A poem by Randy Thomas (Specially for Tim Jones)
Peter Ould
By Randy Thomas 10/13/98
[on hearing the news of Matthew Shepard's death]
Bass undercurrent with white
With white layered raiments flowing in an unseen but felt wind
Felt wind going in different direction causing Life to turn
Life to turn and tumble,
My face is set still
Set still with a moving tear
Moving tear that pushes itself off my upturned chin Upturned chin resting
in Light's Hand
My God
My God what a hateful world
Oh, My God..
Mercy please
Mercy please to me
To me and those who can't see You
Who can't see You!
Mercy I plead
Mercy to him who can't see past
Can't see past this thin veil of mortal life.
The dimensions of man escapes himself
Escapes himself to definition by whimsy and vain intellect
He perishes for lack of knowledge
Is murdered by intellect
Tears burst in refracted Light
Cries shake the Temple
Light's Hand
Light's hand washes me blood paradox
Paradox of torment and freedom
Surrounded in Peace
Eyes of Fire
Words of Serenity
And they still rage. I love you Christ, my Yeshua. I trust your sovereignty.
---------
Randy Thomas is the director of Living Hope Ministries, Texas
Peter (obviously a biggoted homophobe) Ould
Martin Biddiscombe
:Peter Ould wrote:
:
:> The Lifter of My Head
:> By Randy Thomas 10/13/98
...
: On what basis is this called poetry? The stuff that Gareth writes
: may not be particularly exalted, but at least it both scans and rhymes.
Who says poetry has to either scan or rhyme? It may not be to your
taste (to be honest, it's not to mine either...), but it's still a
poem.
Is this poetry?
Fickle
By Martin Biddiscombe 21/12/00
In the shadows I long for light,
In the light I long for shadows.
Am I fickle?
When it's dry I want rain,
When it's raining I want sun.
Am I fickle?
In the night I can't sleep,
In the morning I can't wake up.
Am I fickle?
Touch me and it tickles,
Stop and I feel rejected.
Am I fickle?
Run the bath and I'd prefer a shower,
Take a shower and I'd rather have a bath.
Am I fickle?
Not working...feeling guilty,
Working...rather be playing.
Am I fickle?
Am I fickle?
<M>
--
Websites:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~priatel/
http://www.oakwood-chapel.org.uk/
Today's photo:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~priatel/martin/rich1.hmtl
Problem: Something loose in cockpit.
Solution: Something tightened in cockpit.
David Anderson
[snip poem]
> On what basis is this called poetry? The stuff that Gareth writes may not be
> particularly exalted, but at least it both scans and rhymes.
[Not really here]
Welcome to the Twentieth Century Ken. Poets have been writing free
verse for about a hundred and fifty years.
Have you read any R.S. Thomas? (And you call yourself a Welsh
Christian.)
For that matter, have you read Smart's 'For I will consider my Cat
Jeoffrey'
[Still not really here]
David Anderson
David Heading
<snippage>
> Fickle
> By Martin Biddiscombe 21/12/00
>
<snip>
> Not working...feeling guilty,
> Working...rather be playing.
> Am I fickle?
>
> Am I fickle?
>
No.
You are a cat.
Regards
David Heading
Martin Biddiscombe
: You are a cat.
Woof.
<M>
--
Websites:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~priatel/
http://www.oakwood-chapel.org.uk/
Today's photo:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~priatel/martin/ely5.hmtl
Don't sneeze when someone is cutting your hair.
Robert Marshall
> In article <Itb06.23929$Ig.109926@news1-hme0>, "Peter Ould"
> <po...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
> > The Lifter of My Head
> > By Randy Thomas 10/13/98
> > [on hearing the news of Matthew Shepard's death]
>
> Who is Matthew Shepard?
As noone seems to have yet answered this one, he was a young lad taken
out of a gay bar (in the USA) by two homophobes and beaten to death
(in 1998 I think). You could see some inappropriate gloating on
godhatesfags.com the last time I could bear to look at the site.
R
--
We need to help one another to understand that, whoever we are, we are
enemies of the Spirit of Love and Justice whenever our minds are shut
and our hearts hardened to the humanity of those who oppose us.
Carter Heyward (Saving Jesus from those who are right)
Peter Ould
news:m2u27xb...@stable.brock...
> Ken Down <digg...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>
> > In article <Itb06.23929$Ig.109926@news1-hme0>, "Peter Ould"
> > <po...@cwcom.net> wrote:
> >
> > > The Lifter of My Head
> > > By Randy Thomas 10/13/98
> > > [on hearing the news of Matthew Shepard's death]
> >
> > Who is Matthew Shepard?
>
> As noone seems to have yet answered this one, he was a young lad taken
> out of a gay bar (in the USA) by two homophobes and beaten to death
> (in 1998 I think). You could see some inappropriate gloating on
> godhatesfags.com the last time I could bear to look at the site.
I wouldn't call it "gloating", but yes, the flames etc were particularly
unpleasant.
Peter
Peter Ould
news:na.5840084a30....@argonet.co.uk...
> > By Randy Thomas 10/13/98
> > [on hearing the news of Matthew Shepard's death]
>
>
A young homosexual student who got murdered in Michagan.
> > My face is set still
> > Set still with a moving tear
> > Moving tear that pushes itself off my upturned chin
> > Upturned chin resting in Light's Hand
>
> On what basis is this called poetry? The stuff that Gareth writes may not
be
> particularly exalted, but at least it both scans and rhymes.
>
Ken, there's more to poetry then "The boy stood on the burning deck".
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
>
Peter
Paul Dean
When I saw it, it seemed to be "rejoicing" in it!
--
Paul
http://www.redeemed.org.uk/
Gareth McCaughan
> On what basis is this called poetry? The stuff that Gareth writes may not be
> particularly exalted, but at least it both scans and rhymes.
WHat stuff that I write?
I think I've only ever posted one poem to uk.r.c that was
at all seriously intended. I take exception to the implication
that I make a habit of writing not-particularly-exalted
poetry. :-)
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
Ken Down
Mar...@priatel.globalnet.co.uk (Martin Biddiscombe) wrote:
> Is this poetry?
No. It may be beautiful, it may be profound, (though actually I don't think
this particular example was either beautiful or profound) but it isn't
poetry.
Give me Pam Ayres any day.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news from
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| the Middle East with David Down and
================================= "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Ken Down
<ea...@central.susx.ac.uk> wrote:
> Welcome to the Twentieth Century Ken. Poets have been writing free
> verse for about a hundred and fifty years.
You mean, *people* have been writing free verse. Poets write poetry.
Alan Zanker
>In article <3A41FD1F...@removethis.central.susx.ac.uk>, David Anderson
><ea...@central.susx.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Welcome to the Twentieth Century Ken. Poets have been writing free
>> verse for about a hundred and fifty years.
>
>You mean, *people* have been writing free verse. Poets write poetry.
At the risk of going totally off-topic (does that matter?) and also of
breaching copyright, I'll go ahead and post this poem by R S Thomas,
which I find one of the most simple and moving pieces of modern verse
I've seen recently.
A Marriage
We met
under a shower
of bird-notes.
Fifty years passed,
love's moment
in a world in
servitude to time.
She was young;
I kissed with my eyes
closed and opened
them on her wrinkles.
'Come,' said death,
choosing her as his
partner for
the last dance.
And she,
who in life
had done everything
with a bird's grace,
opened her bill now
for the shedding
of one sigh no
heavier than a feather.
Alan
--
Alan Zanker
Leeds
England
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <3A41FD1F...@removethis.central.susx.ac.uk>, David Anderson
><ea...@central.susx.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Welcome to the Twentieth Century Ken. Poets have been writing free
>> verse for about a hundred and fifty years.
>
>You mean, *people* have been writing free verse. Poets write poetry.
Poetry
Is when the words
Don't go all the way
To the ends of
The
Lines
-+-+-+
Poetry isn't about metre or rhyme
Or even about content, for most of the time
True poetry is, as any fool knows
What you call it when what you've got
Just isn't prose!
Mark
--
More pretentious waffle now at http://www.mark.x.tc
Ken Down
<po...@cwcom.net> wrote:
> Ken, there's more to poetry then "The boy stood on the burning deck".
Of course, but not as much as some people think.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
Ken Down
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I think I've only ever posted one poem to uk.r.c that was
> at all seriously intended. I take exception to the implication
> that I make a habit of writing not-particularly-exalted
> poetry. :-)
By your own admission, you have only posted one serious poem. You have,
however, posted a number of other compositions. As I am unaware of your
entire corpus, I can only judge by what I have seen.
(Personally, I think they are all pretty clever and envy you your facility!)
Ken Down
<rob...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> As noone seems to have yet answered this one, he was a young lad taken
> out of a gay bar (in the USA) by two homophobes and beaten to death
> (in 1998 I think). You could see some inappropriate gloating on
> godhatesfags.com the last time I could bear to look at the site.
Thank you.
Ken Down
<al...@zanker.org> wrote:
> At the risk of going totally off-topic (does that matter?) and also of
> breaching copyright, I'll go ahead and post this poem by R S Thomas,
> which I find one of the most simple and moving pieces of modern verse
> I've seen recently.
Yes, very nice, but it's not poetry. There probably ought to be a new
category invented: prose, poetry and *****
Ken Down
(Mark Goodge) wrote:
> Poetry
> Is when the words
> Don't go all the way
> To the ends of
> The
> Lines
Is that from the Devil's Dictionary?
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <3a43874e...@news.markshouse.net>, ma...@good-stuff.co.uk
>(Mark Goodge) wrote:
>
>> Poetry
>> Is when the words
>> Don't go all the way
>> To the ends of
>> The
>> Lines
>
>Is that from the Devil's Dictionary?
Not as far as I'm aware. I vaguely recall reading this definition in a
collection of "schoolboy howlers", but I can't place it with any
certainty. The formatting (in this case) is mine.
Gareth McCaughan
> You mean, *people* have been writing free verse. Poets write poetry.
Is it your opinion that T S Eliot was not a poet?
Or, more precisely, that he was being a poet while
writing "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats" and
not while writing "The Waste Land"?
I was highly unimpressed by the poem (if it was a
poem) by Randy Thomas, but I wouldn't deny it the
title of "poetry" simply because it has neither a
consistent metre nor a rhyme scheme.
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>> I think I've only ever posted one poem to uk.r.c that was
>> at all seriously intended. I take exception to the implication
>> that I make a habit of writing not-particularly-exalted
>> poetry. :-)
>
> By your own admission, you have only posted one serious poem. You have,
> however, posted a number of other compositions. As I am unaware of your
> entire corpus, I can only judge by what I have seen.
I would be inclined to call them something other than
poetry. They are, of course, verse.
> (Personally, I think they are all pretty clever and envy you your facility!)
Very kind of you.
Gareth McCaughan
[Alan Zanker wrote:]
>> At the risk of going totally off-topic (does that matter?) and also of
>> breaching copyright, I'll go ahead and post this poem by R S Thomas,
>> which I find one of the most simple and moving pieces of modern verse
>> I've seen recently.
>
> Yes, very nice, but it's not poetry. There probably ought to be a new
> category invented: prose, poetry and *****
It certainly is poetry. Maybe it would be helpful to know
what your definition of "poetry" is. Is it the same as that
of "verse"?
Ken Down
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Is it your opinion that T S Eliot was not a poet?
> Or, more precisely, that he was being a poet while
> writing "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats" and
> not while writing "The Waste Land"?
Why should that opinion surprise you? Other poets have written both poetry
and prose, why can't T. S. Elliot write poetry and this other stuff?
> I was highly unimpressed by the poem (if it was a
> poem) by Randy Thomas, but I wouldn't deny it the
> title of "poetry" simply because it has neither a
> consistent metre nor a rhyme scheme.
I believe Humpty Dumpty had the same approach to language.
kevin donnelly
<digg...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <3A41FD1F...@removethis.central.susx.ac.uk>, David Anderson
><ea...@central.susx.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Welcome to the Twentieth Century Ken. Poets have been writing free
>> verse for about a hundred and fifty years.
>
>You mean, *people* have been writing free verse. Poets write poetry.
>
>God bless,
>Kendall K. Down
>
Decemberr,
Let's drrink a drram and rraise our caps to one we should rremember,
To William McGonagall, poet, barrd, and chrroniclerr of the Tay Bridge
disasterr,
Immorrtalised in ballad and verrse of which he was a rrarre masterr.
KD
--
kevin donnelly
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <86snng1...@g.local>, Gareth McCaughan
><Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it your opinion that T S Eliot was not a poet?
>> Or, more precisely, that he was being a poet while
>> writing "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats" and
>> not while writing "The Waste Land"?
>
>Why should that opinion surprise you? Other poets have written both poetry
>and prose, why can't T. S. Elliot write poetry and this other stuff?
>
>> I was highly unimpressed by the poem (if it was a
>> poem) by Randy Thomas, but I wouldn't deny it the
>> title of "poetry" simply because it has neither a
>> consistent metre nor a rhyme scheme.
>
>I believe Humpty Dumpty had the same approach to language.
From http://dictionary.cambridge.org:
poem noun [C]
a piece of writing in which the words are chosen for their sound and
the images and ideas they suggest, not just their obvious meaning. The
words are arranged in separate lines, often ending in rhyme.
poetry noun [U]
Poetry is poems in general as a form of literature.
From http://www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: po·et·ry
Pronunciation: 'pO-&-trE, -i-trE also 'po(-)i-trE
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : metrical writing : VERSE b : the productions of a poet : POEMS
2 : writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of
experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific
emotional response through meaning, sound, and rhythm
3 a : something likened to poetry especially in beauty of expression b
: poetic quality or aspect <the poetry of dance>
If you're insisting on Webster's first definition (metrical writing)
alone, then you have a very narrow definition of "poetry" that is not
shared by the majority of the world's English speaking population.
Ken Down
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> It certainly is poetry. Maybe it would be helpful to know
> what your definition of "poetry" is. Is it the same as that
> of "verse"?
Probably. I'll have to look it up - but that involves getting up from the
computer, going downstairs to consult the dictionary and coming back up
again. Basically, I'm lazy.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
Chris Baker
Poetry of the highest possible order, and not a rhyme, or a metre, nor
even golden daffs by the hostful.
Chris B
Ken Down
(Mark Goodge) wrote:
> 1 a : metrical writing : VERSE b : the productions of a poet : POEMS
> 2 : writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of
> experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific
> emotional response through meaning, sound, and rhythm
> If you're insisting on Webster's first definition (metrical writing)
> alone, then you have a very narrow definition of "poetry" that is not
> shared by the majority of the world's English speaking population.
No, I'm quite happy with the second definition as well (rhythm).
As to the *majority*, there's an awful lot of people (as opposed to
arty-crafty types) who think that free-verse is rubbish.
Nick Milton
enhanced the collective wisdom with:
>As to the *majority*, there's an awful lot of people (as opposed to
>arty-crafty types) who think that free-verse is rubbish.
An awful lot of people, or a lot of awful people?
Ken Down
I don't think it is fair to expect English standards of poetry to apply to
the productions of another language and culture. By the rules of Hebrew, the
Psalms are indeed poetry. By the rules of English (or, indeed, Welsh) they
are not.
Chris Baker
> I don't think it is fair to expect English standards of poetry to
apply to
> the productions of another language and culture. By the rules of
Hebrew, the
> Psalms are indeed poetry. By the rules of English (or, indeed,
Welsh) they
> are not.
Why is the definition of poetry so important?
Dictionaries can only go so far in defining something which is an
individual, subjective aprehension.
Whilst you may indeed require that *your* poetry is closely defined,
even confined within strict boundaries of form, it nevertheless
remains as an effect upon the soul. Some find this constrained within
written verse and metre. Others find poetry in the movement of grass,
the flight of birds, the playing of an musical instrument, or even a
piece of prose which touches us in a special way. (Rev 21:4 maybe?
Certainly does it for me).
Whatever a dictionary may say, poetry is a perception by the
individual's finer senses. If we perceive something to be poetic, then
it is poetry.
Perhaps some find more poetry in their lives than do others.
Chris B.
Chris Baker
> I don't think it is fair to expect English standards of poetry to
apply to
> the productions of another language and culture. By the rules of
Hebrew, the
> Psalms are indeed poetry. By the rules of English (or, indeed,
Welsh) they
> are not.
There is a fine point of debate there which may well defeat us <g> -
for when the translating scholars came to the Psalms, they no doubt
felt themselves constrained to reflect the poetry of the original. And
so, we have the Hebrew poetic form translated into an English poetic
form, recognised as such by most, denied by others.
Does one of us have to be right and the other wrong here?
(there's a quote from Pope about this which I will try to find, it
having escaped me for the moment).
Why is the definition of poetry so important?
Dictionaries can only go so far in defining something which is an
individual, subjective apprehension.
Whilst you may indeed require that *your* poetry is closely defined,
even confined, within strict boundaries of form, it nevertheless
Ken Down
(Nick Milton) wrote:
> An awful lot of people, or a lot of awful people?
Well, as I'm one of them, I go for the first.
kevin donnelly
longago Manchester elementary school. I can hear those children's
voices even now as I write, rhythmically chanting these great words:
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly...
The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want...
The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof...
GOD is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble...
Make a joyful noise unto the LORD all ye lands...
Only later did I find a bible that set out the Psalms as poetry,
likewise I learned about Hebrew parallelism, and the repetition of
ideas. Much later still, my OT tutor described Psalms as the hymnbook
of the second Jerusalem temple. Out of that came the understanding that
the very individual-sounding psalms, like 23, were in fact used in
collective public worship by the congregation or the choir with
instrumental accompaniment.
So although there is only occasional rhyme in the Hebrew, there
is pulse and rhythm, which explains why some of the psalms were easily
adapted into metrical form. I think it was the philosopher M.V.C.
Jeffreys who said that mathematics is conceptualised music, and music is
sensualised mathematics. For a non-mathematician like me, that was a
revelation.
KD
--
kevin donnelly
Philip Gardner
[Chris Baker]
> > The Psalms as offered in the 'Jerusalem Bible' ..............
> > Poetry of the highest possible order, and not a rhyme, or a metre, nor
> > even golden daffs by the hostful.
>
> I don't think it is fair to expect English standards of poetry to apply to
> the productions of another language and culture. By the rules of Hebrew,
the
> Psalms are indeed poetry. By the rules of English (or, indeed, Welsh) they
> are not.
I am baffled by this! Surely we don't need 'rules' to tell us what counts as
poetry? Anyone with any feeling for language can tell at once that the
Psalms are wonderful poetry.
Ken, if you believe that rules exist in English or Welsh to determine
whether a particular piece of writing is a poem, please tell us: who made
these rules? who enforces them? and, most important of all, what are they?
Phil
Chris Baker
during editing .
Chris B
Ken Down
<cho...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Why is the definition of poetry so important? <snip>
> Others find poetry in the movement of grass, the flight of birds, the
> playing of an musical instrument, or even a piece of prose <snip>
> Whatever a dictionary may say, poetry is a perception by the
> individual's finer senses. If we perceive something to be poetic, then
> it is poetry.
So what is your opinion of Beethoven's Fifth Poem?
kevin donnelly
<digg...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <iXv16.101111$eT4.6...@nnrp3.clara.net>, "Chris Baker"
><cho...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The Psalms as offered in the 'Jerusalem Bible' ..............
>> Poetry of the highest possible order, and not a rhyme, or a metre, nor
>> even golden daffs by the hostful.
>
>I don't think it is fair to expect English standards of poetry to apply to
>the productions of another language and culture. By the rules of Hebrew, the
>Psalms are indeed poetry. By the rules of English (or, indeed, Welsh) they
>are not.
>
>God bless,
>Kendall K. Down
>
religious poetry, weaver of spells and author of Llareggub Revisited,
Dylan Marlais Thomas? Can anyone who reads, or better still, listens
to Fern Hill, not be aware of the magic of words, then deny it is poetry
of a high order?
Or does the following qualify because it rhymes:
Manuel Labour is a Spaniard,
Siestas last for hours,
Every Englishman knows that's true,
From watching Fawlty Towers.
Or Just William's effort, as created by Richmal Crompton:
He bashed him dead,
And blood came pouring out of his head
KD
--
kevin donnelly
Chris Baker
> > Whatever a dictionary may say, poetry is a perception by the
> > individual's finer senses. If we perceive something to be poetic,
then
> > it is poetry.
Ken:
> So what is your opinion of Beethoven's Fifth Poem?
It depends Ken, upon whether you are asking with a smile or a
sneer...........?
Chris B
Ken Down
<philip....@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Ken, if you believe that rules exist in English or Welsh to determine
> whether a particular piece of writing is a poem, please tell us: who made
> these rules? who enforces them? and, most important of all, what are they?
Well, of course, I don't know for sure about you English, but in Wales we
have the bards and the Gorsedd; they are the ones who make the rules and
award prizes for those who produce the finest englyn. As to what the rules
are, they are so complicated that I suggest you get a book and read all
about it.
On the subject of rules, allow me to quote the following:
Greek music was composed in one of seven modes, of which the Dorian
corresponds to our minor and the Lydian to our major keys. Those who are
musically inclined may wish to sit at the piano and play an octave from E to
E1 on the white keys only. This is the Dorian mode. Add in one sharp (as
with our conventions, this will be F-sharp) and you have the Hypodorian
mode. Two sharps gives you the Phrygian while three the Hypophrygian mode.
Four sharps - our key of E-major - gives the Lydian mode while five sharps
give the Hypolydian. No sharps but one flat gives the final mode, the
Mixolydian.
The different modes were supposed to rouse different emotions. The
Mixolydian was a wailing mode, suitable for laments, the Lydian was a
relaxed, even effeminate mode while the Dorian was more mainly and warlike.
People were expected to recognise the different modes and respond in an
appropriate manner. Plutarch, in his essay 'On Listening', tells how "Once,
when the poet Euripides was prompting his chorus in a lyrical ode he had
composed, a member of the chorus laughed. Euripides said, 'It is only your
insensitivity and ignorance that make you laugh while I am singing in the
Mixolydian mode.'" (p. 46)
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
kevin donnelly
<digg...@argonet.co.uk> writes
white notes, rather than E - E. I've just checked my source in the
Oxford Concise Dictionary of Music and there the Dorian is D - D.
However since modes were in use for over 1000 years before
standardisation began to creep in, maybe there is no final authority.
Where I found the Dorian mode useful is that by holding a DFD
triad in the left hand, the right hand can improvise almost any sequence
of melodic notes without discord. That was very helpful for a poor
sight-reader faced with unpredictable gaps in the order of service e.g.
the collection being taken. Here the time can be seconds if the
congregation is small or over a minute if the church is full. Other
formal occasions also need fill-in music. Starting to play Handel's
Largo for the second time just as the minister arrives in the pulpit
sets a problem for the organist. Using dorian improvisation gives the
wits in the congregation no opportunity to smirk! (;-)
KD
--
kevin donnelly
Chris Baker
>Starting to play Handel's
> Largo for the second time just as the minister arrives in the pulpit
> sets a problem for the organist. Using dorian improvisation gives
the
> wits in the congregation no opportunity to smirk! (;-)
Handel's Largo!!!!!!!!
Why were you playing it for the *first* time?
Was someone holding a gun to your head?
Were you bribed?
Explain yourself man!!
<g>
Chris B
p.s. on the subject of dorian mode, have you ever tried the Dorian
Fugue with just the Great flute - Rohrflute, Hohlflote or whatever,
(coupled to pedals as well), and played just on this one stop at
slightly below 'normal' tempo.
In the church on your own, no lights, and nobody to hear but you and
the spirit of JSB.
If ever there was a prayer in music, a poem in tone, this is it.
CB
Philip Gardner
[Phil:]
> > Ken, if you believe that rules exist in English or Welsh to determine
> > whether a particular piece of writing is a poem, please tell us: who
made
> > these rules? who enforces them? and, most important of all, what are
they?
>
> Well, of course, I don't know for sure about you English, but in Wales we
> have the bards and the Gorsedd; they are the ones who make the rules and
> award prizes for those who produce the finest englyn. As to what the rules
> are, they are so complicated that I suggest you get a book and read all
> about it.
Thank you. I know very little about Welsh poetry, so I bow to your
expertise. As far as English poetry is concerned, though, AFAIK there has
never been an equivalent set of official rules, and even if there had been I
expect most modern poets would have rejected or disregarded them.
> On the subject of rules, allow me to quote the following:
[interesting example of Greek modes snipped]
Phil
Ken Down
<cho...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> It depends Ken, upon whether you are asking with a smile or a
> sneer...........?
It depends upon whether you were entirely serious in your Humpty Dumpty
assertion that poetry is whatever we want it to be.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
Chris Baker
> > sneer...........?
>
> It depends upon whether you were entirely serious in your Humpty
Dumpty
> assertion that poetry is whatever we want it to be.
Ah, it was the sneer then.
Please assume my answer to be ..... whatever it is you need to hear.
Chris B
Gareth McCaughan
>> Is it your opinion that T S Eliot was not a poet?
>> Or, more precisely, that he was being a poet while
>> writing "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats" and
>> not while writing "The Waste Land"?
>
> Why should that opinion surprise you? Other poets have written both poetry
> and prose, why can't T. S. Eliot write poetry and this other stuff?
No reason at all. However, there is excellent evidence
that he believed he was writing poetry. There is also
excellent evidence that many other people believed the
same. Clearly you think they were all wrong. Why should
I believe you rather than them?
>> I was highly unimpressed by the poem (if it was a
>> poem) by Randy Thomas, but I wouldn't deny it the
>> title of "poetry" simply because it has neither a
>> consistent metre nor a rhyme scheme.
>
> I believe Humpty Dumpty had the same approach to language.
I do not claim the right to decide unilaterally
what words mean.
Ken Down
<ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Interesting stuff: I always thought the Dorian mode was D to D on the
> white notes, rather than E - E. I've just checked my source in the
> Oxford Concise Dictionary of Music and there the Dorian is D - D.
Thanks for that info. I was quoting and decline to accept responsibility for
any errors committed by the person from whom I was quoting.
> Where I found the Dorian mode useful is that by holding a DFD
> triad in the left hand, the right hand can improvise almost any sequence
> of melodic notes without discord.
This would have to be a melody in a minor key, though?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
Nick Milton
enhanced the collective wisdom with:
>In article <Ee926.19132$WC3.1...@nnrp4.clara.net>, "Chris Baker"
><cho...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It depends Ken, upon whether you are asking with a smile or a
>> sneer...........?
>
>It depends upon whether you were entirely serious in your Humpty Dumpty
>assertion that poetry is whatever we want it to be.
Humpty-dumptyism works both ways. It is equally a humpty-dumpty
assertion that poetry is whatever Ken Down wants it to be
Nick
kevin donnelly
<cho...@clara.co.uk> writes
church... and have sensed a spirit moving. But there was no one to
share this with, since my work colleagues were rather inclined to parody
anything to do with religion or the arts. Hence jokes about the Moston
Philourglasses Society, On with the Tetleys, and Seated one day at the
organ, I was beery and full of cheese. Since at least one was an old
WW1 soldier, I was appraised of the many parodies of hymns.
However the "organ" I played for worship was no electric wonder,
but a harmonium, an ill wind that nobody blows any good, to repeat the
old joke. There were far better players than me, who could make music
with it, including one lady who used a four part tonic-sol-fa edition of
the hymnbook.
Our harmonium was a reed instrument, with stops bearing meaning
less names in gothic script, so the performer had to use trial and error
to see what did what. Windpower was provided by the player's foot
pedals, an action that also had the tendency to push the organ seat
further away from the keyboard, thus causing panic. Dynamics were
provided by knee-operated treble and bass swells. That's before the
sight-reading bit, congregational drag, and yes, Handel.
Yes it was a simplified version, but I'd already played it once,
and that was half my repertoire gone, and no sign of the preacher. So I
played it again, but after two or three bars he arrived in the pulpit,
and along time elapsed before I finished the second rendering (sic, and
sic I was).
I had intended to rely on our resonant-voiced church secretary
for ascertaining whether the congregation were following me (a big
error, as I soon found out), but as I said, he was late into the service
and arrived after we had started the first hymn. Murphy's Law then
followed.
Of the other young musicians of the time who also deputised,
Margaret had a better system. She would only play if one of the hymns
was The Church's One Foundation. I have heard of other organists who
played everything in A flat because that was the only key they knew, and
some who could not play the black notes, others who could play only the
melody but with both hands, and even the legendary one who played
entirely by ear and had a regular showdown with visiting preachers about
hymn choices.
If you, sir, have not had the privilege of serving congregations
who put up with my and their services, then you have something to learn
about true forgiveness. (:-) But we could occasionally make the rafters
ring memorably. Even that could be a mixed blessing, as worshippers at
Mount Tabor Methodist Church in Stockport found. Almost disused, but
packed for an ecumenical occasion, the hearty singing dislodged
generations of dust and soot from the lofty roof timbers and showered
the worshippers with grime.
KD
--
kevin donnelly
Chris Baker
> I do not claim the right to decide unilaterally
> what words mean.
You can if you want; others do. Ken says I do.
Humpty Dumpty does, so why shouldn't *you*.
<g>
Chris B
Chris Baker
[SNIPPED for brevity, *not* content.]
>However the "organ" I played for worship was no electric wonder,
> but a harmonium, an ill wind that nobody blows any good, to repeat
the
> old joke. There were far better players than me, who could make
music
> with it, including one lady who used a four part tonic-sol-fa
edition of
> the hymnbook.
Kevin, please accept my apologies.
Somehow I obtained the impression that you were a in all respects a
full-blown church organist. I must have sounded as though I was
putting down your efforts, and I am truly sorry about that.
My poor showing was intended as a leg-pull from one organist to
another, faced with yet another request for the old pot boilers.
Regards, Chris B
Ken Down
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> No reason at all. However, there is excellent evidence
> that he believed he was writing poetry.
These self-delusions are tragic, aren't they.
> There is also excellent evidence that many other people believed the
> same.
A year or so back, on a day when the weather was warmer, I came across a
long-haired youth and his short-haired girl-friend plunging into the sea
fully dressed in order to retrieve a couple of plastic bags that appeared to
contain white stone. I think I have mentioned before that curiosity is my
besetting sin; I stopped and enquired what they were doing. The lad
explained that he was an artist and he wanted to capture the spirit of the
storm which was approaching; this he was doing by mixing up plaster of paris
and pouring it into the bags which he then placed in the sea to be moulded
by the waves. Judging by the results, I should say that the crinkles in the
plastic rubbish bags had more influence upon the final form than the waves,
but what do I know?
This chap thought he was an artist; as he spoke of having discussed the
project with his tutor and clearly had that individual's approval it seems
that other people also thought he was an artist. No doubt Caravaggio is
still turning in his grave.
> Clearly you think they were all wrong. Why should I believe you rather
> than them?
No reason at all; you might, however, compare the output of Mr Randy Thomas
and that of, say, Wordsworth, and reach your own conclusion.
> >> I was highly unimpressed by the poem (if it was a
> >> poem) by Randy Thomas, but I wouldn't deny it the
> >> title of "poetry" simply because it has neither a
> >> consistent metre nor a rhyme scheme.
> > I believe Humpty Dumpty had the same approach to language.
> I do not claim the right to decide unilaterally what words mean.
As poetry is usually defined in terms of metre and rhyme, to assert that
something lacking in either is "poetry" would seem to be a negation of your
claim above.
Chris Baker
> Humpty-dumptyism works both ways. It is equally a humpty-dumpty
Actually, I'm quite happy for poetry to be whatever Humpty went up the
hill and cut off their tails for........And I never really understood
that one about a cow called Mary jumping over twenty four blackbirds
to kill a lamb with a spoonful of lean sprats.......
Did you? :-)
Chris B
Alec Brady
news:3a4a537c$0$1...@news.zetnet.co.uk...
I understand there are rules for Anglo-Saxon verse, but that they can be
summarised by saying "imagine you are declaiming to the beat of a
knee-harp." I would guess that most such rules will be post-facto
systematising of what poets choose to do.
Incidentally, I find the Grail version of the psalms to be by far the most
moving and the most poetical: I can't remember who said it (CS Lewis?), but
the Grail clearly shows how, in Hebrew poetry, it isn't words but ideas that
are made to rhyme...
"Have mercy on me, God, in your kindness,
In your compassion blot out my offence:
O wash me more and more from my guilt,
And cleanse me from my sin." (50/51)
"When the Lord delivered Sion from bondage,
It seemed like a dream:
Then was our mouth filled with laughter,
On our lips there were songs." (125/126)
Eat your heart out, Coverdale!
--
Alec Brady | Give a man a fish and you feed him
to email me | for a day:
write my name (with a dot separator) | Make http://www.thehungersite.com
then | your browser's home page and you feed
"at virgin dot net" | him every day!
Chris Baker
Ken, I wonder, would you agree that William Blake is an important
English poet?
It is difficult to imagine that you might disagree, and so, what do
you make of his four poems - To Spring, To Summer, To Autumn, To
Winter.
I ask, because the whole English Literature establishment regards them
as examples of Blake's *poetry*, yet they do not rhyme, neither are
they metred.
Or "Fair Eleanor"
Oh, and "Evening Star" is worth a look for the same reason.
Chris B
Chris Baker
> As poetry is usually defined in terms of metre and rhyme, to assert
that
> something lacking in either is "poetry" would seem to be a negation
of your
> claim above.
Ken, sorry, I meant to include the following extract in my previous
post.
What do you make of it, is it poetry?
Begins:
'Conceiveth all things will continue thus,
And we shall have to live in fear of Him
So long as He lives, keeps His strength: no change,
If He have done His best, make no new world to please Him more,
so leave off watching this,--
If He surprise not even the Quiet's self some strange day,
--or, suppose, grow into it
As grubs grow butterflies: else, here are we,
And there is He, and nowhere help at all.
End extract.
Would be interested in your opinion.
Chris B
Ken Down
<ke...@kevdon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Our harmonium was a reed instrument, with stops bearing meaning
> less names in gothic script, so the performer had to use trial and error
> to see what did what. Windpower was provided by the player's foot
> pedals, an action that also had the tendency to push the organ seat
> further away from the keyboard, thus causing panic. Dynamics were
> provided by knee-operated treble and bass swells.
Aaahh, that brings back memories. I learned to play on a folding version of
the above, with only four octaves, two each side of Middle-C. The first time
I encountered a piano I sat down on the stool and started pumping the pedals
vigorously. Someone had to tell me that the right hand one was "loud" and
the left-hand one "soft".
Ken Down
(Nick Milton) wrote:
> Humpty-dumptyism works both ways. It is equally a humpty-dumpty
> assertion that poetry is whatever Ken Down wants it to be
Not at all. I agree with generations of poets as to what poetry is: ask
Sapho if you don't believe me. You could also try Homer is she isn't around.
kevin donnelly
<cho...@clara.co.uk> writes
light under a bushel, which some people no doubt thought was the best
place for it. Then I began to meet some marvellous people who offered
nothing but cheerful encouragement. May the good Lord be thanked for
them.
KD
--
kevin donnelly
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <3a4afefa...@news.demon.co.uk>, nick_...@ktransform.com
>(Nick Milton) wrote:
>
>> Humpty-dumptyism works both ways. It is equally a humpty-dumpty
>> assertion that poetry is whatever Ken Down wants it to be
>
>Not at all. I agree with generations of poets as to what poetry is: ask
>Sapho if you don't believe me. You could also try Homer is she isn't around.
How about simply consulting a dictionary?
As I've previously pointed out, the idea that poetry *must* have both
rhyme and metre is not supported by any of the dictionaries I have
available to me.
Mark
--
More pretentious waffle now at http://www.mark.x.tc
Ken Down
<cho...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> Ken, I wonder, would you agree that William Blake is an important
> English poet?
Yeah, well, we all know about Blake!
> It is difficult to imagine that you might disagree, and so, what do
> you make of his four poems - To Spring, To Summer, To Autumn, To
> Winter.
I must admit that I have not, to my knowledge, read these, so cannot
comment. The only Blake poem I know is that tiger one (which has both metre
and rhyme).
Ken Down
<cho...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> 'Conceiveth all things will continue thus,
> And we shall have to live in fear of Him
> So long as He lives, keeps His strength: no change,
> If He have done His best, make no new world to please Him more,
> so leave off watching this,--
> If He surprise not even the Quiet's self some strange day,
> --or, suppose, grow into it
> As grubs grow butterflies: else, here are we,
> And there is He, and nowhere help at all.
> End extract.
> Would be interested in your opinion.
You will not be surprised to learn that I don't like it (possibly that
opinion might change if there was more context to the extract) and don't
consider it poetry. I imagine that you are now going to tear the whiskers
off, so to speak, and say, "Aha! But it was written by . . . ." My reply
will be 1) every artist has his or her off days, and 2) I have already
suggested that there ought to be a third category for those writings which
are neither prose nor poetry.
Incidentally, at a recent funeral I read out something I had written for the
occasion which, I suppose, some might call "free verse" and had the
satisfaction(?) of seeing several people burst into tears. As the same
people asked afterwards for a copy, it can't have been too excruciatingly
awful, but I most certainly would not call it poetry.
Gareth McCaughan
>> No reason at all. However, there is excellent evidence
>> that he believed he was writing poetry.
>
> These self-delusions are tragic, aren't they.
I repeat my question: Why should I believe your claim
that Eliot was self-deluded?
>> There is also excellent evidence that many other people believed the
>> same.
>
> A year or so back, on a day when the weather was warmer, I came across a
> long-haired youth and his short-haired girl-friend plunging into the sea
> fully dressed in order to retrieve a couple of plastic bags that appeared to
> contain white stone. I think I have mentioned before that curiosity is my
> besetting sin; I stopped and enquired what they were doing. The lad
> explained that he was an artist and he wanted to capture the spirit of the
> storm which was approaching; this he was doing by mixing up plaster of paris
> and pouring it into the bags which he then placed in the sea to be moulded
> by the waves. Judging by the results, I should say that the crinkles in the
> plastic rubbish bags had more influence upon the final form than the waves,
> but what do I know?
>
> This chap thought he was an artist; as he spoke of having discussed the
> project with his tutor and clearly had that individual's approval it seems
> that other people also thought he was an artist. No doubt Caravaggio is
> still turning in his grave.
I'd say he was an artist, but probably a very bad one.
>> Clearly you think they were all wrong. Why should I believe you rather
>> than them?
>
> No reason at all; you might, however, compare the output of Mr Randy Thomas
> and that of, say, Wordsworth, and reach your own conclusion.
My conclusion is that Wordsworth was a better poet than Randy
Thomas appears to be. What of it? If I were to compare the
output of Eliot with that of William McGonagall and draw my
own conclusions, they might not be to your liking. Again,
what of it? It is possible to write execrable poetry in any
genre.
>>>> I was highly unimpressed by the poem (if it was a
>>>> poem) by Randy Thomas, but I wouldn't deny it the
>>>> title of "poetry" simply because it has neither a
>>>> consistent metre nor a rhyme scheme.
>
>>> I believe Humpty Dumpty had the same approach to language.
>
>> I do not claim the right to decide unilaterally what words mean.
>
> As poetry is usually defined in terms of metre and rhyme, to assert that
> something lacking in either is "poetry" would seem to be a negation of your
> claim above.
Defined by whom?
Gareth McCaughan
> Not at all. I agree with generations of poets as to what poetry is: ask
> Sappho if you don't believe me. You could also try Homer if she isn't around.
Their poetry didn't rhyme. (Well, Homer's certainly didn't.
I'm guessing that Sappho's didn't either, but I could be wrong.)
It was also metrically much less strict than most metrical
English verse.
Anyway, when someone challenged you about the psalms you
said that the standards of one culture's poetry shouldn't
be applied to another. Why are you suddenly appealing to
Sappho and Homer?
Alec Brady
news:na.3369ba4a34....@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <A1Q26.109908$eT4.7...@nnrp3.clara.net>, "Chris Baker"
> <cho...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Ken, I wonder, would you agree that William Blake is an important
> > English poet?
>
> Yeah, well, we all know about Blake!
>
> > It is difficult to imagine that you might disagree, and so, what do
> > you make of his four poems - To Spring, To Summer, To Autumn, To
> > Winter.
>
> I must admit that I have not, to my knowledge, read these, so cannot
> comment. The only Blake poem I know is that tiger one (which has both
metre
> and rhyme).
>
Is "Samson Agonistes" a poem? Milton said it was, and yet it has neither
metre nor rhyme.
Chris Baker
>
> > Ken, I wonder, would you agree that William Blake is an important
> > English poet?
>
> Yeah, well, we all know about Blake!
LOL ! Although many innocents think of him as a delightful young
man, who wrote "such lovely rhymes".................... still, let's
not disabuse them :-)
>
> > It is difficult to imagine that you might disagree, and so, what
do
> > you make of his four poems - To Spring, To Summer, To Autumn, To
> > Winter.
>
> I must admit that I have not, to my knowledge, read these, so cannot
> comment. The only Blake poem I know is that tiger one (which has
both metre
> and rhyme).
These four, together with a great number of others, are part of his
poetic output which avoids rhyme and has no discernible metre,
although the pseudo-intellects will from time to time employ fantastic
analyses designed to show that after all, there "really IS evidence",
albeit heavily concealed (you betcha, c.b), that Blake has employed
this or that variant of the understood meaning of 'metre'. Utter
bullpucky of course.
The point though, and I suppose there has to be one, is that Blake,
along with others such as Wordsworth, Browning, Rosetti, produced some
of their poetry in this form. It cannot be called prose, as it does
not obey the rules and/or conventions of prose, even as they are
understood today, let alone for the period during which it was
written.
I can honestly say that I have never heard of any commentator,
anthologist, academic, or lay appreciator, saying that these works are
anything other than poetry. This forces me to the conclusion that your
position is *entirely* personal.
Is that fair comment ?
Regards,
Chris Baker
Chris Baker
> > 'Conceiveth all things will continue thus....................
SNIP extract
Ken responds:
> You will not be surprised to learn that I don't like it (possibly
that
> opinion might change if there was more context to the extract) and
don't
> consider it poetry. I imagine that you are now going to tear the
whiskers
> off, so to speak, and say, "Aha! But it was written by . . .
Thank you for responding to this.
I would consider it to be extremely bad-mannered of me to obtain your
response first, and then to do the "Aha" bit.
Should you wish to know the source of the extract, please do ask.
Your response however tells me that we are not here considering the
larger picture of what is, or is not poetry. Rather, all this has
simply been an expression of your own personal, [dare I say
'extreme'], rejection of the general wisdom by which the term 'poetry'
is understood.
I presume that you would own the views you hold to be entirely
personal, and that you do not really expect any measure of agreement
from others?
Regards,
Chris Baker
Ken Down
(Mark Goodge) wrote:
> How about simply consulting a dictionary?
Which one? Dictionaries change the definitions of words in an attempt to
keep "with it", so you can't really trust 'em. Stick with Samuel Johnston.
Philip Gardner
{Phil:]
> > Ken, if you believe that rules exist in English or Welsh to determine
> > whether a particular piece of writing is a poem, please tell us: who
made
> > these rules? who enforces them? and, most important of all, what are
they?
>
> Well, of course, I don't know for sure about you English, but in Wales we
> have the bards and the Gorsedd; they are the ones who make the rules and
> award prizes for those who produce the finest englyn. As to what the rules
> are, they are so complicated that I suggest you get a book and read all
> about it.
I responded previously, bowing to your knowledge of the rules of Welsh
poetry, and merely challenging you on English poetry (as many other
contributors have also done).
However, last night I discussed this with a Welsh friend who is very
knowledgeable on Welsh literature, and he assured me that your comments are
true only of the bardic tradition, and that Welsh poetry has many other
genres that are not bound by those rules. (I am not quoting him
word-for-word, so I may have got the terminology slightly wrong, but that
was the substance of what he said.)
I'm afraid it seems to me that on this, as on many other subjects, you have
your own narrow view of what is true or permissible, and seem unable to
conceive (or admit) that the real world is far wider and more diverse.
Phil
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <3a4c7582...@news.markshouse.net>, ma...@good-stuff.co.uk
>(Mark Goodge) wrote:
>
>> How about simply consulting a dictionary?
>
>Which one? Dictionaries change the definitions of words in an attempt to
>keep "with it", so you can't really trust 'em.
Dictionaries don't "change" the definition of words, they simply
record them. If you really want to be pedantic about it, then consult
the full OED, which is cumulative and lists *all* the recorded
meanings of a word in the English language. Unfortunately, I don't
have a copy available, but I'd be willing to wager that it includes
several current definitions of "poetry" which do not require rhyme
and/or metre.
>Stick with Samuel Johnston.
And his opinion on the topic of poetry was?
Gareth McCaughan
> Is "Samson Agonistes" a poem? Milton said it was, and yet it has neither
> metre nor rhyme.
What, none at all? A lot of it is in pretty straight
iambic pentameter. But there are portions that would
presumably fail the Down Poetry Test[1].
[1] "Down with Poetry!" ?
Robert Pearce
<al...@zanker.org> enlightened us thusly :
>
>At the risk of going totally off-topic (does that matter?) and also of
>breaching copyright, I'll go ahead and post this poem by R S Thomas,
>which I find one of the most simple and moving pieces of modern verse
>I've seen recently.
Simple, yes. Moving, probably. Verse, I think not. Remove the artificial
line breaks and there is nothing to tell you it's supposed to be verse.
Real poetry is poetic however it's written down.
--
Rob Pearce http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk
If you must reply by | Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.
e-mail please use |
"news_reply" at |
bdt-home dot demon etc. |
Robert Pearce
<cho...@clara.co.uk> enlightened us thusly :
>
> Whatever a dictionary may say, poetry is a perception by the
>individual's finer senses. If we perceive something to be poetic, then
>it is poetry.
That's all very well, but there's a STRONG case of Emperor's New Clothes
going on here. What we really mean by poetry, it would seem, is "that
which we have been told the so-called experts think should have an
effect on one's finer senses".
--
Rob Pearce http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk
If you must reply by | We are the people our parents warned us about.
Robert Pearce
Brady <alec....@virgin.net> enlightened us thusly :
>
>Eat your heart out, Coverdale!
>
Alec Brady
news:868zoxd...@g.local...
> Alec Brady wrote:
>
> > Is "Samson Agonistes" a poem? Milton said it was, and yet it has neither
> > metre nor rhyme.
>
> What, none at all? A lot of it is in pretty straight
> iambic pentameter. But there are portions that would
> presumably fail the Down Poetry Test[1].
>
>
> [1] "Down with Poetry!" ?
"When God into the hands of their deliverer
Puts invincible might
To quell the mighty of the the earth, the oppressor,
The brute and boisterous force of violent men,
Hardy and industrious to support
Tyrannic power, but raging to pursue
The righteous and all such as honour truth!
He all their ammunition
And feats of war defeats
With plain heroic magnitude of mind...
(Samson Agonistes, 1270)
Yes, iambic in parts (like the curate's egg). But is that enough for Ken?
Ken?
Gareth McCaughan
> In article <jfo64t4p1olmtvkta...@4ax.com>, Alan Zanker
> <al...@zanker.org> enlightened us thusly :
>>
>> At the risk of going totally off-topic (does that matter?) and also of
>> breaching copyright, I'll go ahead and post this poem by R S Thomas,
>> which I find one of the most simple and moving pieces of modern verse
>> I've seen recently.
>
> Simple, yes. Moving, probably. Verse, I think not. Remove the artificial
> line breaks and there is nothing to tell you it's supposed to be verse.
> Real poetry is poetic however it's written down.
Hmm, let's see.
| We met under a shower of bird-notes. Fifty years passed, love's
| moment in a world in servitude to time. She was young; I kissed with
| my eyes, closed and opened them on her wrinkles. 'Come,' said death,
| choosing her as his partner for the last dance. And she, who in life
| had done everything with a bird's grace, opened her bill now for the
| shedding of one sigh no heavier than a feather.
I think I'd be rather taken aback if I encountered
that paragraph in any ordinary context.
I wouldn't call it "verse", because I think "verse" does
imply more attention to metre and rhyme and such formal
matters, but I would certainly call it poetry. It's
poetic even when collapsed into a paragraph, even though
it's not metrical.
I'm not sure that the line breaks contribute anything
much (though they do in some very blank verse). Part of
the issue is that there's an established literary form
called "poetry" in which very short works are taken
seriously, whereas publishing single paragraphs that
don't look like poetry wouldn't get treated in the same
way. Perhaps that's a shame.
Gareth McCaughan
>>> Is "Samson Agonistes" a poem? Milton said it was, and yet it has neither
>>> metre nor rhyme.
>>
>> What, none at all? A lot of it is in pretty straight
>> iambic pentameter. But there are portions that would
>> presumably fail the Down Poetry Test.
>
> "When God into the hands of their deliverer
> Puts invincible might
> To quell the mighty of the the earth, the oppressor,
> The brute and boisterous force of violent men,
> Hardy and industrious to support
> Tyrannic power, but raging to pursue
> The righteous and all such as honour truth!
> He all their ammunition
> And feats of war defeats
> With plain heroic magnitude of mind...
> (Samson Agonistes, 1270)
>
> Yes, iambic in parts (like the curate's egg). But is that enough for Ken?
An excellent question, and I'm sorry if I seemed to be
taking exception to your choice of challenge (which I
think excellent). I just thought that describing it
as having "neither rhyme nor metre" was a bit much,
when (1) large swathes of it are in ordinary iambic
pentameter, and (2) even sections like the one you
quote above are hardly without metre, even if it's
not completely metrical. It's a long way from, say,
"The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock" (which itself
is more verse-like than a lot of modern poetry).
Gareth McCaughan
> That's all very well, but there's a STRONG case of Emperor's New Clothes
> going on here. What we really mean by poetry, it would seem, is "that
> which we have been told the so-called experts think should have an
> effect on one's finer senses".
Perhaps that's what some people mean by poetry. It's not
what I mean. I mean something like "writing with several
of the following qualities:
- highly regular form (rhyme, patterns of stresses or
syllable lengths, numbers of syllables, repeated
vowels or consonants, etc)
- special attention given to the sounds of the words
as well as their meanings
- density of meaning or allusion
- brevity
- conciseness, even at the cost of clarity
- beauty
- neglect of grammatical and lexical rules
- lines that don't go all the way across the page
- being called "poetry" by its author".
None of these, on its own, makes writing poetry. All of them
together certainly do. There's a continuum, and to some extent
it's a matter of personal choice where to draw the line -- if
you insist on drawing a line at all, dividing all writing into
"poetry" and "non-poetry" rather than saying that some things
have more "poem-nature" than others. At the moment, the general
consensus is that not much regularity of form is necessary for
something to be called "poetry". I'm happy to go along with
that consensus, and I think the distinction between "poetry"
and "non-poetry" as it's currently made is a pretty useful
one.
There's also a place for a distinction based more purely on
formal considerations. The word "verse" exists to express
that, and it's useful too.
This sort of fuzzy definition is rather common, by the way.
One famous example (due to Wittgenstein, I think) is the
word "game". There's no single definition that covers all
games and nothing else, but there are a whole bunch of
overlapping ideas that collectively define the notion.
Ken Down
Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote:
> Is "Samson Agonistes" a poem? Milton said it was, and yet it has neither
> metre nor rhyme.
So there's *another* cause for blindness!
Ken Down
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> It is possible to write execrable poetry in any genre.
Hmmm. How would you feel about a seven-line limerick? Is it possible to
write a free-verse sonnet? (Or if you did, would it really be a sonnet?)
Just because someone who is capable of writing poetry calls something a poem
does not automatically mean that it is; I am capable of writing a poor
limerick, but if I called something with seven lines a limerick, would you
believe me?
> Defined by whom?
My dear old English teacher, God rest her soul, for one. I have long
forgotten what an iambic pentamter is, but I do know that there are such
beasts. I can also recall getting my knuckles rapped (literally) for getting
the stressed and unstressed syllables wrong - remember "/uu/uu/u"?
Poetry has been analysed and classified down through the ages and when Oi
were a lad you had to be able to identify poems by their structure, never
mind what the fat-headed poet might have called them.
Ken Down
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Their poetry didn't rhyme. (Well, Homer's certainly didn't.
> I'm guessing that Sappho's didn't either, but I could be wrong.)
Is that in the original Greek or in an English translation?
> It was also metrically much less strict than most metrical
> English verse.
That, I admit, does surprise me. I thought the Greeks were pretty hot on
formal structures to their poetry.
> Anyway, when someone challenged you about the psalms you
> said that the standards of one culture's poetry shouldn't
> be applied to another. Why are you suddenly appealing to
> Sappho and Homer?
To make the point - which you appear to have undermined - that poetry was
fairly rigidly defined. When so-and-so declared that what's-'is-name wrote
the history of Rome in 2,300 heroic couplets, everyone knew what he meant.
Even if your assertion is correct - that rhyme was absent and metre lax - I
maintain that poetry has structure which includes rhyme, metre and rhythm,
and that anything without those features belongs to another category.
Ken Down
<cho...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> I can honestly say that I have never heard of any commentator,
> anthologist, academic, or lay appreciator, saying that these works are
> anything other than poetry. This forces me to the conclusion that your
> position is *entirely* personal.
> Is that fair comment ?
Quite possibly. You might also add, "not entirely serious".
You must admit, however, that it makes a pleasant change from homosexuality.
Ken Down
<cho...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> I would consider it to be extremely bad-mannered of me to obtain your
> response first, and then to do the "Aha" bit.
But perfectly fair debating tactics.
> Should you wish to know the source of the extract, please do ask.
Go ahead, surprise me.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>In article <86lmszd...@g.local>, Gareth McCaughan
><Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> It is possible to write execrable poetry in any genre.
>
>Hmmm. How would you feel about a seven-line limerick? Is it possible to
>write a free-verse sonnet? (Or if you did, would it really be a sonnet?)
You can't write a seven-line limerick or a free-verse sonnet, because
these are forms of poetry with defined "rules". That doesn't imply
that all forms of poetry have the same rules. Other forms of poetry
have other rules.
Do you consider haiku to be poetry? If not, then why not?
Chris Baker
> > I can honestly say that I have never heard of any commentator,
> > anthologist, academic, or lay appreciator, saying that these works
are
> > anything other than poetry. This forces me to the conclusion that
your
> > position is *entirely* personal.
> > Is that fair comment ?
KD
> Quite possibly. You might also add, "not entirely serious".
[bow-wave falls to nothing, as wind is completely taken from sails]
> You must admit, however, that it makes a pleasant change from
homosexuality.
errmmm.........."Hello sailor" .........
Chris B
Robert Marshall
> In article <86lmszd...@g.local>, Gareth McCaughan
> <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > It is possible to write execrable poetry in any genre.
>
> Hmmm. How would you feel about a seven-line limerick? Is it possible to
> write a free-verse sonnet? (Or if you did, would it really be a sonnet?)
> Just because someone who is capable of writing poetry calls something a poem
> does not automatically mean that it is; I am capable of writing a poor
> limerick, but if I called something with seven lines a limerick, would you
> believe me?
There was a young man of St Bees
Who was stung on the nose by a wasp
When they asked: Does it hurt?
He said: No it Doesn't
I'm lucky it wasn't a hornet
I'm sorry the temptation was too much
(but is it a limerick?)
R
--
We need to help one another to understand that, whoever we are, we are
enemies of the Spirit of Love and Justice whenever our minds are shut
and our hearts hardened to the humanity of those who oppose us.
Carter Heyward (Saving Jesus from those who are right)
Chris Baker
> > I would consider it to be extremely bad-mannered of me to obtain
your
> > response first, and then to do the "Aha" bit.
KD
> But perfectly fair debating tactics.
CB
> > Should you wish to know the source of the extract, please do ask.
KD
> Go ahead, surprise me.
Robert Browning
"Caliban upon Setebos"
Not that I divulge this with any hope of surprising you,<g> nor with
any more seriousness of purpose than is possible in such a daft topic.
I see that recently, a display of rumpled bedclothes, soiled knickers
and, if I remember correctly, a used tampon, have been offered as
'Art'.
D'ya wanna goferrit?
I am given to understand that the ensemble is as yet unsold. This is
probably due to a complete mis-understanding between the artistic
direction of the gallery and, the perceptions of the contract
cleaners.
Regards,
Chris B
Robert Pearce
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> enlightened us thusly :
[I had said]
>> Simple, yes. Moving, probably. Verse, I think not. Remove the artificial
>> line breaks and there is nothing to tell you it's supposed to be verse.
>> Real poetry is poetic however it's written down.
>
>Hmm, let's see.
>
> | We met under a shower of bird-notes. Fifty years passed, love's
> | moment in a world in servitude to time. She was young; I kissed with
> | my eyes, closed and opened them on her wrinkles. 'Come,' said death,
> | choosing her as his partner for the last dance. And she, who in life
> | had done everything with a bird's grace, opened her bill now for the
> | shedding of one sigh no heavier than a feather.
>
>I think I'd be rather taken aback if I encountered
>that paragraph in any ordinary context.
>
Define "ordinary context". I would be surprised to find it in reportage,
but there are places in some daily news papers where it would not look
overly out of place.
>I wouldn't call it "verse", because I think "verse" does
>imply more attention to metre and rhyme and such formal
>matters, but I would certainly call it poetry. It's
>poetic even when collapsed into a paragraph, even though
>it's not metrical.
>
I'm afraid I disagree, though I'm quite happy to accept that it is
fairly poetic prose. It probably fits the "third style" that somebody
was asking for.
>I'm not sure that the line breaks contribute anything
>much (though they do in some very blank verse).
Having seen it concatenated, I actually think the line breaks detract
from it's beauty. I prefer "your" form.
>Part of
>the issue is that there's an established literary form
>called "poetry" in which very short works are taken
>seriously, whereas publishing single paragraphs that
>don't look like poetry wouldn't get treated in the same
>way. Perhaps that's a shame.
Yes, I think it is a shame, because I suspect the meaning of the term
"poetry" is being stretched to breaking point to make room for something
which doesn't fit, but which merits recognition in its own right.
--
Rob Pearce http://www.bdt-home.demon.co.uk
If you must reply by | Children are natural mimics who act like their
e-mail please use | parents despite every effort to teach them good
"news_reply" at | manners.
bdt-home dot demon etc. |
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>> It is possible to write execrable poetry in any genre.
>
> Hmmm. How would you feel about a seven-line limerick? Is it possible to
> write a free-verse sonnet? (Or if you did, would it really be a sonnet?)
> Just because someone who is capable of writing poetry calls something a poem
> does not automatically mean that it is; I am capable of writing a poor
> limerick, but if I called something with seven lines a limerick, would you
> believe me?
What on earth are you on about? Oh, I see, I used the word
"poetry". *sigh* Let me rephrase: "It is possible to write
execrably in any genre". It is not possible to write execrable
seven-line limericks because there is no such thing as a
seven-line limerick. (This is universally agreed.)
Hmm. Actually, I wonder whether the old verses about the
young bards from Peru and Verdun count as limericks. :-)
>> Defined by whom?
>
> My dear old English teacher, God rest her soul, for one. I have long
> forgotten what an iambic pentamter is, but I do know that there are such
> beasts. I can also recall getting my knuckles rapped (literally) for getting
> the stressed and unstressed syllables wrong - remember "/uu/uu/u"?
Yes, I do.
> Poetry has been analysed and classified down through the ages and when Oi
> were a lad you had to be able to identify poems by their structure, never
> mind what the fat-headed poet might have called them.
And no doubt you all felt that you were much smarter than
the poet because you were able to point out that his metre
didn't adhere precisely to the scheme laid down by the Gods
of Poetry. Never mind the fact that the poet knew exactly
what he was doing and why.
Bach wrote lousy fugues, too, you know. Broke all the rules.
Gareth McCaughan
[I said, about an amorphous poem with its line-breaks removed:]
>> I think I'd be rather taken aback if I encountered
>> that paragraph in any ordinary context.
>>
> Define "ordinary context". I would be surprised to find it in reportage,
> but there are places in some daily news papers where it would not look
> overly out of place.
Really? I confess surprise. I don't have a precise definition
for "ordinary context". Anywhere where I wasn't expecting to
encounter poetry with the lines concatenated, I suppose. :-)
>> I'm not sure that the line breaks contribute anything
>> much (though they do in some very blank verse).
>
> Having seen it concatenated, I actually think the line breaks detract
> from its beauty. I prefer "your" form.
I don't find that they detract. Maybe some people find that
they contribute. Anyone want to tell us?
>> Part of
>> the issue is that there's an established literary form
>> called "poetry" in which very short works are taken
>> seriously, whereas publishing single paragraphs that
>> don't look like poetry wouldn't get treated in the same
>> way. Perhaps that's a shame.
>
> Yes, I think it is a shame, because I suspect the meaning of the term
> "poetry" is being stretched to breaking point to make room for something
> which doesn't fit, but which merits recognition in its own right.
I think there is a lot of truth in this. It's not the whole
story, though. For a random example: I don't think "The Love
Song of J Alfred Prufrock" and "The Waste Land" are poetic
prose chopped into lines. But neither is close to being
as metrically regular as (for instance) Ken would like.
Gareth McCaughan
>> Their poetry didn't rhyme. (Well, Homer's certainly didn't.
>> I'm guessing that Sappho's didn't either, but I could be wrong.)
>
> Is that in the original Greek or in an English translation?
In the original Greek.
>> It was also metrically much less strict than most metrical
>> English verse.
>
> That, I admit, does surprise me. I thought the Greeks were pretty hot on
> formal structures to their poetry.
Oh, the formal structure was there all right. I'm afraid
I don't remember the details, but know the metrical scheme
of the Aeneid (which I think is similar to that of Homer's
verse): six feet per line, each foot either a dactyl (-..)
or a spondee (--), and with the last two feet a dactyl and
a spondee, in that order.
<click> <tappety-tap> <mumble>
Damn. Mea culpa: although Latin hexameter is flexible to
the extent I just stated, it turns out that the Iliad and
Odyssey were stricter. Dactylic hexameter: six feet,
five dactyls and a spondee in that order.
So, as it happens, Homer's verse was about as strict as
Milton's (in, say, "Paradise Lost", rather than "Samson
Agonistes" which is looser). However, I have only to
retreat slightly: Virgil's "Aeneid" is (as I said) quite
loose. 16 possible metres for each line, and no restriction
on the choice of which one.
No rhyme in either Greek or Latin hexameters, anyway.
(Some Latin poetry rhymes; for instance, the "Dies Irae"
does. I'm not sure whether any *classical* Latin poetry
rhymes.)
>> Anyway, when someone challenged you about the psalms you
>> said that the standards of one culture's poetry shouldn't
>> be applied to another. Why are you suddenly appealing to
>> Sappho and Homer?
>
> To make the point - which you appear to have undermined - that poetry was
> fairly rigidly defined. When so-and-so declared that what's-'is-name wrote
> the history of Rome in 2,300 heroic couplets, everyone knew what he meant.
Obviously if someone writes in heroic couplets then they have
chosen a very strict form. Not all classical poetry was in
such a strict form.
> Even if your assertion is correct - that rhyme was absent and metre lax - I
> maintain that poetry has structure which includes rhyme, metre and rhythm,
> and that anything without those features belongs to another category.
I know you do. You haven't given any justification for that
proposition yet.
kevin donnelly
<digg...@argonet.co.uk> writes
>In article <86lmszd...@g.local>, Gareth McCaughan
><Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> It is possible to write execrable poetry in any genre.
>
>Hmmm. How would you feel about a seven-line limerick? Is it possible to
>write a free-verse sonnet? (Or if you did, would it really be a sonnet?)
>Just because someone who is capable of writing poetry calls something a poem
>does not automatically mean that it is; I am capable of writing a poor
>limerick, but if I called something with seven lines a limerick, would you
>believe me?
>
>> Defined by whom?
>
>My dear old English teacher, God rest her soul, for one. I have long
>forgotten what an iambic pentamter is, but I do know that there are such
>beasts. I can also recall getting my knuckles rapped (literally) for getting
>the stressed and unstressed syllables wrong - remember "/uu/uu/u"?
>
>Poetry has been analysed and classified down through the ages and when Oi
>were a lad you had to be able to identify poems by their structure, never
>mind what the fat-headed poet might have called them.
>
>God bless,
>Kendall K. Down
>
Once wrote to himself with a frown,
That a seven line verse
As a limerick is worse,
Than doggerel: it's spurious,
But that's very curious,
Just look at what I've written down!
That reminds me of one sabbatarian,
Who dabbled in plots anti-Marian,
Then thought that a critic,
Of writings semitic,
If Genesis is credible,
And Jonah is edible,
Could not remain an episcopal Arian.
An unemployed young man of Geneva,
Became even more a believer,
When he found with relief,
That Calvinistic belief,
In predestination,
Had brought him salvation,
And a job as the Official Receiver.
The seven-lined stanza so lyrical,
Began with a French priest satirical,
Reciting his office,
With a Limerick novice,
Through mixing his wines,
He added two lines,
And the pilgrims now call it Le Miracle.
KD
--
kevin donnelly
Ken Down
Brady" <alec....@virgin.net> wrote:
> "When God into the hands of their deliverer
> Puts invincible might
> To quell the mighty of the the earth, the oppressor,
> The brute and boisterous force of violent men,
> Hardy and industrious to support
> Tyrannic power, but raging to pursue
> The righteous and all such as honour truth!
> He all their ammunition
> And feats of war defeats
> With plain heroic magnitude of mind...
> (Samson Agonistes, 1270)
> Yes, iambic in parts (like the curate's egg). But is that enough for Ken?
> Ken?
Probably, being blind, the poor chap couldn't see where the lines ended.
Shame, really, when he wrote a fairish amount of good stuff.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
Ken Down
(Mark Goodge) wrote:
> And his opinion on the topic of poetry was?
No idea, but I'll bet it was memorably phrased.
Ken Down
<philip....@asgard.zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> However, last night I discussed this with a Welsh friend who is very
> knowledgeable on Welsh literature, and he assured me that your comments
> are true only of the bardic tradition
Yes, but anything outside the bardic tradition is heresy. Surely you know
that?
Ken Down
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Perhaps that's what some people mean by poetry. It's not
> what I mean. I mean something like "writing with several
> of the following qualities:
I particularly liked the "density of meaning or allusion" one. I presume you
meant something like "closely packed" rather than the more colloquial
associations of the word "dense"?
> There's also a place for a distinction based more purely on
> formal considerations. The word "verse" exists to express
> that, and it's useful too.
I was under the impression that "verse" was more to the doggeral end of the
poetic spectrum? I'm sure I've come across the expression "a mere versifier"
used to denegrate someone's work.
Ken Down
<rob...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> There was a young man of St Bees
> Who was stung on the nose by a wasp
> When they asked: Does it hurt?
> He said: No it Doesn't
> I'm lucky it wasn't a hornet
> I'm sorry the temptation was too much
> (but is it a limerick?)
An excellent illustration: it is not a limerick because although it has five
lines, the rhyme scheme is incorrect.
Ken Down
<cho...@clara.co.uk> wrote:
> [bow-wave falls to nothing, as wind is completely taken from sails]
Don't get too upset about it, though.
Ken Down
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> No rhyme in either Greek or Latin hexameters, anyway.
Was rhyme a requirement in Greek and Latin? I always feel that it is
cheating a bit when virtually all masculine nouns end in "-os" and all
feminine with "-a".
> I know you do. You haven't given any justification for that
> proposition yet.
Maybe there isn't any, but it's been fun.