LitLog2017++

[todski28]

I am so sorry. How thoughtless of me to inflict thinking on anybody?!

it hurts my brain, it's not used to thinking

 

[todski28]

Lol, and I thought it made a statement.

Gears = clock/machine
Lemon = sour/tart

So to me, knowing what we know of you from your previous poetry, it formed an impression of a man sour about the passing of time, of aging and possibly losing his sexual prowess, or feeling the importance of such, slipping away with the time.

To me rather than it being a nonsense start, it was a semi-profound self realization/doubt statement and with that interpretation of those first two lines gave greater depth to the rest of the piece by including the sense of taste into the piece. Like when we say, I want it so bad I can taste it, here he feels it so profoundly he can taste it.

I would also class it organic, for we are organic machines

Edit: to me organic would be words that convey feeling and add depth to meaning, while attractive would be words that sound nice but add little or no feeling or meaning.

the information we bring to poetry from my perspective helps influence what we are seeing, having personal knowledge of a person can help discern the meanings being an abstract concept,

But

lemon tang of self,

is illogical it is an inorganic substance like plastic it exists but does not occur without being forced.

without the rest of the write for illumination just breaking it down to the two lines quoted by Senna

I am gears grinding against
the lemon tang of myself

I could equate a lot of different interpretations to the lines
drawing a lot if conclusions but they are for me the mind chasing answers to a concept that really doesn't make sense

so it's a forced inorganic conclusion to and abstract idea

 

[Senna Jawa]

knowing what we know of you from your previous poetry
​

The issue of relying in a specific poem on the total of work of their author is an interesting topic on its own. (And there are several related questions like this, about poem).

nonsense start

Did you say:

nonsentart​

?



Regards,

 

[todski28]

The issue of relying in a specific poem on the total of work of their author is an interesting topic on its own. (And there are several related questions like this, about poem).



Did you say:

nonsentart​

?

Regards,

clever

 

[Trixareforkids]

the information we bring to poetry from my perspective helps influence what we are seeing, having personal knowledge of a person can help discern the meanings being an abstract concept,

But

lemon tang of self,

is illogical it is an inorganic substance like plastic it exists but does not occur without being forced.

without the rest of the write for illumination just breaking it down to the two lines quoted by Senna

I am gears grinding against
the lemon tang of myself

I could equate a lot of different interpretations to the lines
drawing a lot if conclusions but they are for me the mind chasing answers to a concept that really doesn't make sense

so it's a forced inorganic conclusion to and abstract idea

Even if the piece was by a completely unknown poet, those first associations would be the same, the rest of the piece adds context and character which I believe supports my interpretation.

Also, it's not personal knowledge of you that I was speaking of, but the narrative voice your poetry speaks in, even online we tend to read the same poets over and over creating our own collections. Collections amplify the "voice" and build the character of the narrator. Knowing nothing about a poet except their poetry, you get a sense of the the character(s) they're portraying. That sense deepens with the reading of each new poem and later poems add new layers to previous poems.

And, how is lemon tang in any way inorganic, how is self inorganic?

If we look at just those two lines, it is still someone grinding up against the parts of themselves they have soured on. It still has whisper images of time passing. It is still to my mind very organic.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Even if the piece was by a completely unknown poet, [...]

Also, it's not personal knowledge [...]​

For the record, I said only "the total of work of their author" (work vs. person).

And, how is lemon tang in any way inorganic, how is self inorganic?​

I only asked (I've refrained from any judgment).

[...] supports my interpretation​

But, let me ask perhaps rhetorically, is admitting an interpretation equivalent to being organic? Perhaps you feel that the whole todski's poem and its ingredients are organic, yes?

The first two lines of todski's poem provide a somewhat complex simile which consists of three components (if I am right):

1. gears grinding against the lemon tang
2. I am gears grinding
3. the lemon tang of myself

Also, do we have a reading along the line:

I am ... grinding against ... myself​

or

I am ... grinding against ... tang​

?

I guess, both options of reading are possible:

• tang = person
• tang is a feature of the person

Regards,

 

[Trixareforkids]

For the record, I said only "the total of work of their author" (work vs. person).

I only asked (I've refrained from any judgment).

My comments were directed at Tod

 

[Senna Jawa]

My comments were directed at Tod

Oops! I got in the way between drinks and appetizer, sorry.

(Is there a saying like this in English?)

 

[Trixareforkids]

Oops! I got in the way between drinks and appetizer, sorry.

(Is there a saying like this in English?)

Lol, not that I've heard before but I like it and will be stealing it

Since you are abstaining for the nonce on sharing your views of organic vs attractive, sit back and enjoy the show, and have a drink on me. Well not ON me, I'm too ticklish for body shots.

 

[Senna Jawa]

[...] you are abstaining

I am following your instruction (you said "others").

sit back and enjoy the show, and have a drink on me. Well not ON me, I'm too ticklish for body shots.

Sounds very attractive!

 

[todski28]

Even if the piece was by a completely unknown poet, those first associations would be the same, the rest of the piece adds context and character which I believe supports my interpretation.

Also, it's not personal knowledge of you that I was speaking of, but the narrative voice your poetry speaks in, even online we tend to read the same poets over and over creating our own collections. Collections amplify the "voice" and build the character of the narrator. Knowing nothing about a poet except their poetry, you get a sense of the the character(s) they're portraying. That sense deepens with the reading of each new poem and later poems add new layers to previous poems.

And, how is lemon tang in any way inorganic, how is self inorganic?

If we look at just those two lines, it is still someone grinding up against the parts of themselves they have soured on. It still has whisper images of time passing. It is still to my mind very organic.

so looking at the way you have interpreted the lines, you have come to the correct conclusion (since I wrote it I know ) Senna also came to the same/similar conclusion, though I can't take credit for "tang" meaning person that was a happy coincidence I was referring to the lemon creating a sour experience

see turning this around and running back to Senna's original example

swished by
and
rush by

for me was a clearer example

looking at my two lines I am having a headache
because I believe I could rationalize this in either direction
(hedging now because I'm lost and wavering on my train of thought)

I'm looking at it too subjectively since I wrote the lines, happy that I was understood.

so it's thrown a bit of my ego into the argument and it is not helping me rationalize my original concept.

simply because seeing the exact meaning and train of though reported back by two separate poets says that the
though invoked and followed was the concept being portrayed by the lyrical subject.

so because the conclusion was the intended outcome was it an organic train of thought?

or

was it simply a happy coincidence that in trying to hide the true feeling behind a wall of poetic metaphor that a logical conclusion was reached? simply because of attractive phrasing.

in essence I think I'm struggling now to find merit in the argument that I had originally thrown down.

 

[Trixareforkids]

I am following your instruction (you said "others").



Sounds very attractive!

Following instructions eh, I pictured you as more of a lick outside the box type.


I do not recall referencing "others" I'd actually like to hear what others think. Tod and I flashed ours, do the rest of y'all need some sort of beads as an incentive?

 

[todski28]

And, how is lemon tang in any way inorganic, how is self inorganic?*

lemon tang is organic

self is organic

But

lemon tang of self

is a construct to say sour thoughts with out giving an example of it
so inorganic mash of phraseology to give a metaphorical desired out come

is that considered organic?

if so how is that organic?

running of two samples is starting to make my brain itch, because the interpretation of "organic" is relating to what, the thought processes that comes out as a conclusion

or is it the way the mind grabs the conclusion to fit whatever it wishes to fit?

 

[Trixareforkids]

Edit: to me organic would be words that convey feeling and add depth to meaning, while attractive would be words that sound nice but add little or no feeling or meaning.

Well I already offered ^^ but I'll think on it and see how I might expand on that and give examples...

 

[todski28]

Originally Posted by*Trixareforkids*

Edit: to me organic would be words that convey feeling and add depth to meaning, while attractive would be words that sound nice but add little or no feeling or meaning.

Well I already offered ^^ but I'll think on it and see how I might expand on that and give examples...

see this is not true of the example posted in Senna's original flash of organic vs attractive

the outcome of the word
had meaning and feeling
however it changed the direction the mind pondered on the car

in Senna's piece

the word swished by takes the mind on a dismissive route of the car

swished is the sound the car makes as it drives past
the aural connotation is that you heard it but
it swished by it's now out of the poem, it's dismissed

when you add rush by
to the police cat your mind follows a separate train of thought
more one that the lyrical subject was pondering

rush put the emphasis on the car where is it going?
police adds urgency to the car itself

if a police car rushes by....

so then the train of thought is pondering the police
the situation
what's and why's etc

so the distinction here from the first example sighted

is organic is more akin to the lyrical subjects train of thought
and is manifestation of what the lyrical subject is trying to convey
without directly stating it.

 

[Trixareforkids]

And, how is lemon tang in any way inorganic, how is self inorganic?*

lemon tang is organic

self is organic

But

lemon tang of self

is a construct to say sour thoughts with out giving an example of it
so inorganic mash of phraseology to give a metaphorical desired out come

is that considered organic?

if so how is that organic?

running of two samples is starting to make my brain itch, because the interpretation of "organic" is relating to what, the thought processes that comes out as a conclusion

or is it the way the mind grabs the conclusion to fit whatever it wishes to fit?

People like stories and images to go with those stories, so to me organic is language that illustrates what is being said. This is poetry we're talking about, not a technical manual. The point of poetry, to my mind, is not just to say something straight out, but to illustrate it with language.

Those two lines clearly did just that, they layered multiple pictures/concepts that brought to mind a fully illustrated concept. They took, flour, water, sugar, salt lemon, cream and butter and made a fucking pie.

Attractive is harder for me to nail down, but I'll go look and see if I can find an example.

 

[Trixareforkids]

Using Senna's example of swish vs rush

Swish adds sound but it doesn't add depth to the image or meaning

Rush adds depth to the meaning, builds a more defined image

A police car swishing by is simply descriptive of what we already associate with the sound of a car, there are no lights no siren to that image, it could be replaced with any easily recognizable car.

A police car rushing is a dynamic, rush and police are organic to me because they work together to create a multi sensory and emotional response. For me there is no emotional response to swish by, it is merely the sound of what he's already described and subtracts urgency rather than adding it.

 

[todski28]

Using Senna's example of swish vs rush

Swish adds sound but it doesn't add depth to the image or meaning

Rush adds depth to the meaning, builds a more defined image

A police car swishing by is simply descriptive of what we already associate with the sound of a car, there are no lights no siren to that image, it could be replaced with any easily recognizable car.

A police car rushing is a dynamic, rush and police are organic to me because they work together to create a multi sensory and emotional response. For me there is no emotional response to swish by, it is merely the sound of what he's already described and subtracts urgency rather than adding it.

exactly what I said.... just clearer,

 

[Trixareforkids]

exactly what I said.... just clearer,

Lol, Ok so let's see if we can now agree on attractive...

I would say attractive is descriptive language that while it may add some form of additional sensory information, does nothing to further the emotional depth of a poem.

 

[todski28]

Lol, Ok so let's see if we can now agree on attractive...

I would say attractive is descriptive language that while it may add some form of additional sensory information, does nothing to further the emotional depth of a poem.

this here speaks to the concept of pruning the dead wood from s poem, extraneous words, all the bits of info that doesn't matter to the emotional content,

so in a broader sense this is the part where the writer has to figure out the what of their conveyance and try to lose the false branches of their write, even if the phraseology is particularly shiny,

so I can accept this as a definition for attractive.

so

organic is the progression of a piece in a direction
that suits the lyrical subjects emotional conveyance
the "penny drop moment"

the attractive
is language that adds nothing to said emotional conveyance
or what the write is trying to impart to the reader.......


I will ask Trix and Senna opinion on specifically my interpretation based on our discussion to see if we're barking up the right tree to suit that which they see as

organic
vs
attractive,

they may also what to expand, extrapolate and possibly shed further light so we may continue.

please don't be shy everyone else that may be looking on, this is an interesting topic and maybe something worth exploring for the sake of the art


sorry we had to detour people I'm slow on the uptake
But hey, I can lift heavy things

 

[Senna Jawa]

No contradiction

There is nothing wrong with attractiveness. It is simply not a whole package, that's all. In fact, in a profound way,

organic is more attractive than attractiveness
​

Regards,

 

[todski28]

There is nothing wrong with attractiveness. It is simply not a whole package, that's all. In fact, in a profound way,

organic is more attractive than attractiveness
​

Regards,

I agree with both statements, however still like to look at a pretty sunrise doesn't have to be the best one

 

[Senna Jawa]

I've invented another new word

Specialists who study people from the past in the social context are called historians. (They may study even the present people, and they also study more than just people).

Specialists who study ideas are called...--indeed, what are they called? NOT idealists, and NOT ideologist, Not ... Well, the word is ideot.

I made this word up hence it must be perfect.

 

[todski28]

Specialists who study people from the past in the social context are called historians. (They may study even the present people, and they also study more than just people).

Specialists who study ideas are called...--indeed, what are they called? NOT idealists, and NOT ideologist, Not ... Well, the word is ideot.

I made this word up hence it must be perfect.

I'm getting the t-shirt

 

[Senna Jawa]

I'm getting the t-shirt

Todski, great idea, seriously!