Poetry, prose, metre, stuff, to keep the other thread clean

[Epmd607]

Define human spirituality and I'll tell you if I believe in it.

It can't register with me because you won't say what IT is.

As far as I can see, poetry like prose, like music and song, like painting, like sculpture, like theatre, are art forms through which we communicate. That communication is at its best when the creator can provoke an emotional and/or and empathetic response etc, in the people the creator is trying to engage with.

I agree with your final sentence. But we have good reason to believe that poetry doesn't connect to nearly as many people as it did even forty years ago. How has the communication changed within the art?

Spirituality has a really simple definition when faced with materialism. The entirety of the human experience hasn't been defined in terms of physical forces so there is the possibility of a non-physical element to the human experience. Poetry's sole purpose had been to make contact with and express those feelings and emotions that seem to arise out of that non-physical space. The circularity of the definition shouldn't matter, this isn't a philosophy course, just an explanation for why poetry once mattered and why it might not now.

There is a humanist bent to it too, so me being an atheist I can accept poetry as it was and as it should be. There is a special agency to human beings to want and desire to be creatures greater than themselves, greater than the anthropological, biological descriptions and limitations placed upon them. I would like to express that experience and emotion that I've had that is seemingly inexpressible. Poetry that relies on sound technique such as meter and rhyme, advanced metaphor, special visual arrangement on the page are the most suitable tools.

 

[Epmd607]

Reading, reading, reading... all of you, again we are digressing from the technical aspects of poetry (the thread's title) into ... sociology. I am not really complaining, nothing wrong with that, let this thread change content if that is where we want it to go.
I do not think that there is big disagreement in the latest posts by Tsotha and Bogus.
My opinion is that people cannot appreciate poetry the same way as they cannot appreciate healthy food because they are brain washed and are incapable of thinking for themselves.
I don't think we can afford to be patronizing nor do I think that we are.
There is a difference (market difference) between Europe and the US and Tsotha realizes that.
All cultural products, from Mc Donald's burgers to poems are controlled by the social class that owes the means for production, distribution and exchange (and don't call me a Marxist for that, cause I am one any way), but I believe that all the arts have still some ground, some space (not very big indeed) to carry on the struggle.
Bogus talks about "ivory towers". I believe he is right, they do exist, but not everywhere. Only, more and more of them are been built every day and I don't exclude myself from the builders.
Poetry in my opinion has forgotten one of its main objectives: To teach people. To teach them what to eat and what to read.
It does not have to follow any political party line to do that, but look at it now:
Look at its miserable state. It has been depoliticized, dehumanized, re-spiritualized, with its balls cut-off.
Cut-off from its natural audience, ie the people.
Like them it is politically castrated.
And here we are, talking still about its "esoteric content" while we admit that its potential readers are idiots who eat fast food and think that Eros is a pornographic word.
In an order of priorities, I'd rather teach any audience with my songs of how to eat and how to fuck (and enjoy both) first, and never mind my "esoteric bollocks" and other minor concerns. I cannot afford to be completely free neither in my choice of subject, nor in my way of expressing it, if they still eat Mc Donald's.
Oops, I'm ranting a little. Sorry

The constant belief that everyone is stupid and brainwashed, but you're not, is the biggest problem with failed artists and failed Marxist-Leninists. There has never been a song or poem that has made people change political, social, cultural beliefs. As if Times They Are a-Changin' brought kids out of their bedrooms onto the streets or Charge of the Light Brigade increased voluntary conscription in England. Poetry can only hope to enhance a feeling someone's already had.

 

[bogusagain]

I agree with your final sentence. But we have good reason to believe that poetry doesn't connect to nearly as many people as it did even forty years ago. How has the communication changed within the art?.

Now I don't have the answer as to precisely why poetry is consistently losing its readership, it has been losing it for the best part of 100 years in the west. Though I think one of the main reason is that poets stopped taking responsibility in engaging with the wider readership, thinking it is the responsibility of te readership to come to them. That is the wrong way round. If a poet has something to communicate, they should find a way of communicating their ideas in a form that attracts a wider readership.

Spirituality has a really simple definition when faced with materialism. The entirety of the human experience hasn't been defined in terms of physical forces so there is the possibility of a non-physical element to the human experience. Poetry's sole purpose had been to make contact with and express those feelings and emotions that seem to arise out of that non-physical space. The circularity of the definition shouldn't matter, this isn't a philosophy course, just an explanation for why poetry once mattered and why it might not now..

It sounds as if you are refering to consciousness and self awareness which might or might not depend on biological materialism, though not believing in any diety, I think it does depend on biological material. When it comes to self awareness we aren't the only creatures that are self aware. Self awareness appears to have evolved as a survival mechanism but we can debate that one all night.

There is a humanist bent to it too, so me being an atheist I can accept poetry as it was and as it should be. There is a special agency to human beings to want and desire to be creatures greater than themselves, greater than the anthropological, biological descriptions and limitations placed upon them by anthropology, physical sciences. I would like to express that experience and emotion that I've had that is seemingly inexpressible. Poetry that relies on sound technique such as meter and rhyme, advanced metaphor, special visual arrangement on the page are the most suitable tools.

There has been a lot written about that. One of the main theories for the belief in diety is that it is a side affect of self awareness. Our brains seem to project intent onto inanimate objects because if the inanimate object is not inanimate but a predator, we would process the information quicker and have a better chance of survival. One example that was given was, people might mistake a shadow for a burglar but they never mistake a burglar for a shadow. There are some wonderful puzzles which illustrate our common sense might be common but very rarely is it sensible. Our brains are basically lazy and saves energy by jumping to conclusions. Most of the time we believe whatever our brain is tells without analysing whether our brains are perceiving our environment correctly or working out a problem correctly. The misinformation produced by our brains give us a sense of something other beyond ourselves. Fascinating stuff but it is lazy to label it all spirituality.

 

[Tsotha]

Surely if you didn't want anyone to take your advice, you'd keep your opinion to yourself? Surely the point of publicizing ones opinion is to influence the debate?

I do not go around shoving my opinion down other people's throats, if that is what you're implying. I was replying to your original point, that poets should write poetry that engages the public. Since you've further explained that they should write poetry that engages the public IF they want to engage the public, I do not disagree with you anymore.

However, they aren't misunderstood geniuses, they are just not engaging with the contemporary world.

They aren't engaging A PART of the contemporary world. Just like those writing "for the public" aren't engaging a part of the contemporary world. Nobody engages everybody.

And people can be geniuses or not, whether they are writing for the public or for themselves. There are different kinds of genius, too. There is no correlation.

Edit: well, someone who has a knack for pleasing a great number of people is more likely to be recognized as such if he actually engages in trying to achieve popularity. But that is beside the point...

I've got no problem with you being offensive, I was wondering why you were aopolgizing when you didn't really mean it.

You've taken offense, just like I take offense when you lump together everyone who isn't writing for "the public" as an elitist imperialist whatever. So?

Look, my point is: there is value in defending one's ideas, no matter what the majority may think. Is there oppression from the "elite"? Sure, there is. But there is oppression from the masses, too. Many changes in history have come from a fringe that became mainstream, only to be replaced by another fringe that became mainstream... Writing deliberately to "maximize the public" only achieves that — maximizing the public. There is value in it, but there IS value in having a personal vision, too — even if it ends not being accepted by others.

Well it is elitist and imperialist to know what is best for other people.

Do you tell your medical doctor what is best for yourself? How do you do that, flipping a coin, or making up names for medicine?

If a poet wants to engage people in what they think is "good poetry", they should write "good poetry" that engages with people and is relelvant to them.

I agree.

The use of drugs in western society is often down to a drug economic system fueled by prohibition like alcohol prohibition in 20s America. A few wise laws and some economic justice could minimise the impact of drugs.

Wise laws? As in... telling people what they should do?

Education isn't lecturing people what is good and bad and what is right and wrong, it is cultivating critical thought so people can make choices and create for themselves, independently of those who claim to know best.

I agree.

If you are telling people they are inadequate and know nothing, they are hardly likely to respond to you or your ideas in a positive way. Seduction is a far better and far more successful strategy than coercian. Hence, write poetry that engages with people, not poetry that turns them off.

I agree.

 

[Tsotha]

Selected quotes:

"Every writer whether he likes it or not, writes to a select audience, because the audience selects the writing."

"To get someone to read anything it must be interesting, so I use a few tricks to get it to be so."

"I have to understand it first, I have to give it enough so that the reader has something, they have to be interested, if they read it twice, all the better. That is all To completely understand a poem, a good poem, is impossible."

"In one hour you will not completely understand me. Hell, I don't even completely understand all the possibilities in half the poems I write.
"

Those were very interesting.

OK, what are you saying?

And you are using an analogy that fails badly...

If I write a poem in english (green) WTF do I care if the Chinese (red) care?

My analogy, which "fails badly", is a color spectrum, where each color is formed by components (red, green, blue, if you're talking about description in a computer, or otherwise the mixing of paints, e.g., blue and yellow to achieve green).

By this, I meant that there is a compatibility between poem and reader, depending on certain characteristics of the mind, and on what life experiences / knowledge the person has. There are "green people", with certain characteristics, for whom a "green poem" will be a perfect match. There are "yellow people", who will be a close match to the "green poem" (because they are coming from nearly the same background / mindset).

Finally, I was saying that if a poem has layers, such that it manages to connect to people with radically different backgrounds / mindsets, it is a "superior" poem, in the strict sense that it has a broader audience.

Now you know from your limited experience here that if a poem was written in the style of X. X would not like it, because X did not write it, it would be incomprehensible to X.

Are you saying that, if you were to write something "Tsotha style", I wouldn't like it?

You also know comprehension in regards to audience covers a very wide range. I like everyone else targets , specific use of tools (ingredients) targets , some of the tools are addicting. We are talking about psychological patterning.

Yes, some of the tools are addicting, to the person who writes. I immediately remember my "unroll" nonsense, which I keep trying to use. In my mind, I'm trying to learn it, but I can see how it could be argued that I'm just "addicted" to some pattern of writing. Is that what you mean?

A poem is nothing but a game, you play with yourself (I don't know if you caught that) and plays with someone else (hopefully). Truth? Beauty, (a certain form of symmetry), subjective. Profundity, a cheap shit illusion.

Yes, I play it with myself, locked inside my head. I do not know how a poem will be received, I can only guess, until I receive feedback. The reader also plays a game alone, while reading.

Specifically, I created an alt as a veracity test for a certain reviewer that used what I perceived would be to his liking. It worked, he passed. I suspect this is done by others as targeting, because it does not take much to generate text.
But WTF do I know, eh?

I honestly don't understand what you're saying, here. Were you trying to verify whether he would say that he liked what he liked? Why wouldn't he?

 

[bogusagain]

Wise laws? As in... telling people what they should do?

No, by regulating and taxing the market, allowing people to take drugs if they want, in hte same way alcohol is regulated.

 

[bogusagain]

Do you tell your medical doctor what is best for yourself? How do you do that, flipping a coin, or making up names for medicine?

I discuss with my doctor what is best for me and I make any medical decisions on her advice.

But your analogy is nonsense because using poetry forms or not has not the possibility of having a detrimental effect on my life.

Whether to drink Coke or Pepsi is a better analogy.

 

[Tsotha]

No, by regulating and taxing the market, allowing people to take drugs if they want, in hte same way alcohol is regulated.

That is just a covert way of telling people what to do.

I discuss with my doctor what is best for me and I make any medical decisions on her advice.

But your analogy is nonsense because using poetry forms or not has not the possibility of having a detrimental effect on my life.

Whether to drink Coke or Pepsi is a better analogy.

My analogy would be nonsense if we were discussing only poetry.

 

[bogusagain]

That is just a covert way of telling people what to do..

Claptrap. Is legalised alcohol telling you to drink alcohol or not? No it isn't.

My analogy would be nonsense if we were discussing only poetry.

I answered your question. My doctor doesn't make decisions for me. My doctor advises me and I decide whether I take her advice or not.

 

[Tsotha]

Claptrap. Is legalised alcohol telling you to drink alcohol or not? No it isn't.

It isn't. It's just overtaxing you for making the "wrong" decision.

I answered your question. My doctor doesn't make decisions for me. My doctor advises me and I decide whether I take her advice or not.

And I responded to your classification of my analogy.

 

[twelveoone]

Selected quotes:

1.Finally, I was saying that if a poem has layers, such that it manages to connect to people with radically different backgrounds / mindsets, it is a "superior" poem, in the strict sense that it has a broader audience.

2. Are you saying that, if you were to write something "Tsotha style", I wouldn't like it?

3.Yes, some of the tools are addicting, to the person who writes. I immediately remember my "unroll" nonsense, which I keep trying to use. In my mind, I'm trying to learn it, but I can see how it could be argued that I'm just "addicted" to some pattern of writing. Is that what you mean?

4.Yes, I play it with myself, locked inside my head. I do not know how a poem will be received, I can only guess, until I receive feedback. The reader also plays a game alone, while reading.

5.I honestly don't understand what you're saying, here. Were you trying to verify whether he would say that he liked what he liked? Why wouldn't he?

1. if you can do that, without compromising the poem, a reserved yes, I would have to see an example
2. the X, I was referring too, was not you
3. a very strong rhythm pattern and sound pattern somewhat overrides the thinking process - Algernon Charles Swinburne
4. yes and the guess will get better
5. some people are dishonest, some react to writer name strongly, i.e. there are some people here I don't bother reading, (I doubt they will but) they could have written the most beautiful poem on the world and I would miss it. And a lot more people are less open than me.
we have a tendency to associate the writer with the name. we have a tendency to overlook errors in friends, etc. to a degree it is fine, when it becomes fan group fuck it is unfair to others.

 

[Tsotha]

1. if you can do that, without compromising the poem, a reserved yes, I would have to see an example

I do not have an example, I'm working with an hypothetical poem. I agree, it would be "superior" only if it did not compromise anything in order to become broader in appeal.

When it comes to an "advanced poem", I do not think it can be done without compromising the poem. There is always a trade-off when you're working on a budget (of words) or on the limit (of a reader's comprehension and/or capability for resonance). So it won't be "superior", it will be broader, and worse than it was in some other aspect.

However, on a "poetry 101" level, it seems to me that there are many ways to make your poem less broad without getting anything "good" for it.

2. the X, I was referring too, was not you

Ah, my mistake. I thought you were presenting a more general idea.

3. a very strong rhythm pattern and sound pattern somewhat overrides the thinking process - Algernon Charles Swinburne

As does a very loud horn to the ear.

4. yes and the guess will get better

Hopefully.

5. some people are dishonest, some react to writer name strongly, i.e. there are some people here I don't bother reading, (I doubt they will but) they could have written the most beautiful poem on the world and I would miss it. And a lot more people are less open than me.
we have a tendency to associate the writer with the name. we have a tendency to overlook errors in friends, etc. to a degree it is fine, when it becomes fan group fuck it is unfair to others.

I understand. I prefer to read what I enjoy (well, d'oh), so I tend to read poems by certain people. There are people I've put on a list of "don't bother". And I read poems by people I don't know, but I do so on a "trial" basis. If I do not like what I am reading, I need something else to convince me to stay (e.g., a response from the poet). Otherwise, I feel there is no reason for me to spend time there (I don't like the poem, the poet isn't going to engage in conversation — what is the point?).

 

[twelveoone]

re: 2) laughing uproariously, actually a distinct minority
re: 5) mag's got the right idea,

 

[twelveoone]

One example that was given was, people might mistake a shadow for a burglar but they never mistake a burglar for a shadow. There are some wonderful puzzles which illustrate our common sense might be common but very rarely is it sensible. Our brains are basically lazy and saves energy by jumping to conclusions. Most of the time we believe whatever our brain is tells without analysing whether our brains are perceiving our environment correctly or working out a problem correctly. The misinformation produced by our brains give us a sense of something other beyond ourselves. Fascinating stuff but it is lazy to label it all spirituality.

and then there is the story about the guy that shot his penis off mistaking it for a burglar.
It must have made a threatening move. Or maybe, it was because of that spate of 6 inch home invaders the FBI warns us about.

 

[bogusagain]

and then there is the story about the guy that shot his penis off mistaking it for a burglar.
It must have made a threatening move. Or maybe, it was because of that spate of 6 inch home invaders the FBI warns us about.

It might have been, depends whose vagina or arse it was in and why.

A quick musing over people's beliefs and you realise we're not very far up the evolutionary ladder. We like to think we are intelligent creatures, yet billions believe in dieties invented in the stone age and which a modicum use of their available intelligence would have them dismiss.

 

[butters]

they burn the heretics, don'tcha know....

 

[pelegrino]

Yes, I mean exactly what philosophical materialism has always meant. Historical/dialectical materialism is far closer to Hegelian Idealism than materialism and irrelevant.

Now that was hardly dialectical.
How close is in your opinion Hegel's idealism to Marx's dialectical materialism?
In my opinion is not even close enough to Feuerbach's indecision.

There is no point to poetry that seeks the non-material when you live in a culture that only gives intellectual credence to materialism and realism. And by realism, I mean philosophic realism in the realist sense(near pun?), and also the weaker version of realism in art.

So you infuse your modern poetry with realism aka prose, and then it's pretty much: what's the point of writing poetry when you can write a novella?

In preferring to write poetry rather than a novella, the way you put it, that's because poetry is more sexy, and most of the time succeeds where prose may fail: to bring out the realism by been more sexy, of course!

The constant belief that everyone is stupid and brainwashed, but you're not, is the biggest problem with failed artists and failed Marxist-Leninists. There has never been a song or poem that has made people change political, social, cultural beliefs. As if Times They Are a-Changin' brought kids out of their bedrooms onto the streets or Charge of the Light Brigade increased voluntary conscription in England. Poetry can only hope to enhance a feeling someone's already had.

Let me say first that I mainly agree with the views you have expressed so far on technical points like rhyme, rhythm, form etc.
But...
You don’t really reply to the points I made, do you? Instead you prefer to make it personal.
Probably you have not enough knowledge or enough time to remain on the points made. That's fair enough.
Are you calling me a failed artist? That has not been decided yet. Are you deciding for your self? Fair enough, don't read my stuff, don’t buy my records.
Are you calling me a failed Marxist-Leninist? Well, at least I've tried, not by writing songs but as a political activist. What did you do?
Are you blaming me for calling people stupid? I never said that. There is a big difference between "stupid" and "brain washed", and brain washed they are.
Are you calling me stupid and brainwashed too. Well, that's only your opinion, it's not worthwhile for me to try to change it, is it? Catch your self on now… steady.
Socialist revolutions have failed due to a cobination of their own wrong strategies and cold war pressure from the West, but Marxism as a critique of Capitalism and Communism as a cosmotheory are yet intact. Have you anything to answer to those?
The French revolution seems to have passed you by.
The Russian revolution seems to have passed you by.
The 60ies cultural revolution seems to have passed you by.
I don’t mean only in a political sense. I mean in every sense.
Finally, the poetry of Mayakovsky, Neruda, Ritsos, Brecht, even that of Dylan (throw in Dylan Thomas for good measure), seems to have passed you by. These are great poets who have tought the world. That is what I mean by "poetry's surrendered main objective". To teach the world.


Poetry's sole purpose had been to make contact with and express those feelings and emotions that seem to arise out of that non-physical space.


You remind me of bishop Berkley.
There is nothing else but physical universe around us and poetry is a half-failed human attempt to reflect it and transmit to society whatever information gained. That's all.

And, by the way, I never was, never will be a Tolkien fan.
Although I agree with what you wrote about him, you still confuse me with someone else.

Your bourgeois ideology has already been analyzed, explained, contained and archived for the last 200 years. Nothing really new to it. Please, stay in your file. This is the real world.

 

[Epmd607]

Now that was hardly dialectical.
How close is in your opinion Hegel's idealism to Marx's dialectical materialism?
In my opinion is not even close enough to Feuerbach's indecision.



In preferring to write poetry rather than a novella, the way you put it, that's because poetry is more sexy, and most of the time succeeds where prose may fail: to bring out the realism by been more sexy, of course!





Let me say first that I mainly agree with the views you have expressed so far on technical points like rhyme, rhythm, form etc.
But...
You don’t really reply to the points I made, do you? Instead you prefer to make it personal.
Probably you have not enough knowledge or enough time to remain on the points made. That's fair enough.
Are you calling me a failed artist? That has not been decided yet. Are you deciding for your self? Fair enough, don't read my stuff, don’t buy my records.
Are you calling me a failed Marxist-Leninist? Well, at least I've tried, not by writing songs but as a political activist. What did you do?
Are you blaming me for calling people stupid? I never said that. There is a big difference between "stupid" and "brain washed", and brain washed they are.
Are you calling me stupid and brainwashed too. Well, that's only your opinion, it's not worthwhile for me to try to change it, is it? Catch your self on now… steady.
Socialist revolutions have failed due to a cobination of their own wrong strategies and cold war pressure from the West, but Marxism as a critique of Capitalism and Communism as a cosmotheory are yet intact. Have you anything to answer to those?
The French revolution seems to have passed you by.
The Russian revolution seems to have passed you by.
The 60ies cultural revolution seems to have passed you by.
I don’t mean only in a political sense. I mean in every sense.
Finally, the poetry of Mayakovsky, Neruda, Ritsos, Brecht, even that of Dylan (throw in Dylan Thomas for good measure), seems to have passed you by. These are great poets who have tought the world. That is what I mean by "poetry's surrendered main objective". To teach the world.


Poetry's sole purpose had been to make contact with and express those feelings and emotions that seem to arise out of that non-physical space.


You remind me of bishop Berkley.
There is nothing else but physical universe around us and poetry is a half-failed human attempt to reflect it and transmit to society whatever information gained. That's all.

And, by the way, I never was, never will be a Tolkien fan.
Although I agree with what you wrote about him, you still confuse me with someone else.

Your bourgeois ideology has already been analyzed, explained, contained and archived for the last 200 years. Nothing really new to it. Please, stay in your file. This is the real world.

Cool story, bro. Did you have a question regarding poetry in there? Marxian theory only regards historical analysis of capital accumulation and income distribution. Good luck with your art and struggles and Leninism.

 

[Epmd607]

...



It sounds as if you are refering to consciousness and self awareness which might or might not depend on biological materialism, though not believing in any diety, I think it does depend on biological material. When it comes to self awareness we aren't the only creatures that are self aware. Self awareness appears to have evolved as a survival mechanism but we can debate that one all night.



There has been a lot written about that. One of the main theories for the belief in diety is that it is a side affect of self awareness. Our brains seem to project intent onto inanimate objects because if the inanimate object is not inanimate but a predator, we would process the information quicker and have a better chance of survival. One example that was given was, people might mistake a shadow for a burglar but they never mistake a burglar for a shadow. There are some wonderful puzzles which illustrate our common sense might be common but very rarely is it sensible. Our brains are basically lazy and saves energy by jumping to conclusions. Most of the time we believe whatever our brain is tells without analysing whether our brains are perceiving our environment correctly or working out a problem correctly. The misinformation produced by our brains give us a sense of something other beyond ourselves. Fascinating stuff but it is lazy to label it all spirituality.

I made the mistake of using 'spirituality' loosely without first explaining it more as metaphor, which leaves the question open of what is that thing that is infusing human life with the desire to be something special in the scheme of physical things. I studied mostly philosophy of language, linguistics and some cognitive science. I wouldn't want to frame a conversation here that would ultimately appeal to folks who practice neuroscience and evolutionary biology as their profession.

So, to bring it back to the techniques of poetry and whether poetry speaks like mythology...

The deities of two thousand+ years ago are likely not quite the same as the common era deities which share a lineage. We don't know much of the myths and practices of the Pauline Christians, and next to nothing of the Gnostic Christians. Mythology has continually changed to incorporate new ideas and new groups and new deities. The God of the Old Testament seems to be of quite a different nature than the God/Son/Spirit group of the New Testament.

Anyway, so people don't practice the same, new rituals arise, new symbols are given meaning. And to cut this idea short: poetry has accompanied mythology in many cultures, especially in the West. So new ideas and rituals are introduced by mythology by way of religion then ultimately interpreted and disseminated by poetry as entertainment. Hesiod through Milton, the priests aren't the last word on metaphor, the poets are.

Jesus, it's such a long conversation to get back to talking about poetry as sacred, prose as profane and unsuitable for poetic expression...while avoiding what non-scientists Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris like to write books about.

 

[Tsotha]

Cool story, bro. Did you have a question regarding poetry in there?

I had questions about poetry, to try to understand what you were saying.

 

[twelveoone]

they burn the heretics, don'tcha know....

and that is why my dear
I am the asbestos pestus
'cause when all is said and done
poetry ain't much fun
and after all
who really needs it?
may as well sell my soul
and grow another hole
and become a politco
and fuck metaphors all to hell...
just like in Vienna
or Fox Network

Marx Rules
and whatever it is
I'm against it.

 

[Matryoshka]

EDIT: I moved this to it's own thread...trying to put it where it belongs.

Ok, this is the first poem I've written since I dusted off my pen and brushed the cobwebs off:

Darkness slips into cracks and crevasses
Missed by unconcerned glance
Eroding minutely
Grain by grain
Until
Steps falter
Stubbed, twisted
Cruel, hungry shadow
Sinks in with jagged teeth
Damage done, found by casual step
Repair only a hope that patchwork will last

 

[Epmd607]

Disclaimer: I understand almost nothing of what is being said. I have questions, if you're willing to answer.




1) What do you mean, "special"?

2) And why is a consummate prose poet not likely to say anything special?

3) Who is likely to say something special, then?




4) What is "that thing which can't be expressed in a novel's worth of words, ideas, images"? Can you provide an example (a poem) that presents such a thing?

5) Why is the space poetry provides inadequate to say certain things which are said in novels?




6) You are saying that sound has a meaning in itself, that it becomes a symbol for meaning alongside metaphor. Is this correct?

If so, then I ask this question: by adhering to a specific form, what is the poet trying to achieve? Why does he choose to write a sonnet and not a triolet?




I once said something like this:

"I like the poem, but I wouldn't have broken lines 3-4, it broke up the rhythm in a place where it wasn't adequate."

To which the response was:

"You ignorant fool, he is writing a <insert form's name here>"

So, yes. How, where and why. Why, why, WHY.

7) Where is the how, and the where, and the why in a fixed form? What does the "pure poet" hope to achieve by deciding to write a specific form? How can an arbitrary, fixed form possibly be the best choice to play alongside metaphor in a poem?




Exactly. Tools, so many tools. You can paint the prettiest painting, with all those "sacred" tools, but if you're painting a bowl of fruit, it's still a shitty painting. No matter that you made it all flowery with iambs.




If I can't paint photo-realistic fruit bowls, I can't paint an engaging picture? That's bullshit. The camera should have rendered painting irrelevant, then.




8) Tell us, what is contained within poems? (I do not know.)




9) I ask again: is poetry created only by adherence to a set of arbitrary rules?

10) If not, why must all newcomers be initiated into certain tools? What tools are those, and who decides? What is the purpose of those tools?




11) What is the "very narrow structure" of prose? As far as I know, prose is anything from a technical manual to a movie script; that is, there is nothing at all "narrow" about it.




12) What is poetry? I have started a thread, looking for an answer, but all the answers were subjective, and each person had a different idea. You, however, seem to have a clear notion of what it is, so I'm hopeful that your answer will finally sate my curiosity.




13) What is a "great artist"?

14) What traditions should a "great artist" study? You've only cited poets from your language.




Yes, everything comes from something. It doesn't mean the "thievery" must come from artistic traditions. It can come from anything (and everything, if unconscious) in a person's life.




The correlation between popularity and "greatness" is a result of your judgment of value. As I said, what is a great artist? Different people will have different answers.




They get defensive because of a mix of the following:

• The advice is being provided with no tact / compassion AND the work presented is too personal. Result: the feedback is seen as a personal attack.
  
• The advice is being given in a tone that makes it clear that the person receiving is unworthy / an idiot. The person giving advice is more interested in using the newbie to demonstrate how superior he is, than in actually helping.
• The advice is being given by a shitty teacher. Learning is like climbing a stair. Make a stair with steps too high, and some people won't be able to climb.

You can no more learn how to write a poem by ONLY reading than you can learn to write a novel by ONLY reading. At some point you have to write a "poem". People ask for "critique" because they are trying to complete the feedback loop, to be told how they are doing — not necessarily because they think it's "worthy of critique" / "the best poem ever", but because they are learning.

Many don't stop to think about what they are doing, they don't read poems, they don't comment... They just write. That leaves the feedback loop broken, too. So I agree with you that "study" is important.




Agreed, it's good to read, and to learn.




15) Is poetry so pathetic that there is a "blueprint" for it? If so, I'll teach my computer to write it, so I can save everyone else the trouble.




16) Who is saying that? What I do see being said is: "if you cannot tell me the purpose of your 19th century tool / tradition, then stop pestering me about how I'm a lesser poet."




You don't need a paper to know that. Most people will not know what <something> is, unless <something> has meaning in their lives. Everyone knows what an airplane is, even if they don't know how to build one (or how it even manages to fly). People don't know what a poem is because they don't care, and they don't care because they are useless (to them).




And then it goes straight over people's heads. Again, useless (to the reader).

The question always is: do you care that the reader doesn't understand? You're selecting your public.

poet > poem < reader




Actually, yes, it will. It has a greater chance of being seen as "useful" by people (in general), since they'll actually be able to understand what the fuck is being said. Now, "poets", they are a tough crowd. Especially so those with their heads up their asses, set on showing the world how "great" they are.




gentle giant
its head up in clouds
ba DUM is the sound
of his ass and his head
when they hit the ground

A question for bogusagain, again:

17) If some piece of art isn't popular, is it irrelevant?

18) What arms cradle the unpopular idea? The innovative idea, far beyond its time? The idea that critiques society? The idea that breaks ground, even if only after a person's death? If not art, then what?




19) What is the difference between prose and poetry?




Many things which were important aren't important anymore. The world keeps changing, not always for the better.

Things become niche not necessarily because they are bad, but because people don't care about them. Hint: many people aren't nearly as smart as they think. Smart monkeys are actually pretty dumb. They are barely a step above hitting each other with clubs and throwing shit at each other.




You cannot possibly be comparing an exact science with something subjective like art.




Actually, yes, it does. Some sense.

My knowledge of art is pretty pathetic, but I do know that art was created as an expression of <something>. Decorating vases, weaving patterns into cloth, and later, some asshole who was king paid others to paint him or tell stories about how great he was.

So, originally it had the public in mind; all these past techniques must have made sense in the context in which they were used. The more the artist can sustain himself without needing to please a public, the further he can go into a state of complete disconnect from reality.

Which is cool, by the way — if you don't care about being disconnected from reality. As I said, not everything changes for the better. There is value in standing up for a niche idea.




Sometimes they write poetry that should be good for people's experiences, if they weren't ignorant idiots who are only seeking bad experiences. Like filling their mouths with fast-food and growing into fat fucks, instead of exercising and eating healthy.

You're right, I thought I did respond directly to you but was answering others.

1) Special poet vs. interesting prose:

Poetry has old tools you can add to, tools you as poet can mess with constantly by way of sound, visual symmetry vs. non-symmetry. Prose in story has beginning middle end, conflict must arrive and intensify then be gently tied together in final act. There is character, plot, setting development but it's really a hollow and sloppy place to develop metaphor. Poets don't need to tell little stories, they can write interesting prose poems, but they aren't suitable for full expression that poetry allows therefore they aren't pure but sullied by the rudiments of prose. Prose and poetry aren't all that alike, the form of prose given above has pretty much been unchanging since the Greek novels and plays that were reproduced and improved by Shakespeare, Bernard Shaw, Hollywood.



2) that thing, and an example:

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight
For the ends of being and ideal grace.

[I have a special feeling about you, appeal to God and grace but I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about you, Robert. This would have been a sacrilegious poem in the 18th century, but the Romanticism of the 19th century opened the door to using religious metaphor and symbol in non-religious ways. The author compares religious fervor and experience to human to human love. They are both very difficult things to pin down, even now in cog science they appear to light up different parts of the brain, so it might be one of the purest metaphors I've seen.]

I love thee to the level of every day’s
Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.

[this pair of lines is probably the most simple and elegant thing that has ever been thought or written. I love you, Robert with a religious fervor, yet I can also love you as boring old Robert stuck in his study every day writing poetry(that pales in compare to mine) while I attend to domestic chores. I feel like an asshole for even putting my own thoughts beneath it.]

I love thee freely, as men strive for right.
I love thee purely, as they turn from praise.

[Stuck in the Enlightenment where liberal ideas were in full on hemorrhage it would take many text boxes to uncover what's going on here.]

I love thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs, and with my childhood’s faith.
I love thee with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints. I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life; and, if God choose,
I shall but love thee better after death.

[I don't know what old griefs mean exactly, childhood griefs? But we're past religious fervor and on to pure and honest love and we end by making it up to God as reader: Sorry for saying I'd love Robert as much as anything I could possibly love, specifically you, God. It's really your choice in the end whether I can actually love Robert more than this world and more than my being.]

And that's my starting point for a poem in its purest form that even the free verse maniacs have approached from time to time. There are some great surrealists and also Dylan Thomas that are probably better examples for the contemporary reader with an interest in poems, where the author is trying to make language speak on level 11 and appealing to sound, to carry what they can't exactly say. I'm thinking of :

I want to sleep with you
Joyce Mansour (1955)

I want to sleep with you side by side
Our hair intertwined
Our sexes joined
With your mouth for a pillow.
I want to sleep with you back to back
With no breath to part us
No words to distract us
No eyes to lie to us
With no clothes on.
To sleep with you breast to breast
Tense and sweating
Shining with a thousand quivers
Consumed by ecstatic mad inertia
Stretched out on your shadow
Hammered by your tongue
To die in a rabbit's rotting teeth
Happy.
------------------
and also DT, A Saint About to Fall

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/a-saint-about-to-fall/

3) Sound is meditative, many different qualities which reader can derive different meanings based on. So sound because something particularly important to symbol outside of written word. See Dylan Thomas' catalog of hits.

4) Some other things I think I did answer directly in response to others. But I will keep answering the same questions in new ways if anyone's listening. I'm trying to discover the things that make poetry speak to transcendent human experience and everyday human experience, same as most of you, I assume.

 

[bogusagain]

I'm trying to discover the things that make poetry speak to transcendent human experience and everyday human experience, same as most of you, I assume.

Trancedent = 1. Beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience:
2. Surpassing the ordinary; exceptional:
3. (Of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe.
4. (In scholastic philosophy) higher than or not included in any of Aristotle’s ten categories.
5. (In Kantian philosophy) not realizable in experience.

Transcendent is another wooly meaningless tosh word unless you take the Kantian position of it as not being realisable.

Great poetry is not above human experience. It is great because it communicates with people on a human level. It engages with people, hence it survives where so much other poetry is simply forgotten.

In Tudor, Jacobean and even Hanoverian times, writing poetry of the level and style you describe was expected of any gentleman who would consider himself to be educated. Most of what was written in those times has disappeared down the plug hole of history because it was so transcendant, it might as well be on another planet as far as we are concerned with today.

 

[butters]

i like watching tennis