many secular people believe in an afterlife.
They do? How does that work, then? Religious people can say, "Of
course we can't understand how it works. God moves in mysterious ways",
or just talk about the "mystery of faith". Secular types don't have
this dodge available.
> But the afterlife is an abstract notion, yeah? So our brains
> automatically 'shortcut' and concretise it, hence the flames for hell
> and the whiteness for heaven. Hence the concrete afterlife. But if
> the afterlife can be concrete, why should we have to be dead in order
> to experience it?
Just because we can only conceive of an afterlife as being concrete,
that doesn't mean there could actually /be/ a concrete afterlife.
>> How would it adversely affect my understanding of it?
>
> Because you would be reading the poem with a particular idea in mind,
> my idea, which you would feel you'd have to stick to. It would
> prevent, or at least hinder, you from making up your own mind.
But as one of my aims in reading poetry is, as I've said above, to work
out what the author was on about, you'd be helping me with my
understanding.
>>> But that the abstract object, whatever the hell that would be,
>>> would be contrary to physical phenomena.
>>
>> "Different from", not "contrary to", but yes.
>
> Why would it not be contrary to? Surely, the abstract and concrete
> forms a binary pair.
Suppose for the moment that numbers exist, as abstract objects
("whatever the hell [they] would be"). Numbers are not "contrary to"
footballs, or "contrary to" the fact that when footballs move when
kicked (which is the sort of thing I understand by "physical
phenomena"). They're just a different ball game.
>>>> For example, you decided to write "zigurats" [sic]. Why? [...]
>>>
>>> Don't patronise me.
>>
>> (If you were referring to the misspelling of "ziggurat", I wasn't.
>> I just didn't want to misquote you. I was interested rather in
>> why you'd mentioned ziggurats.)
>
> I meant the 'poetry is the most considered form of writing' part.
> I'm sure you didn't 'intend' it though.
Now there's an example of my intentions mattering for you. I don't know
if you heard about this, but a couple of years ago someone was had up in
court because he'd described a black guy as "niggardly", and the black
guy had made the obvious misunderstanding. (Though this wasn't poetry,
it could be - if someone complains that a poem is racist, because to
them it feels like a racist diatribe, are they entitled to complain?)
>> a random poetry generator would be more Dada than Surrealist,
>
> Yeah, but my point was that the Surrealists used automatic writing,
> which, presumably, you would find uninteresting since the poet would
> not be able to tell you what his poem 'meant'.
It might be interesting in different ways - amateur psychology, for
instance.
>> Computers don't have a subconscious.
>
> Yeah, but computers can write 'automatically' if given a lexicon, and
> this would relate to the Surrealist project. They weren't interested
> so much in unearthing meaning from depths of the mind than with
> ridding the mind of the conscious bias in order to free art to the
> playful mysteries of the marvelous.
Again, though, that's Dada. Surrealism relies on the subconscious.
Dada relies on tricks like pulling words at random from hats full of
newspaper cuttings.
>> And Dadaism is just rubbish.
>
> Then I suppose you should inform all those critics who cite Duchamp
> as a genius and, along with Picasso, the 'inventor' of modern art.
Dr Frankenstein, I presume?
> As Tzara said, 'Dada means nothing!' but until you realise that
> 'means nothing' isn't the same as 'rubbish' then you have no hope
> of understanding Dada. [...]
> Hence your 'Dada is rubbish' remark. Dada and Surrealism were
> anti-bourgeois.
Dada was anti-sense. Surrealism at least had a focus.
> Do you think poetry is a cryptogram of some sort? I mean, that's
> the impression I get, that you see poetry as a sort of crossword
> puzzle that has to be filled out, and hence you're looking to me
> for the *right* solutions.
That's one way of thinking of it. I like a challenge. If I have
licence to interpret a poem however I want, and not be labelled 'close'
or 'no way near', then there is no challenge.
> If that's really what you think poetry should be, then it's pretty
> pointless for me to be arguing with you, but believe me: poetry is
> much more.
To each his own, then. Now, will you tell me what you had in mind when
writing the poem? ;-)
Mark.
Aidan Tynan
Mark Thakkar wrote in message ...
>
>I've been putting off replying to your post in order to do some work for
>a change - revision for next term's exams. (Yes, next term - there's a
>lot to be done...)
don't mention that four letter word!
>
>> the point of reading poetry is not to find out what was going on in
>> the author's head (this would be psychology) but to somehow engage
>> with the poem, and make it *your own* by personally experiencing it.
>
>Well, there we differ. My aim in reading poetry is to try to work out
>what the author was on about. Yours isn't.
Speaking objectively, mine sounds a lot more interesting and enjoyable,
yours sounds like something very onerous and tedious, and probably futile
since most poets are dead/unavailable.
btw, how do you deal with found poems and cut ups? The former has no author,
and the latter deliberately negates intention / stable meaning.
>
>Just because we can only conceive of an afterlife as being concrete,
>that doesn't mean there could actually /be/ a concrete afterlife.
I don't mean to imply that it actually exists, I'm just giving you a
possible scenario for an afterlife which wouldn't have to be abstract.
>
>But as one of my aims in reading poetry is, as I've said above, to work
>out what the author was on about, you'd be helping me with my
>understanding.
I suppose you get this idea from liberal humanist or victorian criticism?
>>
>> I meant the 'poetry is the most considered form of writing' part.
>> I'm sure you didn't 'intend' it though.
>
>Now there's an example of my intentions mattering for you.
The point is that I still found it offensive whether you meant it to be that
way or not.
Anyway, don't confuse your prose with poetry.
I don't know
>if you heard about this, but a couple of years ago someone was had up in
>court because he'd described a black guy as "niggardly", and the black
>guy had made the obvious misunderstanding. (Though this wasn't poetry,
>it could be - if someone complains that a poem is racist, because to
>them it feels like a racist diatribe, are they entitled to complain?)
In court cases motivation and intention are all important, not so in poetry,
(unless we listen to antiquated forms of criticism).
>
>It might be interesting in different ways - amateur psychology, for
>instance.
could it be used for poetry? What is your opinion on accident in art?
>
>>> Computers don't have a subconscious.
>>
>> Yeah, but computers can write 'automatically' if given a lexicon, and
>> this would relate to the Surrealist project. They weren't interested
>> so much in unearthing meaning from depths of the mind than with
>> ridding the mind of the conscious bias in order to free art to the
>> playful mysteries of the marvelous.
>
>Again, though, that's Dada. Surrealism relies on the subconscious.
Of course, but then all consciousness relies on the unconscious. Some even
stress the importance of the unconscious as a political force. Surrealism
emphasised the unconscious in a way like no other, but not in a Freudian
sense (which would try to impose a structure or meaning to the results) but
in a revolutionary sense. A computer could produce such revolutionary texts.
>Dada relies on tricks like pulling words at random from hats full of
>newspaper cuttings.
or drawing a mustache on the mona lisa.
>
>Dada was anti-sense. Surrealism at least had a focus.
Anti-sense was Dada's focus. Surrealism's focus is the marvelous.
>
>> Do you think poetry is a cryptogram of some sort? I mean, that's
>> the impression I get, that you see poetry as a sort of crossword
>> puzzle that has to be filled out, and hence you're looking to me
>> for the *right* solutions.
>
>That's one way of thinking of it.
As Paul Muldoon says, 'poems are NOT crossword puzzles'.
I like a challenge. If I have
>licence to interpret a poem however I want, and not be labelled 'close'
>or 'no way near', then there is no challenge.
It seems to me that you dismiss the challenge: rather than taking onboard
the oportunity to discover meaing within the poem, you ask the author the
first chance you get. You settle for some one else's meaning, not your own,
which is kind of repressive.
>
>> If that's really what you think poetry should be, then it's pretty
>> pointless for me to be arguing with you, but believe me: poetry is
>> much more.
>
>To each his own, then. Now, will you tell me what you had in mind when
>writing the poem? ;-)
fraid not, but here's something much more stimulating: a female news anchor
who, the day after it was supposed to have snowed and didn't, turned to the
weatherman and asked "So Bob, where's that 8 inches you promised me last
night?"
-Aidan
Mark Thakkar
>> as one of my aims in reading poetry is, as I've said above, to work
>> out what the author was on about, you'd be helping me with my
>> understanding.
>
> I suppose you get this idea from liberal humanist or victorian
> criticism?
I don't read criticism. What's wrong with liberal humanism?
> What is your opinion on accident in art?
If it helps you in understanding my position, "art" comes from the
word for "skill".
>>>> Computers don't have a subconscious.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but computers can write 'automatically' if given a lexicon
>>
>> Again, though, that's Dada. Surrealism relies on the subconscious.
>
> Of course, but then all consciousness relies on the unconscious.
...which is irrelevant to a computer. The words "conscious" and
"unconscious" do not apply to computers, any more than they apply to
tables.
> As Paul Muldoon says, 'poems are NOT crossword puzzles'.
Do you know what I like doing more than anything else? Crosswords.
I spent a ridiculous proportion of my time solving and setting
crosswords. I also like the idea of cryptography, though I've not
done much. Why can't poems be crossword puzzles if that's what gives
me kicks? Surely this fits into your concept of what it is to read
poetry, which as far as I can tell is very individual.
>> I like a challenge. If I have licence to interpret a poem however
>> I want, and not be labelled 'close' or 'no way near', then there
>> is no challenge.
>
> It seems to me that you dismiss the challenge: rather than taking
> onboard the oportunity to discover meaing within the poem, you ask
> the author the first chance you get.
I asked about a few points because I was genuinely puzzled by them.
I had a couple of alternatives in mind for the overall meaning (or,
if you like, background structure) of the poem, but I couldn't see
any reason for some of the details.
> You settle for some one else's meaning, not your own, which is kind
> of repressive.
Settling for your own meaning, on the other hand, is lazy. Any idiot
can read a poem and say, "That poem's about ...". According to you,
that's all he should do.
Mark.
Aidan Tynan
>
>> What is your opinion on accident in art?
>
>If it helps you in understanding my position, "art" comes from the
>word for "skill".
And so you don't see any room for randomness and accident in art? Don't you
think that is quite limiting, especially when you consider all the recent
and not so recent art movements? Personally, I don't think art is possible
without randomness, mistakes, accidents and the like. Who is your favourite
painter?
btw, you snipped my question: how do you approach found poems and cut-ups?
>> Of course, but then all consciousness relies on the unconscious.
>
>...which is irrelevant to a computer. The words "conscious" and
>"unconscious" do not apply to computers, any more than they apply to
>tables.
You snipped the rest of my text that related to this issue ... surrealism
was not interested in the unconscious the way a psychoanalyst would (which
is why Frued *never* understood surrealism and never got on with Breton).
So, anything that could mimic it would be of interest to them. The
Surrealists delighted in anything that would aid them in escaping the
limitations of consciousness. I have a book of Surrealist games, good fun to
play with a friend.
>
>> As Paul Muldoon says, 'poems are NOT crossword puzzles'.
>
>Do you know what I like doing more than anything else? Crosswords.
Me too! However, if I approached all poetry, or all art, in that manner, I'd
probably drive myself insane in a short space of time.
>I spent a ridiculous proportion of my time solving and setting
>crosswords. I also like the idea of cryptography, though I've not
>done much. Why can't poems be crossword puzzles if that's what gives
>me kicks? Surely this fits into your concept of what it is to read
>poetry, which as far as I can tell is very individual.
It would be paradoxical of me to say 'read poetry for individual enjoyment'
then say 'after you've finished reading each poem, track down the author and
find out what it means, because your own meaning is inadequate'.
>>
>> It seems to me that you dismiss the challenge: rather than taking
>> onboard the oportunity to discover meaing within the poem, you ask
>> the author the first chance you get.
>
>I asked about a few points because I was genuinely puzzled by them.
Can you relate puzzlement to something other than tabulature and equation?
Perhaps puzzlement is part of what others call the sublime, transgression,
subversion, the marvelous, etc.
>I had a couple of alternatives in mind for the overall meaning (or,
>if you like, background structure) of the poem, but I couldn't see
>any reason for some of the details.
What I would ask is 'did those details add or detract to the poem?'
>
>> You settle for some one else's meaning, not your own, which is kind
>> of repressive.
>
>Settling for your own meaning, on the other hand, is lazy.
Lazier than going on line and asking the author?
Any idiot
>can read a poem and say, "That poem's about ...". According to you,
>that's all he should do.
And idiots do that all the time, they're called critics. However, what I'm
saying is that one's opinion on a poem should be based on the text rather
than on the poet. Of course, to help you you may need to read *other* texts
(eg reading Communicating Vessels will help you understand From the Hidden
Storehouse) but there's a reason why poets don't give the answers at the
back of the book.
-Aidan
>
>Mark.
Mark Thakkar
> Personally, I don't think art is possible without randomness,
> mistakes, accidents and the like. Who is your favourite painter?
Bruegel (the Elder). Generally speaking, I like mythological
paintings.
> how do you approach found poems and cut-ups?
I don't, as a matter of fact. If I found one, though, I might read it
and see what I thought. But what I'd be wondering would be, "What is
this guy talking about?"
> surrealism was not interested in the unconscious the way a
> psychoanalyst would [...] anything that could mimic it would be of
> interest to them.
But computers /can't/ mimic the subconscious. The subconscious is not
a random-number generator (or equivalent thereof).
>> Do you know what I like doing more than anything else? Crosswords.
>
> Me too!
Funnily enough, I got started on the Irish Times' crossword, when I
went over there with my grandad (Patrick Burke - I'm a quarter that
way.)
>> Why can't poems be crossword puzzles if that's what gives me kicks?
>> Surely this fits into your concept of what it is to read poetry,
>> which as far as I can tell is very individual.
>
> It would be paradoxical of me to say 'read poetry for individual
> enjoyment' then say 'after you've finished reading each poem, track
> down the author and find out what it means, because your own
> meaning is inadequate'.
It is equally paradoxical that you say 'read poetry for individual
enjoyment', and then criticize the way in which I enjoy poems because
you think it's not a good way of enjoying them.
> However, what I'm saying is that one's opinion on a poem should be
> based on the text rather than on the poet. Of course, to help you
> you may need to read *other* texts (eg reading Communicating Vessels
> will help you understand From the Hidden Storehouse) but there's a
> reason why poets don't give the answers at the back of the book.
Looking up your examples on the net, they're both by Surrealists.
Surely what links them is just their authors? Or would you say that
reading "Beowulf" will help me understand "From the Hidden Storehouse"?
If the former, you've admitted that the author is more important than
you say. If the latter, you've gone mad.
Mark.
Aidan Tynan
>
>> how do you approach found poems and cut-ups?
>
>I don't, as a matter of fact. If I found one, though, I might read it
>and see what I thought. But what I'd be wondering would be, "What is
>this guy talking about?"
Cut-ups are meant to put a stop to such questions. A found poem doesn't have
an author, it consists of readymade material, so there wouldn't be anyone to
ask. Have you read Walter Pater's / Yeats's Mona Lisa?
>
>>> Do you know what I like doing more than anything else? Crosswords.
>>
>> Me too!
>
>Funnily enough, I got started on the Irish Times' crossword,
Yes, they're my favourites, I stick to the simplex though ...
when I
>went over there with my grandad (Patrick Burke - I'm a quarter that
>way.)
good!
>
>>> Why can't poems be crossword puzzles if that's what gives me kicks?
>>> Surely this fits into your concept of what it is to read poetry,
>>> which as far as I can tell is very individual.
>>
>> It would be paradoxical of me to say 'read poetry for individual
>> enjoyment' then say 'after you've finished reading each poem, track
>> down the author and find out what it means, because your own
>> meaning is inadequate'.
>
>It is equally paradoxical that you say 'read poetry for individual
>enjoyment', and then criticize the way in which I enjoy poems because
>you think it's not a good way of enjoying them.
Well, I *don't* think it's a good way of reading, so of course I'm going to
express that opinion.
>
>> However, what I'm saying is that one's opinion on a poem should be
>> based on the text rather than on the poet. Of course, to help you
>> you may need to read *other* texts (eg reading Communicating Vessels
>> will help you understand From the Hidden Storehouse) but there's a
>> reason why poets don't give the answers at the back of the book.
>
>Looking up your examples on the net, they're both by Surrealists.
>Surely what links them is just their authors?
What links them is that they're both Surrealist works. I could have said
Maldoror and Pere Ubu instead, which pre-date Surrealism, and whose authors
had little in common, but are now considered proto-Surrealist. I could also
have said the Qu'ran and the Bible.
Or would you say that
>reading "Beowulf" will help me understand "From the Hidden Storehouse"?
Of course, maybe to a lesser extent, but reading one thing will always help
you to understand something else.
>If the former, you've admitted that the author is more important than
>you say.
The text guides the reader's interperative leaps; the author supplies the
text but the reader decides when to jump. Whether the author is dead or not
is uncertain.
btw if you ever asked Peret what his poetry meant he'd probably have spat at
you.
>If the latter, you've gone mad.
>
You don't think reading Beowulf could help you understand other poems?
Remember that no piece of literature can exist on its own. This is why uni
English courses are usually so diverse, the more stuff you read the better
you'll get at understanding other stuff, regardless of how diverse. So, yes,
reading Beowulf (esp Heaney's translation) *will defintely* help you
understand the poetry of Breton or Peret, or who ever, depending on *how*
receptive you are to certain elements. The other stuff you read will always
decide which elements you respond to. Looking at Bruegel paintings, for
example, will help you understand Jackson Pollock's paintings, and
Surrealist poetry, and the Exploits of Dr. Faustroll, and lots more besides.
If you think that is madness, then you are quite off the mark, Mark.
-Aidan
Mark Thakkar
>>> how do you approach found poems and cut-ups?
>>
>> I don't, as a matter of fact. If I found one, though, I might read
>> it and see what I thought. But what I'd be wondering would be,
>> "What is this guy talking about?"
>
> Cut-ups are meant to put a stop to such questions. A found poem
> doesn't have an author, it consists of readymade material, so there
> wouldn't be anyone to ask.
What's a cut-up? And of course a found poem has an author. That's
the point. Poems don't just appear; they are written.
> Have you read Walter Pater's / Yeats's Mona Lisa?
No.
>> Funnily enough, I got started on the Irish Times' crossword,
>
> Yes, they're my favourites, I stick to the simplex though ...
Ah, but that's not where the real challenge is to be had.
>>> It would be paradoxical of me to say 'read poetry for individual
>>> enjoyment' then say 'after you've finished reading each poem, track
>>> down the author and find out what it means, because your own
>>> meaning is inadequate'.
>>
>> It is equally paradoxical that you say 'read poetry for individual
>> enjoyment', and then criticize the way in which I enjoy poems
>> because you think it's not a good way of enjoying them.
>
> Well, I *don't* think it's a good way of reading, so of course I'm
> going to express that opinion.
But why don't you think it's a good way of reading? As I've said, your
view of how poetry should be read is very individual: each person gets
from a poem whatever they want. Mine is just a particular case of that.
>>> one's opinion on a poem should be based on the text rather than on
>>> the poet. Of course, to help you you may need to read *other* texts
>>> (eg reading Communicating Vessels will help you understand From the
>>> Hidden Storehouse) but there's a reason why poets don't give the
>>> answers at the back of the book.
>>
>> Looking up your examples on the net, they're both by Surrealists.
>> Surely what links them is just their authors?
>
> What links them is that they're both Surrealist works.
Well, you can read them as Surrealist works if you like. But the only
thing that conclusively nails them down as Surrealist works is the fact
that their authors were both Surrealists. That much cannot be gleaned
from the text alone, though it is important for your interpretation.
>> Or would you say that reading "Beowulf" will help me understand
>> "From the Hidden Storehouse"?
>
> Of course, maybe to a lesser extent, but reading one thing will
> always help you to understand something else.
Only in a very, very general sense - and I don't believe your original
example is that general. In fact, it's specific. In your example, one
text will be particularly helpful in understanding the other because
both of their authors were part of the same movement.
>> If the former, you've admitted that the author is more important
>> than you say.
>
> The text guides the reader's interperative leaps; the author supplies
> the text but the reader decides when to jump.
The author doesn't "supply" the text, like the milkman supplies the
milk. He /creates/ the text. (We've been through this before, though.)
> btw if you ever asked Peret what his poetry meant he'd probably have
> spat at you.
How very civilized of him.
>> If the latter, you've gone mad.
>
> You don't think reading Beowulf could help you understand other poems?
> Remember that no piece of literature can exist on its own. [etc.]
Well, as I say above, this is only true in a very general sense,
especially if you have a holistic view of knowledge. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but wouldn't reading "Communication Vessels" help more with my
understanding of "From the Hidden Storehouse" than reading "Beowulf"
would? (If you could only read one, say, which would be more helpful?)
Mark.
Aidan Tynan
>>
>> Cut-ups are meant to put a stop to such questions. A found poem
>> doesn't have an author, it consists of readymade material, so there
>> wouldn't be anyone to ask.
>
>What's a cut-up?
Invented by Gyson; basically a text's coherence is subverted by cutting up
the page and randomly reassembling. This by-passes certain dominanting
apparatuses of mind, which Burroughs called the word-lines. By cutting these
lines, one can bypass the ordering process and liberate the text (which
Burroughs considered viral). If you want to experiment with this procedure
yourself there are plenty of cut-up machines on line.
>And of course a found poem has an author.
Perhaps the author is an anonymous credit card company or graffiti artist.
Who authored Fountain? Is single authorship even possible (my opinion is
no). Anyway, found poems overturn the notion that poems *have* to one, or
any, author, or that single authored objects/poems are even possible.
That's
>the point. Poems don't just appear; they are written.
pretty lame point. how does this attitude sound when we recall Benjamin and
methods of mechanical reproduction? many contemporary (visual) artists are
exploring the idea of multi-vocality. Duchamp was doing it with readymades
eighty years ago.
>
>> Have you read Walter Pater's / Yeats's Mona Lisa?
>
>No.
Yeats 'found' Pater's text, which was written as a prose article in a
newspaper, and 'turned' it into a poem. The poem has two authors. It's the
first modernist poem, according to WBY. I'd copy and paste it, but it's easy
enough to find in a search engine.
>
>>> Funnily enough, I got started on the Irish Times' crossword,
>>
>> Yes, they're my favourites, I stick to the simplex though ...
>
>Ah, but that's not where the real challenge is to be had.
blah, criptics do my head in.
>>
>> Well, I *don't* think it's a good way of reading, so of course I'm
>> going to express that opinion.
>
>But why don't you think it's a good way of reading?
Haven't I made it clear? Jaysus!
As I've said, your
>view of how poetry should be read is very individual: each person gets
>from a poem whatever they want.
That's really doing injustice to what I mean. Again, I'll not go on much
longer about it, but I (sort of) condone an overturning of certain
semiological and hermenuetical biases. I've recently been looking at Hamlet
in university, and if you even scratch the surface of Hamlet criticism
you'll know what I'm talking about. All you have to do is watch the various
film versions of it. Compare Zaffereli's with Brannagh's, for example. There
are so many readings of Hamlet, from the Victorian morality drama, to
Derrida's spectropoetics, that it's amazing to think that we're dealing with
just one text here (but, of course, we're not, you have to look at what
texts *informed* those readings). Obviously, if you can't make your reading
make sense once applied to the text, it's probably not a good a one, so some
meanings are delegitimised by dint of their relevance/effectiveness; but the
'tyranny of the one meaning' (paul durcan's phrase) is something to be
avoided on all levels. The avoidance of such a tyranny would require a
deprioritising of the author's own intention, which is, of course, all
related to the various critical movements that have come about since the
fifties, from new criticism to post-structuralism.
>Mine is just a particular case of that.
Well, it's not, because you intentionally submit yourself to another's
interperation (no matter how bad or implausible) simply because of his/her
status as author.
>>
>> What links them is that they're both Surrealist works.
>
>Well, you can read them as Surrealist works if you like.
That's a bathetic argument: it would be hard to put together a credible
non-surrealist reading of them, but my Surrealist reading links them, it's a
reading shared by many so YES this is because the authors *intended* them to
be Surrealistic, but that's not what I'm debating. I'm talking about the
level of hermenuetics and semliology and interperetation ...
But the only
>thing that conclusively nails them down as Surrealist works is the fact
>that their authors were both Surrealists.
Do Surrealist's spring from the forehead of Zeus, or something? Surrealists
are Surrealists because they write Surrealist texts. Hence, the texts link
them. You cut my point about Pere Ubu and Maldoror, which are both
Surrealist texts but neither's authors were Surrealists.
>> Of course, maybe to a lesser extent, but reading one thing will
>> always help you to understand something else.
>
>Only in a very, very general sense
Are you forgetting about intertextuality? Remember: all reading is
rereading.
- and I don't believe your original
>example is that general. In fact, it's specific. In your example, one
>text will be particularly helpful in understanding the other because
>both of their authors were part of the same movement.
First: Surrealism was not a movement. Second, the texts are linked because
they are both Surrealist works. If Breton and Peret were conjoined twins
they could have written entirely different books but had a lot in common (eg
they shared the same gall bladder). I don't care what the authors had in
common, only in what the texts have in common. If the authors have something
in common by dint of their texts, then so be it, but it's not relevant to
me.
>> The text guides the reader's interperative leaps; the author supplies
>> the text but the reader decides when to jump.
>
>The author doesn't "supply" the text, like the milkman supplies the
>milk. He /creates/ the text. (We've been through this before, though.)
Did Eliot come up with the begining of the Wasteland all on his own?
all texts are intertexts.
>> You don't think reading Beowulf could help you understand other poems?
>> Remember that no piece of literature can exist on its own. [etc.]
>
>Well, as I say above, this is only true in a very general sense,
>especially if you have a holistic view of knowledge. Correct me if I'm
>wrong, but wouldn't reading "Communication Vessels" help more with my
>understanding of "From the Hidden Storehouse" than reading "Beowulf"
>would? (If you could only read one, say, which would be more helpful?)
Helpful how? CV is not poetry, Beowulf and FTHS *are*. If you wanted to
study line breaks, reading CV would not help you, but Beowulf would. If
you're interested in Surrealism, then you should probably read Surrealist
texts.
However, I don't usually answer strictly hypothetical questions such as
these since they are kind of pointless and extreme.
Now, I think, I will quit this thread and leave you to figure out what Pound
had on his mind when he wrote the Cantos ... thanks for the discussion! (I
hope to see some of your poetry soon, btw)
-Aidan
>
>Mark.
Mark Thakkar
> Now, I think, I will quit this thread and leave you to figure out
> what Pound had on his mind when he wrote the Cantos ... thanks for
> the discussion!
Likewise - it's been interesting. When I've got some time on my hands
I'll try to look up some of these characters you keep referring to.
> (I hope to see some of your poetry soon, btw)
I've not written anything for ages, for one reason or another. It's
never much good, anyhow. I'll stick to setting crosswords... ;-)
Mark.