The Three Signs of Bad Poetry
Robert
be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
1) Using i instead of I
2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
3) A preface from the author of the poem.
--
"I saw her today at the reception."
--- M. Jagger
Buff Lee
please explain what's wrong with using lower case letters. some of us
prefer to type that way - period.
and what exactly do *you* consider a "Big Question" - especially in light
of the fact that you added a trademark symbol after it.
Fernando Llorente
>
>Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
>be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
>
>1) Using i instead of I
>2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
>3) A preface from the author of the poem.
>
>
>--
>"I saw her today at the reception."
> --- M. Jagger
. . and here are a few lines by E. E. Cummings,
one of my favorites . . .
'what if a dawn of a dream
bites this Universe in two,
peels forever out of his grave
and sprinkles nowhere with me and you?'
- E. E. Cummings (What If A Much Of A Which Of A Wind)
'(i do not know what it is about you that closes
and opens; only something in me understands
the voice of your eyes is deeper than all roses)
nobody, not even the rain has such small hands'
- E. E. Cummings (Somewhere I Have Never Travelled, Gladly Beyond)
Regards,
Max
Mick
feelings and deeper meanings that the artist is trying to articulate.
often when i commune with nature, i realize how minute, fragile and
temporary my existence truely is. it is then that i realize my true self,
and for a little while lift the veil of ego identified with I:)
Exclamation marks! What exclamation marks? tm:)
Peace,
Mick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People under delusion accumulate tainted merits, but do not tread the path.
- Hui Neng.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 12 Jan 1996, Robert wrote:
loa
> >be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
> >1) Using i instead of I
> >2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
> >3) A preface from the author of the poem.
i don't agree w/number one for obvious reasons. instead, i would
substitute, "rhyming 'end' with 'friend' or vice versa."
loa
who will see that rhyming pair and often stop reading on principle
Buff Lee
> In <30F75F...@ares.csd.net> Robert <rs...@ares.csd.net> writes:
> >
> >Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
> >be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
> >
> >1) Using i instead of I
> >2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
> >3) A preface from the author of the poem.
> >
> >
>
> while i'm sure i'm guilty of occasional bad poetry, it has nothing to
> do with my lower-case "i." this is a tradition that results from the
> days when the only computer i could get didn't even HAVE lower case, so
> when i logged into the local system, it automatically shifted my
> all-upper-case text (mercifully) into all-lower-case. when i upgraded
> and discovered what had been happening for over two years, i decided to
> continue in mainly lower case, so i wouldn't skeer the hosses.
>
> question marks? you talkin' to ME?!?
>
> the following bit of awful doggerel is about a guy who done be dissin'
> on my lower-case homeys:
>
> i like to type in lower case
> and punch guys named Bob in the face.
> curb-stomp the punk and he'll pipe down.
> flush the lavvy, make him drown.
> why the hell not?????
>
> -fries ;-)
HAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAhahahha! thank you, Alison!
@pennet.net bestfam
>Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
>be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
>
>1) Using i instead of I
>2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
>3) A preface from the author of the poem.
what the hell's wrong with using 'i' instead of 'I'?
capital letters look harsh and humbleness is a virtue
besides, a certain mr. cummings used 'i' all the time...
it gives a certain EMPHASIS to words you MEAN...insted of just
writing in a certain style for the sake of conformity.
~i~ rather like writing bad poetry, thank you.
~sarah~
smu...@pennet.net
jen harvey
Don't be such a goon. e.e. cummings used "i." And i use "i," and i have
never been accused of writing Bad Poetry. i take personal offense.
Although i agree about "the Big Questions," as clichees tend to yield
really horrid poetry.
jen
On Fri, 12 Jan 1996, Robert wrote:
> Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
> be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
>
> 1) Using i instead of I
> 2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
> 3) A preface from the author of the poem.
>
>
> --
> "I saw her today at the reception."
> --- M. Jagger
>
>
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\ /\ /
/ http://www.eccnet.com/~jen \/ jha...@gl.umbc.edu \
\ /\ j...@eccnet.com /
/ \/ \
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Bruce Tindall
>Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
>be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
>3) A preface from the author of the poem.
Traditional Chinese poems often contain prefaces
longer than the poems themselves; many such are considered
classics, not Bad Poetry, within their own traditions.
The traditional Chinese preface usually gives time, place,
narrative background, etc. Such prefaces often serve not only
a literary purpose, to illuminate the poem's text, but also
are useful to historians today. See, e.g., the 60-line preface
to the 26-line "Ode in Praise of Auspicious Melons" by the
first Ming emperor, Ming Taizu. Not that that's considered
an especially classic poem itself.
Robert is probably right about contemporary poetry not in
the Chinese tradition, though, especially when the preface
explains (as another poster put it) the poet's "feelings and
emotions." Seems to me the poem itself ought to do that.
dan graves
since feeling is first
who pays any attention
to the syntax of things
will never wholly kiss you;
wholly to be a fool
while Spring is in the world
my blood approves,
and kisses are a better fate
than wisdom
lady i swear by all flowers. Don't cry
--the best gesture of my brain is less than
your eyelids' flutter which says
we are for each other:then
laugh,leaning back in my arms
for life's not a paragraph
And death i think is no parenthesis
eecummings
--
________________________________________________
Never trust a naked busdriver. _|-|--_
http://cfd.ME.Berkeley.EDU/~dan (_| | (_)
------------------------------------------------|
Bev
Andrew S. Damick <asda...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>In rec.arts.poems, bestfam (bes...@pennet.net) wrote:
>: capital letters look harsh and humbleness is a virtue
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>An opinion and a religion. Gwarsh, I thought those were banned on RAP.
Depends on your opinion and your religion, near as I can tell.
--
-=*=-[wedn...@tezcat.com -is- w e d n e s d a y -is- beverley r. white]
[http://www.tezcat.com/~wednsday/] [And I, my Lord -- may I say nothing?]
-=*=- [Reluctant to find she's stuck in the nineties again...] --=*==*=--
Dave W. Mitchell
> In article <30F75F...@ares.csd.net>, Robert <rs...@ares.csd.net> wrote:
> >Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
> >be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
> ...
I've always thought
The three signs of bad poetry
Are VACANCY, FOR SALE, and
RESTRICTED ADMISSION.
Zita Maria Evensen
actually, four, dave.
you have to include a pile of rejection slips :)
l'chaim!
/z.
Peacekeeper
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960113...@nic.cerf.net>,
> apa...@nic.cerf.net says...
> >
> >I appreciate a preface to a poem. It gives me some idea of the
> emotions,
> >feelings and deeper meanings that the artist is trying to articulate.
>
> I have to ask this...why does a poem HAVE to articulate emotions and
> deeper feelings? Why can't it just be what it is? I seem to recall
> someone telling a story about a famous poet who was asked what the line
> "Lady, two leapords lie under the juniper tree." meant. He said it
> means "Lady, two leapords lie under the juniper tree." Freud was asked
> what his smoking cigars symbolized. He replied "Sometimes a cigar is
> just a cigar." Two examples of people who knew how to answer those
> suffering from English-majoritis.
>
> Sorry, I'll stop ranting now... : )
>
> Larry
>
Another good example is probably William Carlos Williams & his poem which
begins, "So much depends/on a red wheelbarrow"
I'm quite sure it has no deeper meaning.
In fact, I'm quite sure it's intended to mean basically nothing at all
beyond the words of the poem itself, of which there are few.
SUZANNE FORTIN
Beware, I am going to make a value judgement here. <Gasp of horror from
the crowd>.
While I agree that William Carlos Williams' wheelbarrow poem can be
considered cute, I submit that those which uplift us to higher realms of
the spirit are much more desirable. I think many people tire of trying to
look for meaning because they can't find it, or fear subscribing to it,
so they just write whatever. Which is okay. But it remains . . .
whatever.
I feel that poems which exercise our soul's faculties are of more value
because they exercise what is most human about us. And when we see what
is truest about us, we are closer to God. But that's just a theist's opinion.
************************************************************************
Suzanne Fortin |
history major | Editor of *Minerva* a diminutive e-mail zine
Laval University | of poetry and opinion. The Winter 1996 issue
Ste-Foy, PQ, Canada | is out. E-mail me for a free copy. Submission
| guidelines included.
aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca|
*************************************************************************
You were once a fetus
*************************************************************************
Tim Blackwell
> > In <30F75F...@ares.csd.net> Robert <rs...@ares.csd.net> writes:
> > >Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
> > >be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
> > >1) Using i instead of I
> > >2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
> > >3) A preface from the author of the poem.
>
> i don't agree w/number one for obvious reasons. instead, i would
> substitute, "rhyming 'end' with 'friend' or vice versa."
>
> loa
> who will see that rhyming pair and often stop reading on principle
hmmm
1) Typographical ticks in general don't bother me, except where they
obscure without adding interest. Lots of good poetry uses lower case
throughout.
2) One of my favourite books is called "what does it all mean ?", though
admittedly it's not exactly poetry.
3) Yeah, autobiographical prefaces really bug me -- it's the ultra
literal minded i-ve-lived-it-so-it-must-be-good
you-can't-write-about-what-you-haven't-experienced
mentality. Poems should stand up on their own account. They shouldn't
need a "made in suffering" label.
1(loa's sub). A cliche is typically a demagnetized truth, and a cliched
effect a blunted tool. But I believe that almost any cliche can be
revitalised by its context. And I will use any effect I like to say what
I want to say. OTOH it is true that the blindingly obvious effect will
more than likely signal a boring poem.
I also think that people trying to proscribe particular poetic effects or
strategies are usually wanting to define and/or impose procedures for
determining whether a particular text is or is not a poem. Which is
(a) dull &
(b) doomed
tim (a mass of prejudices himself, of course)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
she is winters's child
she belongs to the moon
she is winter's child
from july to june
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WaldenPoet
shut the fuck up and write!!!
i wish you could understand that it isn't how you write it down it's what
you write..
everyone is so goddamned worried about appearences and this and that and
all the other idiotic sissy whines.. you are either a writer or a talker..
m.s.waldon
Buff Lee
SIR, yesSIR!!! <standing at attention>
hehhehehhehe
Claudio Lucciola
-Claudio
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
We are born, so to speak, provisionally, it doesn't matter where. It is only
gradually that we compose within ourselves our true place of origin so that we
may be born there retrospectively and each day more definitely. - Rilke
http://www.afn.org:80/~afn24471/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Saileran
Gawd! More useless banter between AOL lightweights.
The debate of Naturalism versus Modernism in poetry may be too
weighty an issue for retards whose faulty selective judgement
urges them to post broken-sentenced Rants and cliched military
mischaracterizations. Not that they could possibly know the
difference. Poor fools.
The whole free-love free-verse free-form thing arose as a
reaction against the Age of Reason. Wordsworth, Yeats, Blake,
Coleridge et al., all these contributed to the notion of
poetry as prophesy, that the natural world was a better
teacher of Man (sic) than Man herself. (can't ever resist that)
Post-Modernism is a sterile, stainless, flashy recounting of the
paranoic reaction against the all-knowing eye of the new World
Order. In literature, Vox, Necromancer etc. In cinema, Nixon,
JFK and nothing else worth much either.
Post-modern poetry as art is all but dead.
--
____________________________________1/96______________________________________
Why must euphoric dreams then die | Perhaps the meaning lies in light
When fantasies have just begun? | Or in that great undying sun.
_______________...@silver.indiana.ucs.edu________________________
Dallas
> I feel that poems which exercise our soul's faculties are of more value
> because they exercise what is most human about us. And when we see what
> is truest about us, we are closer to God. But that's just a theist's opinion.
>
> ************************************************************************
> Suzanne Fortin |
I strongly agree with you on this. Except the part about god. I would say
it brings us closer to our true selves, but I wont get into that it
dosen't belong in this forum.
-Dallas
D. B. LeBeau
>In <30F75F...@ares.csd.net> Robert <rs...@ares.csd.net> writes:
>>Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
>>be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
>>1) Using i instead of I
>>2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
>>3) A preface from the author of the poem.
>>
>while i'm sure i'm guilty of occasional bad poetry, it has nothing to
>do with my lower-case "i."
>
>question marks? you talkin' to ME?!?
>
>the following bit of awful doggerel is about a guy who done be dissin'
>on my lower-case homeys:
>i like to type in lower case
>and punch guys named Bob in the face.
>curb-stomp the punk and he'll pipe down.
>flush the lavvy, make him drown.
>why the hell not?????
>
that piece of awful doggerel gave me more laugh than i've
had reading rap in a week. never thought i'd see
"curb-stomp" used for poetic *or* comedic effect,
much less both.
:)
D B LeBeau
My default signature file.
Fort Wayne Internet
219-426-7701
sa...@fwi.com
Karen Tellefsen
: In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96011...@agora.ulaval.ca>,
: aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca says...
: >
:
: Why? What if I don't want to be uplifted? What if, instead, I just
: want to be entertained? Why should those who wish to browbeat me into
: enlightenment be exhalted, while those who tell me a story, or make me
: laugh be thought of as "quaint" and more viciously, "hacks"?
:
:
Nothing wrong with poetry that entertains, I read and
write light verse myself. However, light verse does
not have to be formal to work.
:
:
: Karmamaster? I dunno...I enjoy poetry that has deep meaning, provided
: it doesn't build a clock when all I want to know is the time. But
: given the choice, I will still read Housman, Poe, Kipling, Seuss, and
: Service before Angelou, Polis Shultz, McKuen, Frost, Whitman, or any of
: the other free verse ne'er do wells....
:
Since when did Frost write free verse? His poetry is metered,
though not always rhymed.
Something about the poets you favor though,
their poetry works well when read aloud, it is either dramatic
or humorous. You probably don't like the quietness in Frost's
poetry. It's also curious that you lumped him where you did.
None of the other ne'er do wells write with elegance or
understated emotion that Frost did. Those other guys all
wear their heart on their sleeve.
--
Karen Tellefsen
k...@ritz.mordor.com
Home Page - http://www.mordor.com/kat/karen.html
SUZANNE FORTIN
On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Larry Blankenship wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96011...@agora.ulaval.ca>,
> aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca says...
>
> Why? What if I don't want to be uplifted? What if, instead, I just
> want to be entertained? Why should those who wish to browbeat me into
> enlightenment be exhalted, while those who tell me a story, or make me
> laugh be thought of as "quaint" and more viciously, "hacks"?
Entertainment is good. Enlightenment is even better. It feeds the soul,
while entertainment just tickles it.
> Many people tire of being forced to look for meaning or to put deeper
> meaning into things that don't necessarily need them, myself included.
> All I'm trying to say here is that there should be just as much room
> for fun as there is for everything else. I don't need someone to tell
> me what the meaning is in my life. I don't particularly feel a moral
> imperitive to shove it down anyone else's throat. So what is wrong
> with that?
No problem. But I feel it's a lower aspiration than presenting a vision
of the world.
> And how exactly do you exercise your soul's facilities?
<chuckle> I said "faculties".
> Make it do
> aerobics? Run on a little treadmill? Or maybe you picked up a
> Karmamaster? I dunno...I enjoy poetry that has deep meaning, provided
> it doesn't build a clock when all I want to know is the time.
That's the problem though: why don't you want to be confronted with the
building of the clock? You don't wish to experience anything outside your
realm of experience in poetry? Why do you want the poem to give you what
you want, rather than try to see what it has to offer?
I think that's a symptom of the entertainment mindset. It wants its little
kick, just as long as it doesn't have to think about it too much. I
suppose you don't want your soul to be pushed out of its lethargy. Well,
it's your life.
> But
> given the choice, I will still read Housman, Poe, Kipling, Seuss, and
> Service before Angelou, Polis Shultz, McKuen, Frost, Whitman, or any of
> the other free verse ne'er do wells....
Robert Frost never wrote in free verse . . . (To my knowledge).
Bev
WaldenPoet <walde...@aol.com> wrote:
>i wish you could understand that it isn't how you write it down it's what
>you write..
Not entirely true. If I were to write the most important thing in the world,
if I screwed up its conveyance and it bit, it wouldn't make a lick of
difference to the universe.
True, it's not all in appearances, and forms are not necessarily the be-all
end-all of existence -- but an undisciplined splotch of goo doesn't cut nearly
so sharply as a knife.
>everyone is so goddamned worried about appearences and this and that and
>all the other idiotic sissy whines.. you are either a writer or a talker..
Ideally, you're saying something either way, no?
-- Bev
--
[wedn...@tezcat.com -is- w e d n e s d a y -is- stuck in the '90s again]
Confiteor Deo omnipotenti vobis fratres, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione,
verbo, opere et omissione, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...
K.S.Hodges
On Mon, 15 Jan 1996, Peacekeeper wrote:
> Another good example is probably William Carlos Williams & his poem which
> begins, "So much depends/on a red wheelbarrow"
> I'm quite sure it has no deeper meaning.
> In fact, I'm quite sure it's intended to mean basically nothing at all
> beyond the words of the poem itself, of which there are few.
| Beware, I am going to make a value judgement here. <Gasp of horror from
| the crowd>.
| While I agree that William Carlos Williams' wheelbarrow poem can be
| considered cute, I submit that those which uplift us to higher realms of
| the spirit are much more desirable. I think many people tire of trying to
| look for meaning because they can't find it, or fear subscribing to it,
| so they just write whatever. Which is okay. But it remains . . .
| whatever.
| I feel that poems which exercise our soul's faculties are of more value
| because they exercise what is most human about us. And when we see what
| is truest about us, we are closer to God. But that's just a theist's
opinion.
| Suzanne Fortin |
The direct statement of abstracts and principles can lead to some of the
worst examples of preachy vague poetry. Or overblown writing. There can
be another sort of 'exercise of the soul's faculties' which comes from
simply seeing things as they are. Noticing clearly.
I tend to prefer poems that rely on objects, images or stories to get
their message across. For many of us, our writing will improve by simply
removing many of the words and lines that express the writer's opinion
directly. These often are an interference in the poem, the dull sound
that spoils the effect.
A poem that makes us see may indeed be exercising what is most human
about us.
- Kim
--
sanren-sei: the star point opening
never fight the flower-viewing ko
K.S.Hodges -=- A Small Garlic Press -=- sanr...@teleport.com
-=- http://www.mcs.net/~marek -=-
Larry Blankenship
says...
>
>God you all sound like a bunch of critics or assholes and not
writers,...
>
>shut the fuck up and write!!!
>
>
>m.s.waldon
It must be wonderful to be as articulate as you are....must be hard
speaking English as a second language, huh? Oh well, I guess you can
always go back and repeat kindergarten again so you can learn how to
play well with others......
cOrNfLaKe GrRrL
: 1) Using i instead of I
hey! :( i write in small letters all the time!
it runs far deeper than some lazy attempt at not
the shift key! if i were to start writing *properly*
here, i would continue to leave my "i" small.
cOrNfLaKe *******************************************
* "The story runs deeper than you know...and you are *
* part of it." -The Wisest of the Mystics (D.C.) *
******************************************************
Russ Costa
>
> Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
> be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
>
> 3) A preface from the author of the poem.
>
>
> "I saw her today at the reception."
> --- M. Jagger
First of all I don't think that there can be any rigid criteria
for bad poetry just as there can't be for good poetry. In
particular your first sign really shows just how ignorant you
really are!! Have you ever heard of E.E. Cummings? Maybe you should
read a few of his poems and see just how powerful using an "i"
instead of an "I" can be. Open your mind and you may be amazed at
what could happen.
RC
Larry Blankenship
>while entertainment just tickles it.
But why do I need to be browbeaten into enlightenment? I'm quite capable of
finding my own in my own good time. Frankly, if I have to be pushed into
enlightenment, I'm not ready for it. In this respect you seem to be no
better than those obnoxious folks of every religious stripe who believe
themselves to be a little better than everyone else because they've found
something that works for them, so it should work for everyone else too...
>
>No problem. But I feel it's a lower aspiration than presenting a vision
>of the world.
Why? Don't the great storytellers present a vision of the world? Perhaps
they aren't as occupied with appearing to have a handle on some great truth,
but then I think that makes the truths they do pass on to be that much more
valuable and insightful. I recall reading Aristophene's Lysistrata (forgive
my spelling) in college. For those of you not familiar with the play, it's
a comedy about the women of Athens cutting their men off until they stop
fighting with a neighboring city-state. It's a very bawdy comedy and very
funny. I doubt very much that good ol' Aristophenes, who was one of the
leading lights of ancient greek comedy in my book, had any intention of
making deep statements about the relationship of men and women. He was
going for a laugh. He does bring up some interesting points for discussion,
but they are secondary to the plot and to the jokes. Entertainment, in my
mind, succeeds in enlightening people when they don't KNOW they're being
enlightened. What most of the folks that want to shove enlightenment down
our collective throats seem to miss is that they are being terribly terribly
obvious and pretensious and tedious. Please stop. You're failing at the
very thing you wish so badly to succeed at. And yes I did end my sentence
with a preposition. This is something up with which you should not put.
>
>> And how exactly do you exercise your soul's facilities?
>
><chuckle> I said "faculties".
forgive me, my eyes aren't as good as they used to be...but now that you
mention it...perhaps faculties is an even more revealing Freudian
slip...since only the folks that have been locked away in academia seem to
think that the overwrought dreck that accounts for a great deal of the small
magazine press is actually of any great artistic value. Yes, I'm a
Phillistine, and proud of it.
>That's the problem though: why don't you want to be confronted with the
>building of the clock? You don't wish to experience anything outside your
>realm of experience in poetry? Why do you want the poem to give you what
>you want, rather than try to see what it has to offer?
Because if a poem builds the clock for me, what's left for me to do? I much
prefer poetry which challenges me. This is why less is more, in poetry. I
have read things that greatly challenged me because they did not fill in all
the blanks. They allowed me to become part of the poem by involving my
imagination, by letting me participate. Good fiction does this all the
time. If you give the reader everything, what can they give back? If I
offered you enlightenment on a silver platter and said "take it, it's
yours." would it be as satisfying as if you had to put something into it?
I would hope not.
>I think that's a symptom of the entertainment mindset. It wants its little
>kick, just as long as it doesn't have to think about it too much. I
>suppose you don't want your soul to be pushed out of its lethargy. Well,
>it's your life.
>
But my soul is pushed out of its lethargy, as you put it, all the time. But
it's me doing the pushing. I can push by myself. I don't neccesarily need
your help, and if I want it, I'll ask for it. Being a Taoist and having a
great appreciation of Zen as I do, it seems to me that most of the
techniques used in the Zen tradition have very little to do with pushing
people towards enlightenment. Rather the seeker is expected to make the
effort themselves. If you read many Zen koans, such as "Does a dog have
Buddha nature. The answer: "Mu!" you will notice that nothing in that
statement can even remotely be implied to be about enlightenment. But it is
in the struggle for understanding that brings enlightenment.
When I write verse, I generally write to entertain. Sometimes I do make
commentary in my verse. But usually it is up to the reader to figure out
what I am getting at, not to me to push it upon him. My poem Hunting Season
is about two hicks shooting candidates. Now I could have saved myself a lot
of work by just saying "Politicians are stupid and deserve to be shot." But
it would not have entertained, nor would it have gotten my point across
nearly as well as the satirical approach I did take.
>> But
>> given the choice, I will still read Housman, Poe, Kipling, Seuss, and
>> Service before Angelou, Polis Shultz, McKuen, Frost, Whitman, or any of
>> the other free verse ne'er do wells....
>
>Robert Frost never wrote in free verse . . . (To my knowledge).
Oh dear, I seem to have made an error. To Mr. Frost, whose soul is
hopefully somewhere which does not admit English majors...I apologize for
lumping you in with "that" crowd. For in fact, now that I think of it, I
liked a lot of your stuff. The rest of my criticisms, concerns, whatever,
stand.
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Larry Blankenship
bla...@pionet.net
The Poet's Corner and Voices from the Fringe
http://elwood.pionet.net/~blankel
Soon to come: The Versifyer's Source Book
SUZANNE FORTIN
On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Larry Blankenship wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96011...@agora.ulaval.ca>,
> aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca says...
> >
>
> But why do I need to be browbeaten into enlightenment? I'm quite capable of
> finding my own in my own good time. Frankly, if I have to be pushed into
> enlightenment, I'm not ready for it.
Nobody is browbeating you into anything. It's up to *you*. When you read,
you read it how you want/can. When you write, you write how you want/can.
If you don't want enlightenment, nobody's going to make you enlightened
except yourself. If you don't want to enlighten readers, same thing.
However, I believe uplifting/enlightenment is a higher vocation than
entertainment for a poem.
> In this respect you seem to be no
> better than those obnoxious folks of every religious stripe who believe
> themselves to be a little better than everyone else because they've found
> something that works for them, so it should work for everyone else too...
Yes, I do believe in universal truths, and yes I believe that
enlightenment is better than entertainment, though both can be desirable.
As for how this is achieved, this is somewhat of a subjective matter,
though because I believe in the universality of human nature, I believe
that certain techniques will be quasi-universal.
> >No problem. But I feel it's a lower aspiration than presenting a vision
> >of the world.
>
> Why? Don't the great storytellers present a vision of the world?
Sure! But they entertain *and* enlighten.
> Perhaps
> they aren't as occupied with appearing to have a handle on some great truth,
> but then I think that makes the truths they do pass on to be that much more
> valuable and insightful.
Could be. Sometimes I'm not too occupied with presenting some kernel of
truth: it just happens to come out.
> I recall reading Aristophene's Lysistrata (forgive
> my spelling) in college. For those of you not familiar with the play, it's
> a comedy about the women of Athens cutting their men off until they stop
> fighting with a neighboring city-state. It's a very bawdy comedy and very
> funny. I doubt very much that good ol' Aristophenes, who was one of the
> leading lights of ancient greek comedy in my book, had any intention of
> making deep statements about the relationship of men and women. He was
> going for a laugh. He does bring up some interesting points for discussion,
> but they are secondary to the plot and to the jokes.
However, I think his work is enlightening. Perhaps he didn't really mean
to talk about the stupidity of war, but his beliefs shaped his work.
> Entertainment, in my
> mind, succeeds in enlightening people when they don't KNOW they're being
> enlightened.
Not necessarily. I know Shakespeare is enlightening, but I can enjoy it
anyway.
> What most of the folks that want to shove enlightenment down
> our collective throats seem to miss is that they are being terribly terribly
> obvious and pretensious and tedious.
I made a value judgement. I feel enlightenment is more desirable than
entertainment. I said entertainment is okay. If you want entertainment,
fine. I'm just saying enlightenment is better. Who's shoving?
And anyway, it seems that most authors had some notion that they were
presenting a vision of the world in their works. I suspect that they knew
that they were conveying some of their ideas. I don't think they were
being obvious, pretentious or tedious. Emily Dickenson comes to mind. I
don't think she was either of the three.
> Please stop. You're failing at the
> very thing you wish so badly to succeed at.
Well, I can't enlighten a person not ready to listen. :-)
> And yes I did end my sentence
> with a preposition. This is something up with which you should not put.
My goodness you're defensive.
> since only the folks that have been locked away in academia seem to
> think that the overwrought dreck that accounts for a great deal of the small
> magazine press is actually of any great artistic value. Yes, I'm a
> Phillistine, and proud of it.
Actually, many profs and editors read the small press because that's
where a lot of innovation goes on.
> >That's the problem though: why don't you want to be confronted with the
> >building of the clock? You don't wish to experience anything outside your
> >realm of experience in poetry? Why do you want the poem to give you what
> >you want, rather than try to see what it has to offer?
>
> Because if a poem builds the clock for me, what's left for me to do? I much
> prefer poetry which challenges me.
Funny, in the first sentence, you answered in the negative, and in the
second, you answered in the affirmative.
> This is why less is more, in poetry. I
> have read things that greatly challenged me because they did not fill in all
> the blanks. They allowed me to become part of the poem by involving my
> imagination, by letting me participate. Good fiction does this all the
> time. If you give the reader everything, what can they give back?
Writers *offer* their visions of their world in their writing. They are
not necessarily giving all the answers: just a vision, a concept, a
theory, a series of values. You take what you want. It's by being a
particpatory reader that this vision is absorbed.
> >I think that's a symptom of the entertainment mindset. It wants its little
> >kick, just as long as it doesn't have to think about it too much. I
> >suppose you don't want your soul to be pushed out of its lethargy. Well,
> >it's your life.
> >
> But my soul is pushed out of its lethargy, as you put it, all the time. But
> it's me doing the pushing. I can push by myself. I don't neccesarily need
> your help, and if I want it, I'll ask for it. Being a Taoist and having a
> great appreciation of Zen as I do, it seems to me that most of the
> techniques used in the Zen tradition have very little to do with pushing
> people towards enlightenment. Rather the seeker is expected to make the
> effort themselves. If you read many Zen koans, such as "Does a dog have
> Buddha nature. The answer: "Mu!" you will notice that nothing in that
> statement can even remotely be implied to be about enlightenment. But it is
> in the struggle for understanding that brings enlightenment.
>
> When I write verse, I generally write to entertain. Sometimes I do make
> commentary in my verse. But usually it is up to the reader to figure out
> what I am getting at, not to me to push it upon him. My poem Hunting Season
> is about two hicks shooting candidates. Now I could have saved myself a lot
> of work by just saying "Politicians are stupid and deserve to be shot." But
> it would not have entertained, nor would it have gotten my point across
> nearly as well as the satirical approach I did take.
Wait-- you don't want to push people into enlightenment, but you offer a
preface to explain the poem, and then you praise participatory reading.
Doesn't that strike you as contradictory?
> >Robert Frost never wrote in free verse . . . (To my knowledge).
>
> Oh dear, I seem to have made an error. To Mr. Frost, whose soul is
> hopefully somewhere which does not admit English majors...I apologize for
> lumping you in with "that" crowd. For in fact, now that I think of it, I
> liked a lot of your stuff. The rest of my criticisms, concerns, whatever,
> stand.
I'm glad you liked my poetry and were (I suspect) entertained by it. I
just hope you derived some greater insight into the world. If not, oh well.
Tim Love
>On Fri, 12 Jan 1996, Robert wrote:
>> Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
>> be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
>>
>> 1) Using i instead of I
>> 2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
>> 3) A preface from the author of the poem.
>>
>Robert, I think your characterizations are so incredibly superficial that
>they just unmask you as a fake. (I hope not, but hey, I only go by the
>evidence) Lots of good poems, as many have mentioned, are written in
>lower case letters; I don't know what the deal with is question marks,
>and even if the poet bothers to "explain" the poem, it does not
>automatically follow the poem will be bad.
I'm surprised that "Robert's" mail has provoked so much thoughtless
reaction. It's easy to find exceptions (even the original writer
only claimed that the signs "frequently indicate"). What's harder
is to suggest simple but surprisingly accurate predictors of bad
poetry. My suggestion is excessive use of "of" (as in "seeds of
oblivion", "clouds of despair").
m. worden
>:
>Since when did Frost write free verse? His poetry is metered,
>though not always rhymed.
He did write one bit of free verse. Played tennis w/ the net down
once at least.
SUZANNE FORTIN
On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Buff Lee wrote:
> On 16 Jan 1996, WaldenPoet wrote:
>
> > God you all sound like a bunch of critics or assholes and not writers,...
And you're not a critic?
> > shut the fuck up and write!!!
Why are you so paranoid about somebody posting an opinion? If it's
assinine, say *why* instead of just discarding it. Some of us are here to
learn and are glad to see people post opinions about writing.
> > i wish you could understand that it isn't how you write it down it's what
> > you write..
I disagree. And it's not just a matter of pedantry or anything like that.
I truly believe that how one write matters. Would you like to start a
discussion about it?
> > everyone is so goddamned worried about appearences and this and that and
> > all the other idiotic sissy whines.. you are either a writer or a talker..
Well, I guess I'm both. And it's not so much appearance that bothers me
as the quality of my writing as subjectively measured by its impact on a
certain class of educated people. I admit it: I'm an elitist when it
comes to poetry. I hope to write stuff that attains immortality. If not,
at least I'll have tried and had fun doing it.
Suzanne
Eric Thomas
> > Another good example is probably William Carlos Williams & his poem which
> > begins, "So much depends/on a red wheelbarrow"
> > I'm quite sure it has no deeper meaning.
> > In fact, I'm quite sure it's intended to mean basically nothing at all
> > beyond the words of the poem itself, of which there are few.
Hmm...actually, ~so much can depend~ on the observer. With only my own P.O.V,
I'd have thought that "The Red Wheelbarrow" painted a cute little picture and
that's it. My mother, on the other hand, who actually spent time on a farm,
once noted to me that in a rural setting of more dirt than money, a
wheelbarrow is in constant use and how much gets done really can depend on
having one.
--ET
SUZANNE FORTIN
On 17 Jan 1996, K.S.Hodges wrote:
>
> The direct statement of abstracts and principles can lead to some of the
> worst examples of preachy vague poetry. Or overblown writing.
I agree. However, when I say poets "present a vision", I mean they
consciously or unconsciously present some of their thoughts on life.
> There can
> be another sort of 'exercise of the soul's faculties' which comes from
> simply seeing things as they are. Noticing clearly.
Agreed.
> I tend to prefer poems that rely on objects, images or stories to get
> their message across. For many of us, our writing will improve by simply
> removing many of the words and lines that express the writer's opinion
> directly.
Jen Harvey is going to kill me but, I've always said it: show don't tell. >:)
Poems should be "Dumb/as old medaillons to the thumb" presenting "For all
the history of grief/an empty doorway and a maple leaf".
> A poem that makes us see may indeed be exercising what is most human
> about us.
Amen!!!!
Robert
1. Using i instead of I
Just because you use i doesn't make you E.E. Cummings. Just because
he used i didn't make him E.E. Cummings. He was a brilliant poet who happened
to have a distinctive habit of lower-casing the pronoun I. He also had
specific reason(s) for doing so. How many other poets can make that claim?
2. Question marks and the Big Question ?
This isn't to say that questions marks in and of themselves are an
indication of the dreaded BP, it's when they show up behind questions such as
What is Life? What is Love? What is...? Simply posing these questions,
pausing, and waiting for artistic effect produces that same sensation you get
watching the high school drama clique attempt to be profound.
3. Preface
"This is my first poem...", "This poem is meant to...", "This poem is
about..." This is setting the audience up in advance. It also indicates a
lack of confidance in your poetry. It's the hallmark of an artist who doesn't
really believe in their vision, or in their ability to communicate that
vision--therefore they have to explain it *prior* to presentation.
Observations, not advice.
Robert
--
"El que pierde la manana, pierde la tarde.
El que pierde la tarde, pierde la vida"
--proverbio
(Slacker Novelist by Day, Divine Poet by Night)
http://WWW.CSD.NET/~rsieg/st_james/st_james.htm
m. worden
>Robert <rs...@ares.csd.net> wrote:
>>
>> Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
>> be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
>>
>> 1) Using i instead of I
>> 2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
>> 3) A preface from the author of the poem.
>>
>>
>> --
>> "I saw her today at the reception."
>> --- M. Jagger
>First of all I don't think that there can be any rigid criteria
>for bad poetry just as there can't be for good poetry. In
>particular your first sign really shows just how ignorant you
>really are!! Have you ever heard of E.E. Cummings? Maybe you should
>read a few of his poems and see just how powerful using an "i"
>instead of an "I" can be. Open your mind and you may be amazed at
>what could happen.
>RC
1. De gustibus. Just because you or I think it's bad doesn't mean a
thing
2. Most poetry is bad.
3. But it's probably not as bad for you as politics or crabs.
Fernando Llorente
poem is
meant to be about
what this poem is about . . .
- i ask? -
i ask you why
a question I can't ask
What is Life? What is Love? What is...?
Why not?
What is life, do you know
What is love, do you know ???
What is . . . hey I know.
Life is asking what and why.
Love is asking . . . what?
and why is . . . (just above the title)
asking why i'm using I
instead of using what . . .
hey you don't really know?
do u ?
I ask . . .
ask me why i ask?
*** Max ***
i told you, you *asked* for it . . .
oh well, the point is
it is ok to 'i, why and because'
'damn this traffic jam, how I hate to be late.'
- James Taylor
In <3101D0...@ares.csd.net> Robert <rs...@ares.csd.net> writes>
Sharon Hopkins
Not having lived on a farm, I always had a different sort of take on
wheelbarrows...
hope is a red wheelbarrow
----------------------------
for working in the garden
pushing down the sidewalk
tipping in the sandbox
little red wheelbarrow
fisher-price wheelbarrow
plastic rake and plastic hoe
(plastic parents on the go)
come play with me!
come play with me!
come play with me!
Sharon Hopkins
April 1, 1991
Yikes, that's an old one. :-)
--Sharon Hopkins
sha...@sems.com
Kalera Stratton
-> Subject: Re: The Three Signs of Bad Poetry
->
-> 3. Preface
-> "This is my first poem...", "This poem is meant to...", "This poem is
-> about..." This is setting the audience up in advance. It also
-> indicates a lack of confidance in your poetry. It's the hallmark of
-> an artist who doesn't really believe in their vision, or in their
-> ability to communicate that vision--therefore they have to explain
-> it *prior* to presentation.
-> Observations, not advice.
Bah.
A comment before a poem might display lack of confidence or nervousness,
but it has zero relation to the quality of the poem. The best poet
might be nervous, and the worst poet might be cocksure. And often is,
for that matter.
A comment before a poem may also set the stage for their request for
c&c. If the poem is *not quite* getting across what the author wants it
to get across, setting up the poem's background may help others make
more constructive commentary than they would with nothing to go on.
In addition, it is a fairly old convention to do a little "set-up",
and while the pretentious art-for-art's-sake crowd may sneer upon it as
detracting from the intrinsic communication of the poem, I don't believe
that it necessarily does so.
My point is that you seemed to be pointing to a pre-poem comment as a
bad thing, and I don't believe that it is necessarily a bad thing.
Jan Mclaughlin
usually turn them around into statements. The poetry comes off better
that way--to my mind. I also question the use of the lower case 'i' and
lack of punctuation. I write first drafts in all lower case for speed.
What I've found, however, much as I like the lower case writing style, it
often doesn't survive the final draft, almost always because the pomes
are easier to negotiate with road signs.
Jan
The Untrousered Redneck
>
>> Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
>> be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
>>
>> 1) Using i instead of I
>> 2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
>> 3) A preface from the author of the poem.
Mmmm, a little shallow, peradventure.
Spotting bad poetry is much like spotting pornography - you just know it when
you see it...delight or disgust, then, are personal reactions...
Good poetry, touching poetry, on the other hand...
"...It's like watching a strip tease; don't ask how it works, just enjoy
what's coming off..."
Cary Grant, Operation Petticoat
________________________________________________________________________________
Network and Medical Information Systems Manager
Richland Memorial Hospital
The University of South Carolina School of Medicine
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine
CMO...@FPGW.RMH.EDU
WWW.PREVMED.SC.EDU/FP/CMOORE.HTM
Writer, Poet, and Couch Tater by trade, Systems Integrator by financial
need; educated by college, loved by friends, misunderstood by peers,
and Southern, by God.
_______________________________________________________________________________
My Opinions are probably my own...
Zadig
On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Carol or Jeremy Close wrote:
>
>
> Very surely very few
> Hug themselves with every move
>
>
>
>
>
> Fat Carol
>
> P.S
> Hey arent we being twonks?
> P.P.S
> The poem above has been published already
>
>
>
>
>
Twonks? Why?
Could it be i?
PS. What's a twonk?
-Claudio
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
We are born, so to speak, provisionally, it doesn't matter where. It is only
gradually that we compose within ourselves our true place of origin so that we
may be born there retrospectively and each day more definitely. - Rilke
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Sharon Hopkins
The first sign of bad poetry is when he doesn't call back
the second time.
The second sign is when you hack his system,
and his ex-girlfriend still has an active account.
The third sign,
that out-of-control sonnet urge,
don't give in!
You'll be history.
Sharon Hopkins
Jan. 22, 1996
sha...@sems.com, sha...@netlabs.com
maxking
SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> wrote:
>On 19 Jan 1996, maxking wrote:
>
>> SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> wrote:
I'm an elitist when it
>> >comes to poetry. I hope to write stuff that attains immortality.
>>
would touch people so that they would want to transmit it
>from generation to generation, whatever my political, social and
>religious biases.
>I must say, I haven't seen too many fifty dollar words in contemporary
>poetry (maybe I'm totally up a tree).
>When I do not understand a poem, I generally leave it aside without
>comment because I may not have understood what it was trying to do.
>However, the general impression I do get is, yes, obscurity is somewhat
>of a virtue.
>I don't feel that one has to use high-brow language and be an elitist.
>Like Eliot.
>People think that because I write for an educated audience that I am not
>writing for myself. I *like* "high-brow" and I do write to please myself
>first of all.
The
>> *universality* of poetry means just that, it appeals to almost everyone.
>> It can be related to by the front line laborer as well as the career
>> academic.
>
>I have to seriously disagree with you about universality meaning that it
>appeals to almost everyone. Some people are just not educated enough to
>appreciate Eliot. This does not mean it is not good.
>
>People think that art is something for the masses. It has rarely been.
>Poets of the past tended to write for their own social group. How could
>you expect an English labourer of the nineteenth century to understand the
>mythological references in Romantic poetry? While some poems can be
>appreciated at first reading, a certain amount of education does help one
>better appreciate poetic subtleties. High school students, for example,
>can appreciate poems on sight because generally speaking their reading
>skills are good enough. But because many do not have a good grounding in
>the Bible, mythology or history, a lot of it comes off as gibberish. But
>who's fault is that? Should a writer have think about all those
>people who do not have that education? No, he says: "I'll write what I'll
>like", which is shaped by his advanced education. This does not mean that
>the poems this poet writes are not universal. When understood properly,
>they may very well be because they speak of universal experiences or
>truths.
Good argumentive response, Suzanne . . . I still believe your 'elitist' point of view limits your
appreciation of volumes of excellent works by both contemporary and traditional poets. Many great
poets and many not so great have written *universal* truths into their works. This criteria itself
does not classify the work as *universally* appealing. Lets face it any work of poetry is limited by
the language it is written in (French, Latin, Sanskrit, Chinese, Dutch, etc.). The appeal of
expressing 'universal truth' in a poem, is as significant as the language it is expressed in. If the
language is obscure or esoteric, your audience will be limited, and no matter how 'universal' the
truth of the poem is, it will only be considered universally appealing to only to some.
On the other hand if you communicate your 'universal Truth' in a poem and employ very elemental,
yet creatively challenging language, you will surely discover a much more diversified audience.
Study the classics and you will live as a classic,
Look around you and study, you will live for today.
BUDDY OF MINE
You saved my life,
by walking just ahead of me.
Great leader honorably protecting me.
And now you cover me
Your mangled body landing on me, we lay
but I must push you now away
I take your place as leader of this day
I must move on, to my next friend I pray.
c. 1996 Max King
tba: po - n -et: a travelogue, (open it)
SUZANNE FORTIN
On 19 Jan 1996, maxking wrote:
> SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> wrote:
> And it's not so much appearance that bothers me
> >as the quality of my writing as subjectively measured by its impact on
> a certain class of educated people.I admit it: I'm an elitist when it
> >comes to poetry. I hope to write stuff that attains immortality.
>
> Personally I enjoy writing to a general audience. I don't
> particularly care for specialized socio-political targeting. At least
> not in my overall writing. I would think *immortality* would mean
> 'without partiality to economic, educational or ethnic class'.
What *I* meant by it, is something so damned good (admittedly I not there
yet) that it would touch people so that they would want to transmit it
from generation to generation, whatever my political, social and
religious biases.
> It seems to me that if you continually write for a specific
> audience, you will immortally be *stuck* there.
Not necessarily. The less than academic appreciate immortal poets despite
allusions of which they are not aware, historical references, etc. Take
Shakespeare. It's so simple, but there's a lot in it that perhaps
non-academic readers do not see.
> I have found that fifty
> dollar words and Longfellow/Wadsworth descriptives do no a poet make.
Amen. But then, I don't think I use fifty dollar words. Neither did Emily
Dickinson.
> Unfortunately, this is generally what modern publishers nourish.
I must say, I haven't seen too many fifty dollar words in contemporary
poetry (maybe I'm totally up a tree).
> A
> sophisticated rambling of cryptic redundancy that is stilted within its
> own time period.
When I do not understand a poem, I generally leave it aside without
comment because I may not have understood what it was trying to do.
However, the general impression I do get is, yes, obscurity is somewhat
of a virtue.
> As I mentioned to Phil N., if you use high brow,
> aesthetic language, then you are limiting your audience. Of course there
> is nothing wrong with this, if that is what you want.
I don't feel that one has to use high-brow language and be an elitist.
Like Eliot.
> I don't write to please publishers or overly-educated stiffs. I
> write to please myself, foremost.
People think that because I write for an educated audience that I am not
writing for myself. I *like* "high-brow" and I do write to please myself
first of all.
> And I have generally found I am a
> pretty good critic of what is good and what is not good. The
> *universality* of poetry means just that, it appeals to almost everyone.
> It can be related to by the front line laborer as well as the career
> academic.
I have to seriously disagree with you about universality meaning that it
appeals to almost everyone. Some people are just not educated enough to
appreciate Eliot. This does not mean it is not good.
People think that art is something for the masses. It has rarely been.
Poets of the past tended to write for their own social group. How could
you expect an English labourer of the nineteenth century to understand the
mythological references in Romantic poetry? While some poems can be
appreciated at first reading, a certain amount of education does help one
better appreciate poetic subtleties. High school students, for example,
can appreciate poems on sight because generally speaking their reading
skills are good enough. But because many do not have a good grounding in
the Bible, mythology or history, a lot of it comes off as gibberish. But
who's fault is that? Should a writer have think about all those
people who do not have that education? No, he says: "I'll write what I'll
like", which is shaped by his advanced education. This does not mean that
the poems this poet writes are not universal. When understood properly,
they may very well be because they speak of universal experiences or
truths.
************************************************************************
Alice Victoire M Liesman
>[E. E. Cummings] was a brilliant poet who happened
>specific reason(s) for doing so. How many other poets can make that claim?
Out of curiosity, what reasons did _he_ claim that would
be good enough to entitle him to write "i" instead of "I"?
--
Alice V. Liesman
avml...@acs.ucalgary.ca
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~avmliesm/
Sentesy
>
> >On Fri, 12 Jan 1996, Robert wrote:
> >
> >> Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
> >> be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
> >>
> >> 1) Using i instead of I
> >> 2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
> >> 3) A preface from the author of the poem.
>
> Mmmm, a little shallow, peradventure.
>
> Spotting bad poetry is much like spotting pornography - you just know it when
> you see it...delight or disgust, then, are personal reactions...
>
> Good poetry, touching poetry, on the other hand...
>
No they arent. i write all of my i's lowercase, and especially in a
poem. i'm afraid that if you do not see a poet's reasons for writing
something like i's in lowercase, you have NOT looked hard enough. if you
judge a poem on that basis, you are missing out on a *LOT* of good
poetry. most poets won't copy a habit like that from someone like e.e.
cummings. they wouldn't because if someone were as shallow as to be that
pretentious, they, most likely wouldn't identify with the 'i'. they
probably wouldn't really understand e.e. cummings. in my case, i didn't
copy the habit from him, or anyone else.
thanks for listening. i think it's a good idea to discuss what is *bad*
in poems in general as well as what is good. there are poles to
everything, it seems.
Roy Blumenthal
>> be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
>>
>> 1) Using i instead of I
>> 2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
>> 3) A preface from the author of the poem.
>>
>
>that >they just unmask you as a fake.
Nah, c'mon Suzanne. The point is valid, particularly when it comes to
amateur poets who are about fourteen years old. Using a lower case "I"
is a great thrill, and seems to be such a statement at that time.
(ProvoCAtive, huh?)
>(I hope not, but hey, I only go by the >evidence) Lots of good poems,
>as many have mentioned, are written in >lower case letters;
Yeah, granted. But look for the incredibly bad poems that all seem to
take for granted the fact that punctuation and cpaitalisation belongs
to a past generation.
>I don't know what the deal with is question marks,
Suzanne, do Your Poems Ask Big Questions?? Because, then, you are
probably Guilty Of The Crime? Which obviously means (if, I say, if you
are guilty) that you would then perhaps possibly be one of the poets
in question.
>and even if the poet bothers to "explain" the poem, it does not
>automatically follow the poem will be bad.
I would say that the more explaining the poem does to me, the less it
will be poetry for me. Good poetry, for me, works on the evocations it
drags out of me, and not by the banalities it explains in prosaic form
about the secrets of life discovered by the poet.
Troll troll troll alert.
Roy
/ Barefoot Press Free South African Poetry Pages: \
/ http://www.pix.za/barefoot.press \
/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oooo. \
/ e-mail: barefoo...@pixie.co.za ( ) \
/ Managing Editor: Roy Blumenthal ) / \
< (_/ >
\ Roy Blumenthal's Qualifications Brief: /
\ http://www.pix.za/barefoot.press/roy/skills/royinfo.htm /
\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /
\ Electronic Sesame -- Monthly Poetry and Prose Journal: /
\ http://www.pix.za/barefoot.press/esesame/esesame.htm /
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@pennet.net bestfam
>Nah, c'mon Suzanne. The point is valid, particularly when it comes to
>amateur poets who are about fourteen years old. Using a lower case "I"
>is a great thrill, and seems to be such a statement at that time.
>(ProvoCAtive, huh?)
>
>>(I hope not, but hey, I only go by the >evidence) Lots of good poems,
>>as many have mentioned, are written in >lower case letters;
>
>Yeah, granted. But look for the incredibly bad poems that all seem to
>take for granted the fact that punctuation and cpaitalisation belongs
>to a past generation.
Ugh. Guilty as charged. Or as accused seeing as how I'm
(i'm?) ;) an amateur poet, aged 15 years. I would, however,
like to say in my defense that I do have something up there in
that pliant young mind of mine. I do not choose to use 'i' for
a quick fix or to make a statement. I prefer to use lowercase
letters simply for their look, the way they appear upon the
page...art is my first love and I like to experiment with the
way i present my ideas and words. Can you give me a reason why
I *should* use conventional capitalization and punctuation? If
you do, ~i~ have an open mind lots of room to learn.
~sarah~
under...@pi-user.pi.net
In article <4dlr5f$o...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, <kil...@acad.stedwards.edu>
writes:
(dubious doodoo and rancid ramblings)
so i (notice the sublte use of lower-case, frequently referred to as being a
sign of bad poetry but, mostly, indicating that the writer is kinda lazy)
reply:
as long as we can not agree upon the three sure signs of cancer or a
good person or whatever, let's not try discussing poetry.
erwin.
Roy Blumenthal
>Ugh. Guilty as charged. Or as accused seeing as how I'm
>(i'm?) ;) an amateur poet, aged 15 years. I would, however,
Hey... welcome to the ranks! May it be a fulfilling way of life for
you.
>that pliant young mind of mine. I do not choose to use 'i' for
>a quick fix or to make a statement. I prefer to use lowercase
>letters simply for their look, the way they appear upon the
>page...art is my first love and I like to experiment with the
The pleasure of writing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's a pretty good reason. And possibly the best reason of them all.
After all, if we're not taking pleasure out of creating our works,
then why write in the first place? So, yes, use lower case because of
the pleasure it gives you.
Readers don't have access to the poet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And yet, bear in mind also that when other people read your work, they
read a heck of a lot more than "the lower case looks good". They don't
have access to the poet (and the poet is a dubious authority anyway),
so they can't discuss possible intentions. Which leaves them placing
great significance on every single formal element in a poem.
Things draw attention
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Things like: where the lines break, which words are and aren't
capitalised, punctuation consistency. These are all really important.
Oddities leap out of poems -- the smallest thing can draw a lot of
attention to itself.
Choose for effect
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, one chooses to do certain things in a poem, to create certain
effects. For instance, in Philip Gross's poem, "On the hoof" (from
'The Son of the Duke of Nowhere'), the following three lines have been
broken for specific effect --
Now
the front lights up. I cruise
the menus. I approve
The breaks serve to cause a semantic tension, a representation of
confusion, of being overwhelmed. They are certainly not there only cos
they look good (though they do that too).
>way i present my ideas and words. Can you give me a reason why
>I *should* use conventional capitalization and punctuation? If
>you do, ~i~ have an open mind lots of room to learn.
Everything in a poem is motivated
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I haven't tackled punctuation and caps here, but the principle is
that, as seen by a reader, everything in a poem is motivated --
nothing is arbitrary. As soon as a poet starts chucking things in
arbitrarily, the cohesiveness of the communiciation is changed. This
is not always a bad thing -- a lot of postmodern brilliance comes from
mashing things together in strange contexts -- but again, this is more
useful when it is a considered strategy.
More expressive choices
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The real reason I would offer for you to examine punctuation and caps
in more closely is that it simply gives you more freedom to express
yourself more powerfully. I'm not suggesting you should start using
caps and punctuation -- I'm only saying that you should be aware that
alternatives exist.
And an apology
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And I must apologise to young poets who read my earlier post --
rereading the quote in your clip, I see that it looks really
condescending. I really didn't mean that young poets are bad poets
(I'm only 28 myself -- not over the hill yet).
Cheers, blue skies,
Genni McKey
computer-- oops genni
Roy Blumenthal
>>descriptives do no a poet make.
>
>Amen. But then, I don't think I use fifty dollar words. Neither did
>Emily >Dickinson.
>
>> Unfortunately, this is generally what modern publishers nourish.
>
>I must say, I haven't seen too many fifty dollar words in
contemporary >poetry (maybe I'm totally up a tree).
Ditto. Contemporary poetry seems to have made a move away from long
words. I would say it did this about forty years ago. So the original
poster's aversion to long words in contemporary poetry possibly
reveals soemthing that should be rectified -- this person probably
does not actually read contemporary poetry!
I know of far too many "poets" who submit work to me -- I'm a
contemporary publisher -- that smacks of ignorance of poetry. When I
ask them who their favourite poets are, I get a universal sort of
answer. "I prefer not to read other poets, because I find it
interferes with my work." Bang. Straight into the rejections pile.
So, to the second poster, if you're up a tree, then you're up a damn
fine one.
Blue skies,
Fernando Llorente
writes:
>>> I have found that fifty >> dollar words and Longfellow/Wadsworth
>>Amen. But then, I don't think I use fifty dollar words. Neither did
>>Emily >Dickinson.
>>
>>> Unfortunately, this is generally what modern publishers nourish.
>>
>>I must say, I haven't seen too many fifty dollar words in
>contemporary >poetry (maybe I'm totally up a tree).
== Max: that was me talking to Nick who said he might be up a tree.
>Ditto. Contemporary poetry seems to have made a move away from long
>words. I would say it did this about forty years ago. So the original
>poster's aversion to long words in contemporary poetry possibly
>reveals soemthing that should be rectified -- this person probably
>does not actually read contemporary poetry!
== Max not neccesarily, some contemporary poets may have a different
'language' than earlier or traditional poets. Many contemporary poets
work hard to us
e more sophisticated language within traditional structures and form
(e.g. PN, and many others on this very newsgroup),
or check the traditional halls of the schools for linguistic diversity.
I don' have an 'aversion' to long words in poetry, as long as you
use them well. And not simply to 'powdercake' a limp structure.
>
>I know of far too many "poets" who submit work to me -- I'm a
>contemporary publisher -- that smacks of ignorance of poetry. When I
>ask them who their favourite poets are, I get a universal sort of
>answer. "I prefer not to read other poets, because I find it
>interferes with my work." Bang. Straight into the rejections pile.
>
== Max . . . to each his own . . .
>So, to the second poster, if you're up a tree, then you're up a damn
>fine one.
== Max relative
>
>Blue skies,
>Roy
'that was me talking to Nick who said he might be up a tree.' - Max
>
>
> / Barefoot Press Free South African Poetry Pages: \
> / http://www.pix.za/barefoot.press \
> / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oooo. \
> / e-mail: barefoo...@pixie.co.za ( ) \
> / Managing Editor: Roy Blumenthal ) / \
>< (_/
>
> \ Roy Blumenthal's Qualifications Brief: /
> \ http://www.pix.za/barefoot.press/roy/skills/royinfo.htm /
> \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /
> \ Electronic Sesame -- Monthly Poetry and Prose Journal: /
> \ http://www.pix.za/barefoot.press/esesame/esesame.htm /
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
no portions of this can be reprinted with out my 'explicit' written
permission..| .Max
REFERENTIAL OBIQUITY
On an opening night, dark damp oceans
on quiet beaches in the season of versatility.
Reflective shimmering dialogue amidst,
storm and frolic
drink and dance backdrops of romantic jubilance.
Digressive posture and frugal thought pondered
strangled taught percussion’s of asymmetry.
An effigy for progressive postulation diverse
and regressive affirmation.
Capitulated reverence, and
mortuary delight.
Fine summer evenings,
and plain simple delight.
Fortuitous envy, horn edged
posterity and absent insight.
A complex referential
emancipation for
referential obiquity.
c. 1996 Max King
just thought I'd clear that up . . .
and, finally my point was . . . that your language can often
limit your audience.
. . . and age is not always a factor in determining poetry.
'But we seek a new world through old workings,' - C. Day Lewis
>>> I have found that fifty >> dollar words and Longfellow/Wadsworth
>>>descriptives do no a poet make.
edit: do not a poet make - Max
S. A Oleksy
> I know of far too many "poets" who submit work to me -- I'm a
> contemporary publisher -- that smacks of ignorance of poetry. When I
> ask them who their favourite poets are, I get a universal sort of
> answer. "I prefer not to read other poets, because I find it
> interferes with my work." Bang. Straight into the rejections pile.
Careful here. There may a goddamn fine poet, the next [fill in the blank]
out there in the bush with no usenet access and no bookstore in a 100 mile
radius. One need not read poetry to be a poet. One need not even write to
be one!
SAO
DEATH, DO NOT STALK ME - MY TIME HAS NOT COME!!!
Alison deNu
writes:
>
>> I know of far too many "poets" who submit work to me -- I'm a
>> contemporary publisher -- that smacks of ignorance of poetry. When I
>>
>blank] out there in the bush with no usenet access and no bookstore in
>a 100 mile radius. One need not read poetry to be a poet. One need not
>even write to be one!
>
but if a g00d poet claps one hand in the forest and no one is there to
hear, does he make a sonnet?
-fries
Jon Erickson
>
>Careful here. There may a goddamn fine poet, the next [fill in the >blank] out there in the bush with no usenet access and no books=
tore in a >100 mile radius. One need not read poetry to be a poet. One need not >even write to be one!
>
>
>INANITY, NO NEED TO STALK ME - I HAVE NO BRAIN!!!
Dude, what sort chemcals they give you at the technolgy centr?
adan lerma
Blumenthal) wrote:
> Hiya ~sarah~...
>
> >Ugh. Guilty as charged. Or as accused seeing as how I'm
> >(i'm?) ;) an amateur poet, aged 15 years. I would, however,
>
> Hey... welcome to the ranks! May it be a fulfilling way of life for
> you.
>
> >that pliant young mind of mine. I do not choose to use 'i' for
> >a quick fix or to make a statement. I prefer to use lowercase
> >letters simply for their look, the way they appear upon the
> >page...art is my first love and I like to experiment with the
>
>
> The pleasure of writing
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> That's a pretty good reason. And possibly the best reason of them all.
> After all, if we're not taking pleasure out of creating our works,
> then why write in the first place? So, yes, use lower case because of
> the pleasure it gives you.
>
> >On Fri, 12 Jan 1996, Robert wrote:
> >
> >> Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
> >> be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
> >>
> >> 1) Using i instead of I
> >> 2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
> >> 3) A preface from the author of the poem.
>
>
> Mmmm, a little shallow, peradventure.
>
> Spotting bad poetry is much like spotting pornography - you just know
it when
> you see it...delight or disgust, then, are personal reactions...
>
> Good poetry, touching poetry, on the other hand...
>
> "...It's like watching a strip tease; don't ask how it works, just enjoy
> what's coming off..."
>
> Cary Grant, Operation Petticoat
1. And if the pleasure is the expression or release of pain, anguish, etc,
that too can be a pleasure. The other points, though not quoted, seemed
very helpful to me too.
2. In the viewing/reading, yes, just enjoying what's coming off tells all,
is it good for you (or me) individually (and maybe others then too, we
are connected even if only in places and somewhat); but in the creating -
the skilled striptease is watching/responding to our response
(intuitively, logically, whatever - that's just an individual's own way of
working). So too in the creating. There's the primal impulse "coming off,"
but then (save for those rare complete creations) there's the refining.
3. I myself like the idea of combining a sense of form or image or art w/
the poem, though this isn't always possible, nor is it necessary. Again,
it's just a personal preference. May it hurt larger audience acceptance/
understanding, it could. The choice is there to be made. What else can
we do? Maybe offer multiple presentations. I don't know.
4. Meanwhile, it's back to the creating part.
Adan Lerma
--
*******************************************************************
Adamlight: Verbal and Visual Shareware.
We've just begun - but anyone can take a look at:
http://www.eden.com/~adan
ad...@adamlight.com ad...@eden.com
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maria Kusznir
>> >
>> >> Warning: the following frequently indicate that Bad Poetry will
>> >> be found in the vicinity. Read at your own risk.
>> >>
>> >> 1) Using i instead of I
>> >> 2) Question marks (?), usually after Big Questions (tm)
>> >> 3) A preface from the author of the poem.
>>
or a lazy typist than of a bad poet>
red slider
the best sign of bad poetry is the presence of those who make absurd
pronouncements about formalisms.
1) E.E. Cummings? Wallace Stevens? Blaise Cendrars? Myself (for the
past 25 years)? Ever since i realized i did not require the ego
support and the inflation of the personal pronoun relative to the
things of the earth that surrounded it, and the ideas that oustripped
the impositions of the proper people straightjacketing the language in
their proper nouns.
2) When the cesurae and the relative stress of the line call for the
arresting mark of interrogation of the question - to suspend the eye,
to hook the line above and reel it in. Can there be larger questions
than those asked about Lot's wife:
"Who will shed tears over this woman?
Does she not seem the less because of her loss?
Yet my heart never will forget
One who gave her life for a single glance.
by Rilke??
3) What would deepen a work, expose it, preface it in a meaningful
medition so that it may only be approached by the frame of mind first
prepared to enter that temple of word, would ask only of its
respectful visitor that that remove their shoes before crossing the
threshold.
i'll leave it to you boyz to dig through your reference books for that
one. Oh, through away your "rule books" less you wish to be forever
cast as eternal undergraduate English freshmen. What popycock
nonsense.