It's Orwell, Baby, Orwell

[PatCarrington]

LOL

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'd not advocating poetry with higher concerns, about politics or injustice or the state of language, preaching or judgements. I am asking your thoughts on the use of those new, old and wonderful words with exceptional meanings while writing about old aprons, and swirled gravestones, and boots, and attractive eyes.

oh.

if you have any skill at all, isn't that a given?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

oh.

if you have any skill at all, isn't that a given?

Sadly, no...

 

[PatCarrington]

Sadly, no...

maybe everyone doesn't see or understand "new, old and wonderful words with exceptional meanings" in the same way.

who writes poetry any other way on purpose?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

maybe everyone doesn't see or understand "new, old and wonderful words with exceptional meanings" in the same way.

who writes poetry any other way on purpose?

Those who put unabridged unequivocal communication as the highest value in poetics.

 

[Tathagata]

i had a vision of a rubber band under the chin and a pointy cardboard cap as i lay down in pine, hands folded.

eve's strap-ons might tend to be a bit more hearty and vigorous, i would think.

I'm bettin she does the cap and pine box thing on occasion too

 

[PatCarrington]

Those who put unabridged unequivocal communication as the highest value in poetics.

perhaps, but they don't think so.

and i don't think that is a large faction, but i'm sure they see themselves using words wonderfully, with exceptional meanings, also.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

No doubt.

 

[PatCarrington]

No doubt.

and they will make the same argument, but from the opposite side.

they will demand to know, and ask, "What is the advantage of obscurity over clarity?" whether the obscurity is real or their perception will be irrelevant to them.

maybe, in the end, all poets think they have godheads?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

they will demand to know, and ask, "What is the advantage of obscurity over clarity?" whether the obscurity is real or their perception will be irrelevant to them.

And I'll tell them wait and see.

 

[PatCarrington]

And I'll tell them wait and see.

they won't like your answer.

they will accuse you of leading the language into a downward spiral.


.......back where we started.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Yes, but by then I'll feel perfectly comfortable when saying fuck 'em.

 

[Angeline]

Lauren is always right. Just accept it. And anyone who thinks I'm being flip or sarcastic, doesn't know Lauren. lol.

also she promised to take care of me in my dotage when she rules the world

 

[PatCarrington]

Lauren is always right. Just accept it. And anyone who thinks I'm being flip or sarcastic, doesn't know Lauren. lol.

also she promised to take care of me in my dotage when she rules the world

i was waitin' for you to pop in on this.

 

[twelveoone]

i suppose i would subscribe....to the ATTEMPT.

i think such an attempt would fail.....is failing, if already underway, whereas your question seems to leave open the probability, or possibility, of success.

but i do not subscribe to 1201's thoughts that English is a "dying" language, just an ever-changing one (which i assume all are, though i am not multi-lingual as you are, so that is only an educated guess). i think the changes of the last generation have been in the form of a downward spiral -- whether intentional due to an effort to reach down to the masses at the expense of a less crowded upper tier, or due to a deterioration of writing skills, i'm not sure.

and i also leave open the possibility that every generation looks at the coming one in that light, and has forever (i can see Shakespeare and Ben Johnson trembling with the same thoughts back when)-- which would make it part of the 'human condition', and even more complex a question.

My thoughts as English as a "dying" language(more aptly it is becoming a fragmented language) is not argued here. It may have been implied, by Orwell and Newspeak. I see a serious lack of critical thinking, or if you will, called "Unthinking Thinking" here
anyone who has this quote at the top of his web page, can't be all bad.
Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli.
The fate of books depends on the discernment of the reader.
- Terentius Maurus, De Literis, Syllabis et Metris (1286)
A wonderful group of essays, links, offered with no further comment, outside of the fact in one of his essays he makes a reference to BS, that I did not previously know off. ( I just found this today, looking for Patrica Sloane.)

 

[Angeline]

i was waitin' for you to pop in on this.

I know la lauren. And she knows me.

 

[Tathagata]

also she promised to take care of me in my dotage when she rules the world

so basically you're just waiting for her to take over the world.....

 

[Angeline]

so basically you're just waiting for her to take over the world.....

Couldn't resist, could you?

Come here darling. I'll bitch slap you with the greatest affection.

Anyway, do you have any doubts that she can? I don't, hehe.

 

[PatCarrington]

Anyway, do you have any doubts that she can? I don't, hehe.

i, for one, am ready to feed both of you ladies grapes.

 

[The_Fool]

Couldn't resist, could you?

Come here darling. I'll bitch slap you with the greatest affection.

Anyway, do you have any doubts that she can? I don't, hehe.

You know dear, all that bitch slapping is going to get you spanked sometime.....

 

[Angeline]

You know dear, all that bitch slapping is going to get you spanked sometime.....

how do you know it hasn't already?

 

[Angeline]

i, for one, am ready to feed both of you ladies grapes.

peeled please, beulah (or is that bubbeleh?)

whatever....

 

[flyguy69]

I wasn't actually thinking of that attempt being directed at changing the overall state of the language. That, as you said, would be futile. Language will (d)evolve as it will. But shouldn't it be one of the concerns, objectives, conscious or not - of a poet when it comes to his or her own approach to poetry?

To use obscure or archaic words in an attempt to stem the supposed de-evolution of language? No.

Poets should be concerned with using the "right" word every time; the word that expresses the sentiment or experience more precisely than any other. Is that utilitarian? Yes. But so what? If a contemporary, contrived word is the right word it is still the most poetic: if an obscure, archaic one is the right word, choose it.

But to deliberately choose a lesser word simply because it isn't in common usage is silly.

And I would need to be convinced that any de-evolution is taking place.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

To use obscure or archaic words in an attempt to stem the supposed de-evolution of language?

Did I suggest that?

 

[Angeline]

To use obscure or archaic words in an attempt to stem the supposed de-evolution of language? No.

Poets should be concerned with using the "right" word every time; the word that expresses the sentiment or experience more precisely than any other. Is that utilitarian? Yes. But so what? If a contemporary, contrived word is the right word it is still the most poetic: if an obscure, archaic one is the right word, choose it.

But to deliberately choose a lesser word simply because it isn't in common usage is silly.

And I would need to be convinced that any de-evolution is taking place.

Devolution *is* taking place. Surely, you've noticed--but not in our poems, we hope.

 

[flyguy69]

Devolution *is* taking place. Surely, you've noticed--but not in our poems, we hope.

Perhaps this discussion illustrates the point. We are tangling our feet in the meanings of words like "evolution" and ending up in different places.

Without having given it a great deal of thought, I use "evolution" to mean an increase in the number of words in a language, or in the number of concepts described by those words. The appearance of new fields of study has undoubtedly given us entirely new lexicons: today there are thousands of physicists discussing the origin of the universe in terms of subatomic particles. A hundred years ago there were a handful. Cuisine carried across national borders leads to cookbooks in my Wisconsin kitchen using words like "satay," "roux," "feijoada" and "rummigrot."

If our concern is for the "dumbing down" of popular publications, hasn't there been a commensurate increase in the number of (or access to) esoteric ones? Can you imagine a publication a hundred years ago devoted solely to Hermetic Kabbalah, or a high protein diet, or the study of the languages of the Native People of California? I sincerely doubt that there is a shortage of esoterica in most people's reach.

The popularization of "teen-speak" or chat can't be regarded as a devolution unless it can be demonstrated that there is some finite capacity for language assimilation, and that learning these textual equivalents of gesticulation squeezes out other language. I now use "LOL" and "G2G" in informal, typewritten communication, and they represent additions to my language, not replacements.

Even within poetry; pick up a copy of Poet's Market and note the sheer number of publications, let alone the divergent styles. Places like "Exquisite Corpse" and "The Styles" are publishing poetry that bends grammatical and lexigraphic rules pretty darn close to the breaking point.

My point is that if we are using "devolution" to mean a reduction in the number of words in our language, or in the number of concepts we discuss with those words, I don't see it.