Interact 5 - jd4george speaks

[annaswirls]

Um JD, I did not say you were perfect, just good! You are allowed to be good. Good leaves room for growth in all directions. Me, I prefer to go from good to incomprehensible to disjointed. Hopefully your travels take you places far from good. And all of the other things you said.




as

Annaswirls... I beg to differ. I hope to one day be good. I hope, on some occasions, that I'm actually lucky and inspired enough to write a good poem. But, I can't be good, yet. I refuse to be good, yet. Why? Because I am still evolving as a poet. I'm still growing. I'm still changing. And God willing, I will continue to do so.

That is the very reason I call myself a "wannabe"... and I do so, with pride.

 

[jd4george]

My dear annaswirls... Right your are. You never did say I was perfect. Actually, you didn't even say I was good. What you did say, was that I was CRAZY.

You're absolutely right. But thanks for letting me con you into saying I'm good. Poetically, I hope so. In other ways, I know so!!!

Oops... too much information.

I just had a car accident, (just a rmupled front end, no injuries), and need to take care of the business that built up. Hammer me with questions tonight, and I'll answer in the morning... about Icabod, my insanity, or whatever!

If there are none about "Icabod", I'll move on to "Old Orchard Beach, 1962"... and Thenry, I have not forgotten your question!

 

[annaswirls]

um no, I said 1201 is crazy and you are good

you are good and crazy

and

he is crazy-good.


there

settled no more debating just accept your insanity you both wear it well

as far as how many ways you are or are not good, well damn, I hope you are not getting philosophical on my ass-- next you will be asking me about truth and beauty.

damn.

You know, playing with photos is much more fun than writing poems.

~night

good luck with your car

~J

 

[twelveoone]

Why? The first was conceptual. The second was to avoid theft in referring to his words.

I also have discovered that sometimes, classical references allow me to say something descriptive, without having to write unneeded verse. For example, if I write the line: "some intended torture by a big-ass, white whale"... most readers will get the reference to Moby Dick, or at least to Jonah. There's a whole story of conflict and resolution in "big-ass white whale" that I don't have to explain, and can draw continued reference to.

In Icabod, the whole story didn't have to be told, and as Sandspike pointed out, he loses his head in the end. Metaphorically, my mother did the same.

Perhaps it's inspiration, and cleverness.... but I suspect that it is more accurately a matter of laziness.

1201 disagrees with the laziness part;
agrees with the annaswirls assement, and the jd4george's questioning of...but I think I'm pretty good at, noticing...
but, basically jumps in, because I think what was said above needs repeating, well said, we'll get back to...good luck with the car.

 

[jd4george]

Annaswirls... Cool, I'm good and crazy. I suspect I might be good, AND crazy. As for getting philosophical, I wasn't. I was simply bragging about one wonderful part of a man getting older... he has a tendency to last longer in certain pursuits. That, to this man's mind, is GOOD!

Twelveoone... Thanks for the concern. The car was a rental, (I've been too lazy to get my heap back on the road), and because I always decline the over-priced insurance, I had to pony up a check in the amount of $2000. Hell, shit and damnation!!!

(Anybody wanna buy a poem? I'm having an insurance sale!).

Twelve, you said that the use of classical references (or, non-classical ones, for that matter) bears repeating. So, one more little tirade on that subject:

There are generally three ways that I do it.

First, in an obvious dedication line at the start of the poem. If some writer's words inspired you, or some painting made you craft a lovely poem, or you wound a poem around someone else's metaphor, then credit them! If the object of your desire inspired the write, then credit them. As I mentioned earlier, there are some pleasant rewards for doing that!!!

The second, is in the body of the piece itself. For example, in "Wyndham Gaol" I referred to Oscar Wilde by saying: "until someone gets a book by that faggot who wrote so eloguently about being earnest, honest, and this place becomes the reading jail".

This time, I accomplished several things. First, I was able to refer to Wilde who had been imprisoned for his homosexuality. Second, I was able to refer to his play, "The Importance of Being Earnest", and in doing so, was able to use the interplay between the words "earnest" and "honest". Then, borne out of the reference to "getting a book", my prison became the reading jail... in the poem, meaning reprieve in the words of others, but simoultaneously, referring to his poem, "The Reading Gaol". By including that, I was able to weave his image of "that man had to swing", and my reversal of his line in "kissing the coward, or something".

Those references let me include a whole lot of images, and the story of his life, into just one verse or so. It let me say a whole lot more, without having to write a whole lot more. (That's the laziness I was referring to).

The third way, is with a quick reference. I'm writing a rather long, strange piece, (soon to appear at Lit), and in it are the following lines:

"we fooled her by trying to look busy
writing about decapitating daffodils
in the public’s eye the way Peter Schaeffer did
and coming up with lines like
'it’s amazing how they look like daffodils… lovely!'
except the dead guy called them orchids"

The first reference is to Peter Schaeffer's plays "The Public Eye" and "The Private Ear". One of his heroes vents his frustration by decapitating tulips. If the reader happens to know the plays, then there is an additional layer(s) of meaning. If they don't, they still understand the basic line. The seond reference is to Robert Heinlein's character Lazarus Long, and his description of female genitalia, again with the same intent/effect.

One caveat, however! Failure to credit those writers, or the source of your inspiration, is in my mind the greatest crime a writer can commit. Theft of another's work, in any way, is simply unforgiveable.

That being said, consider employing this technique. A lot of writers here do, and do so with success. Why build a pyramind, when there's some pretty good ones in Egypt?

Screw that noise... too damn many stones, and I'm lazy!

 

[jd4george]

Now, for something totally different...

If anyone has waded to here, and has questions about "The 1947 Carving of Icabod Crane", including deciphering the metaphors... please ask. In the meantime, I'm going to get ready to move on to a recent piece. I settled on "Old Orchard Beach, 1962" because of a handful of reasons.

1. Did the use of hyphenation work?
2. I liked the way the poem feels when I read it.
3. I liked the surface atmosphere poem... but also liked where the muse took me in terms of the underlying story (a ten-year-old too soon coming of age, and discovering the nasty smells underneath the cotton candy).
4. I had fun using nouns as adjectives and verbs, and generally fooling around with the senses...

Did it work? I don't know... you tell me.

To save everyone from scooting back to the beginning of this thread, here's the poem again:



Old Orchard Beach, 1962




Carnie bells and barker noise
drip with the promised sin of
popcorn-cotton-candy, and
merry-go-round tilt-a-whirls
spinning peals of laughter
and little big-girl screams.
The Quebecois and brazen tarts
speaking French along the pier,
babble queued up and keyed
with pennies in hand,
two minutes of delicious fear
squeezed out in golden heartbeat
rings and chimes.

The salt air sticks to belly
skin and nipple peek, leering eyes
lusting for Japanese plastic dolls
and kewpie pies, booty spilled
and plied with whiskey-beer
and lipstick soda pop for the kids.
Mother snapping pictures in bellowed
camera frames as the old man hollers.
We jump at his command, holding hands
under sparkling lights popping beneath
the rooftops in colored zip-zapping:
To enter here, the line starts here.

Our calliope eyes dizzy,
spinning and bumping, jostling
for the front of the line,
fingers tight around the next ten cents
extorted from our mother,
as the tickets spit out in ones and threes,
with one left out and one left over,
and I-the-oldest told to wait…
a ten-year-old ogling the garish cutout
of the big-breasted plywood woman
with the nasty hole carved above her tits,
heads poking in and out,
hands shoved in my pockets.

The tar walk oozes frosting warm
with pebbles and spit-out gum.
Gulls scream and shit…
French fries drown in white vinegar
as the lifeguards hold swim trunk court,
jostling and fondling smiles.
Women twittering and babies crying,
diapers dumped in sand
as the ocean laps at castles
abandoned by children dragged home in cars,
fathers swearing and mothers cursing,
and my siblings begging: more!

With a Jesus-Christ-you-fucking-kids,
my father doles out nickels
for our one last promised ride.
My brother drives the bumper cars
as my sisters straddle painted horses
who have their feet nailed
to sticky candy-flecked floor,
and I-the-oldest told to watch them
as my father darts beneath
a bar sign glaring at the street:
To enter here, the line starts here
and the tickets spit out in ones and threes,
with one left out, and one left over.

 

[jd4george]

A little diatribe about line breaks.

thenry... thanks for being patient!

You asked about how I choose line breaks. The simple answer is "any way I feel like".

However, I always have certain considerations in mind. In this case, "Old Orchard Beach, 1962" is a linear poem, and as such, I wanted lines of relatively the same length. Part of this comes from something Carolyn Page said to me, (she's another Maine poet, and editor of Potato Eyes and Nightshade Press). She said, "Watch out for those diving board lines. Editors hate them, especially when there's no pool."

I'm not about to argue with her!

Ever scrolled though a poem and noticed that the lines seem vary all over the place? Sometimes, I think it works. If I sense that the poet is trying to regulate the speed of the poem, then I usually don't question it.

That, by the way, is something a lot of writers seem to forget... not just poets, but all writers. We can regulate speed. Long run on lines makes the reader wade through things which is especially effective in a rant or piece where emotions are rampantly flowing.

Short lines are more staccato. Quick. Hard. Important.

BANG!

They make the reader stop for a second, then move on. I am of the opinion that too many writers simply ignore this wonderful tool, and every time they do, they compromise the effectiveness of their piece.

A short line, especially with just one word, makes that word important. Just like the placement makes it important. For example:

The belly of the clouds torn open by the wind,
threatening death to each tear before they

fall...

The obvious counterpart to line-length, is the white space. If one verse in a linear, classic poem has all sorts of white space and the balance doesn't, then I think it's fair of the reader to inquire "why". If there isn't a reason, in my mind, then the writer has again compromised effectiveness. Who wants a reader to stop due to some irrelevant question. I know I don't.

Line length, and the accompanying white space, effect how a poem looks. I've heard too many poets say that the only thing important is theier words. I don't agree. How they sound, and how they look all contribute to the whole.

As for line breaks in "OOB"... Like I said, I wanted the poem to be linear. So, my first instinct was to break at the end of a complete image, or thought. When I did that, I got opening lines like this:

"Carnie bells and barker noise drip with the promised sin
of popcorn-cotton-candy, and merry-go-round tilt-a-whirls
spinning peals of laughter and little big-girl screams."

The lines seemed too damn long, and I feared that some of the run-on pacing I intended, would get lost. So, I broke it. The opening became:

"Carnie bells and barker noise
drip with the promised sin of
popcorn-cotton-candy, and
merry-go-round tilt-a-whirls
spinning peals of laughter
and little big-girl screams."

I found the break length in the first line when I saw that I didn't mind if the reader paused after the word "noise". Ending the second line with "of" hopefully forced the reader onto the following line. Same again with the next line ending on "and".

If the reader then paused after "laughter", I didn't mind.

I try to approach each poem the same way. If I have punctuated the poem, then I hope folks read and pause accordingly, regardless of where the line ends.

When I write something unpunctuated, like today's posting "Sculpture: Genesis, Book 1", then I let the reader go line by line, stopping where they choose. In that specific case, I wanted the reader to get swept into the whole current of creative juices flowing, one step into another, knowing that each "creator" will stop and go at their own volition.

Does that answer your question?

 

[PatCarrington]

Re: A little diatribe about line breaks.

"Carnie bells and barker noise
drip with the promised sin of
popcorn-cotton-candy, and
merry-go-round tilt-a-whirls
spinning peals of laughter
and little big-girl screams."

I found the break length in the first line when I saw that I didn't mind if the reader paused after the word "noise". Ending the second line with "of" hopefully forced the reader onto the following line. Same again with the next line ending on "and".

jd

i'm sure it's a matter of theory and taste, but it goes against my grain to end lines with prepositions. i rarely do it. in fact, i avoid it at all costs.

perhaps it is just habit now. i much prefer to see the noun, in this case sin, at the end of the line.

the conjuction and i agree, has a pulling effect, but i think having of at line's end somewhat negates the power of the word sin.

i think the poem is fabulous by the way, and nowhere else in the entire piece can i even question another line break.

 

[jd4george]

Pat, you're absolutely right! Sometimes my cranial rectal insertia lets me see nothing but brown! While my thought process in breaking the lines was exactly as I described to thenry, I need to consider your sage comment.

"Carnie bells and barker noise
drip with the promised sin
of popcorn-cotton-candy,
and merry-go-round tilt-a-whirls
spinning peals of laughter
and little big-girl screams."

You know, in review, I don't mind that at all. I love how a fresh pair of eyes can make that brown stuff disappear.

thenry... if you're still with us, I think Pat's observation, and my original reasoning, underscores two things. First, each of us looks at format with a different set of guidelines. I don't have a major objection to ending a line with a preposition. However, if I choose to do so, then I do it at my own peril.

PatCarrington, on the other hand, avoids it like the plague. He's extremely strong at writing linear poetry, and if you peruse his catalog, you'll find he handles line breaks well... although differently than me.

In this case, I think Pat is right, and my master file of the poem has been changed accordingly. (Thanks, Pat!).

 

[thenry]

Thanks. Pat addressed the root of my question which was really along the lines of whether line breaks were (basically) random or trying to construct a meaningingful enjambment (in which case I would have asked what you were trying to set up). Sometimes it's a waste to simply end a line because it's the right length.

 

[jd4george]

Sometimes it's a waste to simply end a line because it's the right length.

Amen to that.

My poem is now a little stronger because I listened to Pat. Still, thenry, I suspect that line breaks are altogether too arbitrary at times. I know I am guilty of that, although I'd like to think that I really work at them to enhance the readability of my poems.

I think you have alluded to something important, however. It should be the poem that mandates the line length... the hard part is listening!

 

[twelveoone]

Still, to the coffee-drinking poetry readers, the reaction to Icabod may well be: "what the fuck?"



The other example you mentioned, was "The Helga Pictues of Andrew Wyeth". In a way, I feel like I cheated in that poem. Wyeth, (with the help of his wife), created some wonderful titles for his paintings. The poem has either 20, or 21 of them hidden in it!

Which, I suppose, means I stole a lot of words. Then again, I did obviously credit the source. And, I'd like to think that I wound them together in a way that pleasant... even, perhaps, well-done. And, most of the words were (would have been) mine.
?

re: Icabod, that was my reaction to it - idiot grin on my face, guy writes like this, questions My sanity? Seriously, I like to see experimentation - the language demands it - Fuck it, as long as you know what you are doing.

About the Wyeth poem, here you joke, about stealing alot of words, in this context, you invite a game, and it would destroy the game to point it out, it is not passing it off as your own, sneaking little references in is I think fair game also, but this bring up an intersting point...

 

[twelveoone]

[

"we fooled her by trying to look busy
writing about decapitating daffodils
in the public’s eye the way Peter Schaeffer did
and coming up with lines like
'it’s amazing how they look like daffodils… lovely!'
except the dead guy called them orchids"

The first reference is to Peter Schaeffer's plays "The Public Eye" and "The Private Ear". One of his heroes vents his frustration by decapitating tulips. If the reader happens to know the plays, then there is an additional layer(s) of meaning. If they don't, they still understand the basic line. The seond reference is to Robert Heinlein's character Lazarus Long, and his description of female genitalia, again with the same intent/effect.

One caveat, however! Failure to credit those writers, or the source of your inspiration, is in my mind the greatest crime a writer can commit. Theft of another's work, in any way, is simply unforgiveable.

That being said, consider employing this technique. A lot of writers here do, and do so with success. Why build a pyramind, when there's some pretty good ones in Egypt?

Screw that noise... too damn many stones, and I'm lazy!

BTW - excellent post on the use of references
Here you talk about a Robert Heinlein character, in a poem, only afterwards do you mention it was a reference to...where do you draw the line? With that or crediting, how overt does it have to be?
Suppose out of OOB, I take two lines, use them
To enter here, the line starts here.
hands shoved in my pockets.
OK, with these two, they are NOT your lines per se, common lines
"two minutes of delicious fear
squeezed out in golden heartbeat "
OK these are YOUR two lines, suppose I like image, how much do I have to change, before it becomes mine, as an example?

 

[jd4george]

Good grief Twelveoone! Talk about squeezing a lot of questions into a couple of lines!!! I'll try not to get lost, and try to be succinct.... well, as succinct as this opinionated fool can be!

You asked: "Here you talk about a Robert Heinlein character, in a poem, only afterwards do you mention it was a reference to...where do you draw the line? With that or crediting, how overt does it have to be?"

In terms of Robert Heinlein, I did NOT quote him. I used a reference to one of his more famous lines. In this case, I don't believe that I had to give direct credit. However, if I had said "It's amazing how they look like orchids. Lovely.", then I would have been using Heinlein's exact words. In that case, they would not, (could not and never would be), my words. In that case, credit MUST be given.

That's not a matter of choice. Failure to do so amounts to theft... or, politely, plagarism.

If a writer is confronted with that dilemna, always err on the side of caution, and give due deference to the author. You can do it in the body of the work, as indicated in the examples 1201 cited, or you can do it with proper notations.

Remember English class, and writing term papers? Same basic rules. If you can't credit the author in the body of your work, place a small numeral notation (when there are more than one reference in the piece), or use an asterisk. Then at the end of the piece, cite your references.

A third technique, which I've employed on more than one occasion, is to use a dedication line at the beginning of the poem. (i.e.: - After Robert Heinlein's Lazarus Long ), and then italicize the passage you have lifted. I also include quotation marks in those instances.

However, just beause a dedication line says "After the __________ of whomever", it does not mean that the work includes someone else's words. For example, my poem "Treading the Breakers" was inspired by the reading of Sue Walker's book poem "Shorings". In that case, it was a dedication and a thank you for her inspiration. Other examples of that same dedication treatment can be found in my poems "Bone Words", and in "Wangui Waithira".

Bottomline: Better to err on the side of caution, than to ever be perceived a thief!

 

[jd4george]

Suppose out of OOB, I take two lines, use them
To enter here, the line starts here.
hands shoved in my pockets.
OK, with these two, they are NOT your lines per se, common lines
"two minutes of delicious fear
squeezed out in golden heartbeat "
OK these are YOUR two lines, suppose I like image, how much do I have to change, before it becomes mine, as an example?

Your first example is a good. Both "to enter here, the line starts here", and "hands shoved in my pockets" might well be written by anyone at any time. Obvously, if you write them of your own accord, there's no need to give credit. However, if you craft a poem around two lines like that, which you have found in someone else's work and consciously lifted from that work, then use a dedication.

The second example, where you actually lift a passage from another's work requires due credit. If you can work it into your piece, and credit the author... fine. For example:

Like Jd4george's "two minutes of delicious fear
squeezed out in golden heartbeat"

The second, less innocuous treatment is thus:

"two minutes of delicious fear
squeezed out in golden heartbeat"*

...and then adding a footnote to your poem:
* From Jd4george's poem "Old Orchard Beach, 1962"

Your last question about how much something has to change, is perhaps answered best by the level of theft you wish to risk. Personally, if another poet used the image "delicious fear", or "golden heartbeat", I would not object.

If they used "two minutes of delicious fear", or "squeezed out in golden heartbeat", and didn't give some sort of credit, I'd be perturbed, but would figure that the author simply came upon the same line. (But I'm a little more forgiving than most).

As a matter of fact, PatCarrington and I have corresponded twice... commenting on exactly that. In one case, we both used the same image the same way. In the second instance, we actually used the same exact phrase! (We decided it was our "brilliance"... )

However, if someone used the entire passage "two minutes of delicious fear squeezed out in golden heartbeat", without giving credit, I'd be flat-out pissed!

If I discovered that they had done it more than once, I'd contact the publisher. I have no tolerance for plagarism, or theft.

 

[jd4george]

I am fascinated, jd, by the way you combine an articulate literary-infused flow in your language with an almost onomotopaotic (sp?) musicality and a willingness to experiment with form. One doesn't often see poetry that draws on these at the same time--and, even better, carries if off so well.

How do you think you come to put these features together in poems? I know you don't do it all the time, but you do it a lot. Who are your major influences? Who are your most recent influences?

My apologies for not directly answering your questions before.

Regarding the "musicality" thing... (Thank you). As I said before, I majored in Theatre/Communications and have a firm appreciation of the sounds of poetry.

At some point, I read all poems aloud. I do so when I read the new poems. I do so when I'm writing. I listen, and try to be aware of the "music". On good days, I hear symphonies... on others, I hear a kid banging a drum. Part of me is constantly rebelling against the idea that verse has to be one or two dimensional. I want to see the words. I want to hear them. I want to taste them.

And, I'm not talking about images or metaphors. To me, it's a shame to simply put words on a piece of paper.



As for my influences, past and present... The easiest answer is to say "every goddamned thing I've read". Not only easy, but true.

The first poet I ever read was Longfellow. Being from Maine, it was a must do in grammer school. I still remember that his line: "This is the forest primeval" is a classic example of iambic pentameter. Unfortunately, that is about the only thing I know about poetic mechanics!

In high school, I discovered the beat poets (Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti), and the "now mundane" Rod McKuen. From those discoveries, I found that it was okay to not rhyme. It was okay not to have complete sentences. It was okay not to have everything nice and tight on the page... and words could fly all over the place. From them, I learned freedom.

I went through the mandatory Sandburg and Frost, discovered Howard Nemerov and Robert Lowell... John Logan, Tennyson, Shakespeare and Browning (him and her).

I started buying books. There was Sappho and Milton, Byron and MacLeish. There poets I had never heard of bursting onto the scene: s. diane bogus, John Elberg, Lou McKee. I read everything I could find. I began to read translations, and discovered the German poets, and the likes of Rumi and Jacques Prevert.

I looked to Cohen and Paul Simon... I wondered about Lennon and Dylan... I even looked in the Bible. There were poets everywhere, and I wanted to be one of them.

Who is influencing me now? Did you look at today's new poems? Or yesterdays? Or the day before that? Hell's bells, Angeline, I've been influenced by you.

Who will be added to the list of poets influencing me? The crafter of the next poem I read.

 

[Angeline]

My apologies for not directly answering your questions before.

Regarding the "musicality" thing... (Thank you). As I said before, I majored in Theatre/Communications and have a firm appreciation of the sounds of poetry.

At some point, I read all poems aloud. I do so when I read the new poems. I do so when I'm writing. I listen, and try to be aware of the "music". On good days, I hear symphonies... on others, I hear a kid banging a drum. Part of me is constantly rebelling against the idea that verse has to be one or two dimensional. I want to see the words. I want to hear them. I want to taste them.

And, I'm not talking about images or metaphors. To me, it's a shame to simply put words on a piece of paper.



As for my influences, past and present... The easiest answer is to say "every goddamned thing I've read". Not only easy, but true.

The first poet I ever read was Longfellow. Being from Maine, it was a must do in grammer school. I still remember that his line: "This is the forest primeval" is a classic example of iambic pentameter. Unfortunately, that is about the only thing I know about poetic mechanics!

In high school, I discovered the beat poets (Ginsberg and Ferlinghetti), and the "now mundane" Rod McKuen. From those discoveries, I found that it was okay to not rhyme. It was okay not to have complete sentences. It was okay not to have everything nice and tight on the page... and words could fly all over the place. From them, I learned freedom.

I went through the mandatory Sandburg and Frost, discovered Howard Nemerov and Robert Lowell... John Logan, Tennyson, Shakespeare and Browning (him and her).

I started buying books. There was Sappho and Milton, Byron and MacLeish. There poets I had never heard of bursting onto the scene: s. diane bogus, John Elberg, Lou McKee. I read everything I could find. I began to read translations, and discovered the German poets, and the likes of Rumi and Jacques Prevert.

I looked to Cohen and Paul Simon... I wondered about Lennon and Dylan... I even looked in the Bible. There were poets everywhere, and I wanted to be one of them.

Who is influencing me now? Did you look at today's new poems? Or yesterdays? Or the day before that? Hell's bells, Angeline, I've been influenced by you.

Who will be added to the list of poets influencing me? The crafter of the next poem I read.

Well said and precisely why I said what I did to you about taking the notion of being a poet seriously. The outlook you describe is to me the ideal approach. Read everything, see opportunity for learning and growth in everything you read--regardless of its source. And I think most important is to understand that sometimes chance makes poetry, but what makes poetry *consistently* is a marriage of the utter freedom of imagination to the precise control of language. I believe that, I do. It works.

And your poems are so good because you get that.

And if you haven't already, you should read:

Ted Berrigan

and

Forugh Farrokhzad


Ange

 

[jd4george]

Read everything, see opportunity for learning and growth in everything you read--regardless of its source. And I think most important is to understand that sometimes chance makes poetry, but what makes poetry *consistently* is a marriage of the utter freedom of imagination to the precise control of language. I believe that, I do. It works.

Ange

Angeline... What a wonderful statement: "...what makes poetry *consistently* is a marriage of the utter freedom of imagination to the precise control of language."

I concur.

I also believe that "utter freedom" and "precise control" both require practice and experimentation. In all its applications, freedom is never free, and precise control is always elusive. Using a bit of a shaggy metaphor, it is perhaps like riding a bicycle with "no hands". Does it require control? Is it "free"wheeling? Or is the ride a balanced tug-o-war between the two?

I'm not sure I know the answer.

It's interesting that you should mention Forough Farrokhzad. She once said, "Sound, sound, sound. Only sound remains." If that is true, and we wish to craft verse that outlives us, then isn't the "sound" of our words important? And when sound morphs into music, haven't we in some way unleashed the heart?

A word on a page is simply a word. But speak that word, and you have set in motion vibrations that move outward exponentially, touching and caressing all things in its path. As tie goes on, those vibrations dwindle and become unheard. But, they continue to exist.

Consider the word "retch". Speak that word to any non-English speaking person, and they will "hear" the meaning of the word. You could say "puke", but would the emotive aspect be the same?

I think that is part of the music, and the word choice dilemna all poets face.

Poetry, to me, is both an art and a craft. There are a lot of folks who seem to have the "gift". Mindlessly owning that gift, is meaningless. In that we are all dust, the gift is simply a possession that has no value when we are gone.

However, pursue the craft and art of poetry... experiment with the words and sounds and music... keep challenging the control of those things... become adept at forms outside your comfort zone... imitate... initiate... and instead of simply having a gift, you become a gifted artisan.

To me, most important is the simple acceptance that being, or becoming a "poet", is NOT a destination. It is a journey. What a waste of time, if you never look out the window!

 

[jd4george]

Thanks for mentioning Ted Berrigan! I added his "So Going Around Cities" collection to my library back in the early eighties.

Forough Farrokhzad is another wonderful suggestion, Ang. Whether you consider her a Kurdish poet, or Persian, or Iranian, doesn't matter. Granted, she has the special voice of mid-eastern divorced woman... but she is more than that. She is simply a damn fine poet.

From the Middle East to Afganistan, I think there will be a lot of new poets adding to this concert of words and sounds. I think the area holds great promise.

Angeline, I'm going to quote you again: "Read everything, see opportunity for learning and growth in everything you read--regardless of its source."

 

[Angeline]

When I was a college undergrad (in the 18th century ), I was lucky enough to take a year-long Shakespeare class with a woman who is also a very gifted poet Penelope Scambly Schott. She had a kind, low-key style of teaching, but was inflexible about her students justifying theses with traditional literary criticism. She once told us "I don't care if you want to claim that Shakespeare really meant that Lear was floating in space on an umbilical cord, but you better be able to back it up with what's in the play, in the words." She was right, and I never forgot.

 

[Angeline]

And I think "precise control" requires study, yes, always reading and observing your world, enmeshing your observations with those of the writers you study. From this and lots of practice and experimentation comes one's own voice. Also there must be confidence (which is also a kind of freedom) that nothing is too out there or wrong if it makes the words reach a reader.

 

[jd4george]

And I think "precise control" requires study, yes, always reading and observing your world, enmeshing your observations with those of the writers you study. From this and lots of practice and experimentation comes one's own voice. Also there must be confidence (which is also a kind of freedom) that nothing is too out there or wrong if it makes the words reach a reader.

If there is such a thing as "the evolution of a poet", then I think discovery of our own voice is akin to an infant discovering the uniqueness of the sounds he can make.

What then awaits is a life-time of making sounds. The question becomes, will he speak, or sing, or lecture? Will he mumble to himself? Will he be afflicted with tourettes? And if, perchance, he sings, will it be a lullaby, or an aria? Will it be scat/jazz, or mindless humming?

Finally, will he control that voice, or simply make sound?

Thank you for the gift of Penelope Scambly Schott! I read the milliner piece, then did a Google search. I need to discover more, for how can I ignore a wonderful title like "The Story of a Half-Scalped Woman"?

 

[twelveoone]

jd4george brings up alot of good points.
one last question from me, are there any changes you would make in OOB62?

 

[twelveoone]

I would like to thank jd4george and all who participated, it may have gotten off of OOB62. I think it was well worth it.

So many good points, I do hope you all had fun.

I would like to pull a couple of things and repost
jd4george

I believe that good poetry is like a picture of a room. The stronger a poem is, the more you discover inside that room. A door is not only described, but invites you to open it. If you do, you should be able to see what awaits on the other side… other rooms and other vistas. Inside the porcelain boxes on the table, you should be able to see the contents, should you decide to open them.

Most good poetry should have images. It should have metaphors. It should have music. If the piece is truly inspired, then it should have multiple layers of each.


Other times, I bury references (both obvious and oblique). For example, the Oscar Wilde references in "Wyndham Gaol". I wanted due deference and homage to his wonderful "Reading Gaol", and the line: "Each man kills the thing he loves, by each let this be heard. The brave man does it with a sword, the coward with a kiss."

I also did it with several other refences to works of his, and well as "that man has got to swing".

Why? The first was conceptual. The second was to avoid theft in referring to his words.

I also have discovered that sometimes, classical references allow me to say something descriptive, without having to write unneeded verse.

I have little to add to that, except, perhaps "good" may not be quite the right word, at this point, it is becoming great
. flyguy69

Two of the things that make your work so compelling are the deliberation behind word choice and the numerous cultural references. I find myself pondering your work because I am confident that, buried within the poem, there are surprises to be unearthed.

flyguy seconds me, what makes something better than good, are reasons to go back to it. Now, this is something "deliberation behind word choice" This is what it is all about. It was touched upon, with a discussion of the sound of the word, the "musicality".
jd4 says "A word on a page is simply a word. But speak that word, and you have set in motion vibrations that move outward exponentially, touching and caressing all things in its path. As tie goes on, those vibrations dwindle and become unheard. " I would argue a better phrase would be "deliberation beyond word choice" . Every word has overtones and resonates, how does it react to what came before, how will it react to what comes after. I believe in a previous thread Angeline refered to listening for "off notes", the word in itself is not "off" but becomes so because of its relationship to the other words.

*Catbabe*
as a reader I don't want to know exactly what the poet intended as long as the piece feels accessible to me on some level.

Makes the best point, we all look for different things, two of the things I noticed are his voices, OOB62 not the best example of, but "With a Jesus-Christ-you-fucking-kids, " and his other than standard punctuation. Go back and reread what are the others talking about?
"Poetry, to me, is both an art and a craft." Too much art, no good, too much craft, who in the hell is going to read it, what is the purpose of reading it? And, subject matter, jd4george strikes a fine balance with all of them, he is accessible.
I thank him very much, he is not a "wannabe" except in the fact that he has the "maturity of dissatisfaction".

I hope to be back in about three weeks, with the only person here who has managed to write phrases that have stayed in my head for weeks.

 

[jd4george]

Twelveoone... I was incommunicado for the weekend, and don't want you to think that I ignored your last question, which was:Would I change anything in "Old Orchard Beach, 1962"?

I did change the line breaks in the first verse, because of the feedback from PatCarrington. Like all my poems, this will change over time.

How?

I have no idea. As my "ear" continues to evolve, I will find lines and images that don't quite sound right, and those will change. I also tried to work images of flavor into the poem, because one of the things I was trying to accomplish in the poem was the sweet flavors of youth juxtaposed against the less pleasant flavors of age.

Some were obvious, like the cotton-candy. Others were hidden in descriptions, like the "sound" of "brazen tarts" (raisin tarts). Will others evolve? Perhaps. Will the poem change over time? Absolutely. Will the poem improve, or become less? I have no idea.

I'm not sure if I have said it in this thread, or not, but want to say it one more time: I don't believe any poem is ever really done.