16·Nov·2005 · "Under the Black Flag" · twelveoone

[tarablackwood22]

Responds, very carefully to the person he fears most
po·lem·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-lmk)
n.

1. A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.
2. A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation.

go with def #2, I am not making an argument, no attempt is made at persuasion.

I am no more the great Khan, than either Pound or Browning was Sordello or Paracelsus. "polemic" has a great sound to it, especially for what is written after it. In effect a persona. Content is weak, I don't think it stands alone as "poetry", however, as a statement of work and as an audience test, it serves well.
"Fellow Travelers" is a pejorative term most often used (at least to my knowledge) used against those that were not rabidly anti-communistists in the 50's, it has been appropiated and used as a from of counter -ridecule since. It also serves another purpose.



“Applause” was my idea - the break between the strophes seems to work well, both strophes are in a state of flux, I want to put in three more rhymes I think, all buried. Both strophes have 40 syllables if I counted right. I am toying with the idea of making it a sonnet as this is a Nude Desending a Staircase .
"but severely affects the rhythm and the grace" -here I do not think I did that enough in the second strophe, I wanted a box of animals straining to get out. My argument - too smooth. "Applause" is a disrupter and keeps the syllable count.


I agree with the tab indents, just not sure how to work them.
"to pierce to the root and all. " borrowed line, context changed, a little joke of mine. Goes well with the others, "Тэмүүжин"

As said, still in a state of flux, it maybe abandoned. Right now I see it as a Frontpiece, not a stand-alone.
All this serious talk - time for a joke.
Why did the straight guy cross the road?
'cause someone told him to,
Why did the hippie cross the road?
'cause someone told him NOT to
Why did the Punk Rocker cross the road?
'cause he was stapled to the chicken

Congrats on spelling pompuss right, OK back to serious.

The first thing I would have noticed is the double use of "sing", followed by steps, steppe, weaker but still there lawn, grass. Why did no one catch it?

Tara, all your points are well taken, this is how I see it
strophe 1 -this is how I see it, notice the reversals, the smallness
(the feigned retreat)
stophe 2 - this is what I think of it - pretty ugly, petty, I really don't care about your fucked up life, and to shown as a proof a prize by your like minded peers that this is art, no. It's a box of animals. Little more than high school popularity (another box of animals).
this is the audience test - a hurdle - the battle
"Applause" can be taken two ways here, obvious is sarcasm refering to what is before, or congrats you are coming over to see a different perspective.
Your Papers - (the border crossing also)
Everything is supposed to open up after that, and what I am offering "the grass and the stars that laugh" - we all die, and the world goes on, too bad.
"the black flag" - think for yourself

All that, this is supposed to be a mimicry of his military tactics, full of what you think you see, because you assume. I don't think there is anybody here that thinks things out as well as you, I take your critcism very seriously, beleive me it will roll around, and I may follow your advice for the rewrite. But, I am very careful also, and I know perseption is all part of the game.

1201,

All (or most) of the points you make I knew already, partly because I know you, and partly because I’m pretty well read. I know you knew this, even as you explained, because you know me too.

Isn’t that right, Jackson?

Do you remember the first time I called you that, and why, and what we discussed for a long while after that?

Accessibility in poetry.

I think it, above all else, can determine the success or failure of a poem. Can a good or better reader (not a poor one. . . the semi-literates must take care of that problem themselves) get his/her arms around a poem?

For that reason, I feel strongly that a poem must work in spite of its references. A reader must be able, to some degree, wrap the poem whether they understand all the references, or some, or none at all.

If understanding some vague reference is necessary to understand the poem, then the poet has failed. Naturally, understanding all references will enhance quality, but if it is a requirement, then a poem does not pass the quality test for me.

To me, this is a basic poetry tenet: The words must work, even without the reference.. . . In case the reference flies overhead.

This works: Your Papers, as paper it shall be shred , whether one hears the man in the long, black leather coat or not.

This works: the steppes are large, and empty,, even if one never heard of Genghis Khan.

This does not work: Тэмүүжин. It is too affected.

This explanation does not work: Both strophes have 40 syllables . . . as an explanation why this:

…………………….Want this, proteges?
Join the chorus of grunting bores? Applause.


is better than your first draft’s lines, namely:


………………………..Is this what
you want, to join the chorus of grunting
bores? Of this, you would be king?


The language of the first is clumsy, the second graceful. The syllable count of the first fits, the second doesn’t.

In a poem of this nature, is syllable count, or language and word choice more important?

I don’t want to go over things point by point, because we love to debate each other, and it could be endless.

I just wanted to remind you of our debate about accessibility from long ago, and the Pollock/Monet discussion also. It still fits, and isn’t that grand.

And I did assume the second definition of “polemic,” (though I used it as an adjective in my response when I said “the topic you write about is not polemic at all”). You know how I feel about poems that attempt to address large issues and grand schemes. For me, a poem that goes after the large better be written with a hell of a lot of skill for me to respond positively. I am a fan of the little wing, the stealthy breeze.

I leave the tree-chopping to you Bunyans, with all that steel and testosterone of yours. I like your poetry very much, this poem also, and cannot help but try to add some long, smooth strokes to your drippings, Jackson.




In rushed response, from an anti-polemic:


I am a fan of the little wing,
the stealthy breeze.

Lay down your ax, your talk of big bones.
Put your subtle breath beneath me
and fly me above the storm
where your secrets are.

And as the clouds pass, please
point to her return,
the cardinal who comes back
year after year
to the backyard feeder
you built for your daughter,
like blood to a heart.

 

[twelveoone]

1201,

All (or most) of the points you make I knew already, partly because I know you, and partly because I’m pretty well read. I know you knew this, even as you explained, because you know me too.

Isn’t that right, Jackson?

Do you remember the first time I called you that, and why, and what we discussed for a long while after that?

Accessibility in poetry.

I think it, above all else, can determine the success or failure of a poem. Can a good or better reader (not a poor one. . . the semi-literates must take care of that problem themselves) get his/her arms around a poem?

For that reason, I feel strongly that a poem must work in spite of its references. A reader must be able, to some degree, wrap the poem whether they understand all the references, or some, or none at all.

If understanding some vague reference is necessary to understand the poem, then the poet has failed. Naturally, understanding all references will enhance quality, but if it is a requirement, then a poem does not pass the quality test for me.

To me, this is a basic poetry tenet: The words must work, even without the reference.. . . In case the reference flies overhead.

This works: Your Papers, as paper it shall be shred , whether one hears the man in the long, black leather coat or not.

This works: the steppes are large, and empty,, even if one never heard of Genghis Khan.

This does not work: Тэмүүжин. It is too affected.

This explanation does not work: Both strophes have 40 syllables . . . as an explanation why this:

…………………….Want this, proteges?
Join the chorus of grunting bores? Applause.


is better than your first draft’s lines, namely:


………………………..Is this what
you want, to join the chorus of grunting
bores? Of this, you would be king?


The language of the first is clumsy, the second graceful. The syllable count of the first fits, the second doesn’t.

In a poem of this nature, is syllable count, or language and word choice more important?

I don’t want to go over things point by point, because we love to debate each other, and it could be endless.

I just wanted to remind you of our debate about accessibility from long ago, and the Pollock/Monet discussion also. It still fits, and isn’t that grand.

And I did assume the second definition of “polemic,” (though I used it as an adjective in my response when I said “the topic you write about is not polemic at all”). You know how I feel about poems that attempt to address large issues and grand schemes. For me, a poem that goes after the large better be written with a hell of a lot of skill for me to respond positively. I am a fan of the little wing, the stealthy breeze.

I leave the tree-chopping to you Bunyans, with all that steel and testosterone of yours. I like your poetry very much, this poem also, and cannot help but try to add some long, smooth strokes to your drippings, Jackson.




In rushed response, from an anti-polemic:


I am a fan of the little wing,
the stealthy breeze.

Lay down your ax, your talk of big bones.
Put your subtle breath beneath me
and fly me above the storm
where your secrets are.

And as the clouds pass, please
point to her return,
the cardinal who comes back
year after year
to the backyard feeder
you built for your daughter,
like blood to a heart.

yes, I remember fondly, you usually win, best I can do is draw. I am rethinking the whole mess, perhaps redoing it as the hanged man and the baffling crowd.

I am smart enough to recognise the greater talent, the smarter person. The WOMAN.

Response

In the field the ravens glean,
we walk, the black waves pull apart.
"The sunset is coming soon,
what I have I give to you"
I softly laugh.

"And when the stars come out?"
she laughs,
softer still.




Thanks also to bogusbrig, Vampiric_Mirage, again.
OH, Tzara, I just caught this:
"He is also often crude, obnoxious, and combative."
I just fell in with the wrong crowd
namely you and bogusbrig

 

[Tzara]

What can I say? Tara's right. Tara's right about most everything. (Could she maybe be degreed? Have credentials? Whoof! That would explain a lot!)

I can fuss and argue and were I a complete asshole I could have a lot of fun dropping dopey H-bombs on this poem, poetry, and life on the left coast. And yes yes yes I know you don't live here. But, well.

Fun is where you find it.

Let me comment on two things:

1. Tara is right about the tab indents in the later strophes. Just think about how you would read it: Come tick tick tick big time pause and then yadda yadda yadda.
   
   It doesn't work as well with the margins lined up line to line. The close in margins for the later lines detract from the impact of the introductory word. Yeah, hard to do well in vB code. Get oover oot.
   
   Bad form. Don't do that.
   
2. I miss the Disney dwarves. I do. May be alone in that, but I love the mixture of high and low culture. Mixmastering Disney's Snow White (1937) and the Genghis Khan is, um well, fun. It rocks, actually.
   
   Though, if it had been me choosing, I would have selected The Wizard of Oz and Munchkinland. More conventional, more populous, and (with Billie Burke as the Good Witch Glenda) more (high trill, somewhere near the extremes of canine hearing) WONderful.

Tara is smarter and more aesthetically sensitive than me, so ignore this and read her comments very carefully.

Поэты мира объединяются!

 

[Tzara]

Почему цыпленок пересекает дорогу?
Держать его штаны!

 

[twelveoone]

What can I say? Tara's right. Tara's right about most everything. (Could she maybe be degreed? Have credentials? Whoof! That would explain a lot!)

I can fuss and argue and were I a complete asshole I could have a lot of fun dropping dopey H-bombs on this poem, poetry, and life on the left coast. And yes yes yes I know you don't live here. But, well.

Fun is where you find it.

Let me comment on two things:

1. Tara is right about the tab indents in the later strophes. Just think about how you would read it: Come tick tick tick big time pause and then yadda yadda yadda.
   
   It doesn't work as well with the margins lined up line to line. The close in margins for the later lines detract from the impact of the introductory word. Yeah, hard to do well in vB code. Get oover oot.
   
   Bad form. Don't do that.
   
2. I miss the Disney dwarves. I do. May be alone in that, but I love the mixture of high and low culture. Mixmastering Disney's Snow White (1937) and the Genghis Khan is, um well, fun. It rocks, actually.
   
   Though, if it had been me choosing, I would have selected The Wizard of Oz and Munchkinland. More conventional, more populous, and (with Billie Burke as the Good Witch Glenda) more (high trill, somewhere near the extremes of canine hearing) WONderful.

Tara is smarter and more aesthetically sensitive than me, so ignore this and read her comments very carefully.

Поэты мира объединяются!

Really? I'll have to throw the Dwarf dung!* back in.

Tara is smarter and more aesthetically sensitive than me too, and she's wrong about Jackson, I'm more of Duchamp kind of guy.

 

[Tzara]

Really? I'll have to throw the Dwarf dung!* back in.

Tara is smarter and more aesthetically sensitive than me too, and she's wrong about Jackson, I'm more of Duchamp kind of guy.

Me too.

You're ignoring my chicken (цыпленок) joke.

Duchamp might have liked it. Might not have. Ah, well. Fuck him.

 

[tarablackwood22]

yes, I remember fondly, you usually win, best I can do is draw. I am rethinking the whole mess, perhaps redoing it as the hanged man and the baffling crowd.

I am smart enough to recognise the greater talent, the smarter person. The WOMAN.

Response

In the field the ravens glean,
we walk, the black waves pull apart.
"The sunset is coming soon,
what I have I give to you"
I softly laugh.

"And when the stars come out?"
she laughs,
softer still.

You are such a sweet man.

The poem is good. Don't scrap it. Fix it. And the hanging man/baffling crowd? Write that one too, and more. Others.

Swing the ax, hit the roots. Dig up bones. Find the meat.

And toss the grizzle.

 

[devilsargument]

Interrupting

Hello there,

By way of introduction and interruption, my name is devilsargument. I'm a minimalist poet. (I'm a very bad poet) And I am certain my contributions will irritate poor Flyguy69 to distraction. Be warned.

I will try to focus on the revision of the poem, and not on critique the critiquers...though that sort of meta-masturbation is one of my many half finished cups of tea.

Well this poem begins interestingly, in my opinion. I enjoy it. I really do. As I pointed out above I enjoy arguing about politics of politics, and even the philosophy of philosophy. On a less subjective level, technically I've got to say the poem has a certain flare, and is a good deal better than something I would attempt. Pardon me while I damn 1201 with faint praise. The Fellow travellers/letter style really does flick my bic, I feel it detracts little technically and gives the poem a unique style. Stick with it, 12.

That being said however, I would hasten to point out the the use of the moniker of Genghis Khan is not appropriate. I mean here you are suggesting anarchy and you sign it in the name of a flagrant and bloodthirsty despot. Or is that what you're trying to say? That anarchy nessecitates a crumbling of society back to, "We have better, stronger armies. You obey us." I am become Shiva, et. al.

Join the chorus of grunting bores? Applause.

I feel that applause here while it satisfies on a syllabic level, I feel there's something better than Applause...I don't think it fits and frankly when I read I trip on it every time, though it's definitely a good affect if that's what was intended.

I enjoy the Come portions, (juvenile laughter) but overarchingly I feel that they work in this poem a great deal better than the original stanzas.
They fit into the second poem in a very satisfying way, and would make a pleasant click I'm certain if they were a mechanical device.

the steppes are large, and empty,
save for the grass and stars that laugh.

This especially is a dramatic improvement over the original.

On a subjective level I love 'Let us leave the streets in grease' however just from a Joe Q Public stand point, I think if you really insist on that there should be some incorporation of it previous in the poem, or something that alludes to how that might be done.

Polemic poleaxed putting poets pleasantly in place.

How inappropriate,
-D-

PS, I don't savvy strophe, care to elucidate?

 

[twelveoone]

Me too.

You're ignoring my chicken (цыпленок) joke.

Duchamp might have liked it. Might not have. Ah, well. Fuck him.

Estou farto das galinhas.

 

[twelveoone]

Hello there,

By way of introduction and interruption, my name is devilsargument. I'm a minimalist poet. (I'm a very bad poet) And I am certain my contributions will irritate poor Flyguy69 to distraction. Be warned.

I will try to focus on the revision of the poem, and not on critique the critiquers...though that sort of meta-masturbation is one of my many half finished cups of tea.

Well this poem begins interestingly, in my opinion. I enjoy it. I really do. As I pointed out above I enjoy arguing about politics of politics, and even the philosophy of philosophy. On a less subjective level, technically I've got to say the poem has a certain flare, and is a good deal better than something I would attempt. Pardon me while I damn 1201 with faint praise. The Fellow travellers/letter style really does flick my bic, I feel it detracts little technically and gives the poem a unique style. Stick with it, 12.

That being said however, I would hasten to point out the the use of the moniker of Genghis Khan is not appropriate. I mean here you are suggesting anarchy and you sign it in the name of a flagrant and bloodthirsty despot. Or is that what you're trying to say? That anarchy nessecitates a crumbling of society back to, "We have better, stronger armies. You obey us." I am become Shiva, et. al.



I feel that applause here while it satisfies on a syllabic level, I feel there's something better than Applause...I don't think it fits and frankly when I read I trip on it every time, though it's definitely a good affect if that's what was intended.

I enjoy the Come portions, (juvenile laughter) but overarchingly I feel that they work in this poem a great deal better than the original stanzas.
They fit into the second poem in a very satisfying way, and would make a pleasant click I'm certain if they were a mechanical device.





This especially is a dramatic improvement over the original.

On a subjective level I love 'Let us leave the streets in grease' however just from a Joe Q Public stand point, I think if you really insist on that there should be some incorporation of it previous in the poem, or something that alludes to how that might be done.

Polemic poleaxed putting poets pleasantly in place.

How inappropriate,
-D-

PS, I don't savvy strophe, care to elucidate?

sigh, i thought I was done, Damn me with something else I would prefer.
sorry about "strophe" - I'm still learning the technical Jargon. if I must.
Fuck Joe Q Public, line stands as it is, it serves two purposes.
I don't savvy inappropriate. Not after Plath.

I am done writing this way, I am going to write as a badly translated Neruda, that way I can still be incomprehensible, but at least loved.

I am glad you sort of liked it, but...
Why argue?
Besides, isn't today the day we celebrate headless turkeys?


Give us this day,
our daily stuffing...