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

[butters]

ok, i mostly keep quiet in these threads simply because i know my limitations.

having said that, from my lowly position, it seems to me people have taken sticks and drawn lines in the sand - lines behind which their particualr understanding/definition resides and tolerates no breaching.

i read better than i write, and i've read amazing pieces that are 'transcendent' as well as 'down-in-the-mud-of-human-reality', and have been moved by both; i've read pieces from both sides that move me not one iota. There IS room, there is a blurring of the lines, and then there's the sea... the sea that comes in, washes away the lines and renders the beach flat, glistening, awaiting new words, new thoughts.

of course, when the muddiness that is humanity can be elevated to something so special as to be transcendental through the channel of our hearts and minds? then it gets a little awesome.

back to watching the tennis match. *dons sunglasses and eats strawberries*

 

[bogusagain]

back to watchinng the tennis match. *dons sunglasses and eats strawberries*

Butters, you should apply for a job at the United Nations.

However, there are better ways to keep a rogue male out of mischief.

 

[butters]

Butters, you should apply for a job at the United Nations.

However, there are better ways to keep a rogue male out of mischief.

they get watch tennis and eat yummies at the UN? point me in the right direction.


rogue male? oh my, should i fetch my elephant gun, or blunderbuss?

 

[Epmd607]

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.

Surrealist, symbolist, bunch of modernist imagery can only be called so because it is beyond the scope of expression that relies on experience. Realist expression pushes such things as dream experience to the margin of what is expressible or even possible of being experienced. Obviously we have dreams, so how do we express dream imagery? It is transcendent expression in every sense of the word that you give above.

There is a modicum of expression that is left out of everything expressed in language. Language is biased toward expressing physical experiences/reality which is the main reason we developed math as a tool to model reality. It has nothing to do with physical vs. spiritual either. Language can only give limited expression therefore metaphor exists to enhance our capability of expressing an idea. The spectrum of emotion can't be described adequately under current concepts and categories so we open language to things such as surrealism, poetry, metaphor.

If I had said 'Poetry has a tendency toward anti-realist ideology' or something of that nature, you guys would be smart to call me out on it, because anti-realism has nothing to do with sign and symbol. I can throw around transcendent, sublime, materialism if I'm capable of expressing what I mean by them because they are and have been pertinent to what differentiates poetic expression from all other modes of expression. You can always disagree.

Of course great poetry is attempting to convey a human experience and actually expressing something the reader values whether it's an idea, emotion, other experience xyz. The problem is it's not conveying any old human experience, but the sort of experience that prose(and language in general outside of poetry and mythology) is incapable of expressing.

There are plenty of good poems being written right now, there's just not many great poems that are moving and worthy of analysis for that fact that they are so moving.

 

[bogusagain]

Surrealist, symbolist, bunch of modernist imagery can only be called so because it is beyond the scope of expression that relies on experience.

No they aren't beyond expression because by existing, they are expressed. They are artifice, they aren't transcendent.

You are discussing stylistic movements, not transcendence. Their existence can better be expressed through discussing semiotics, not through some quasi religious idea of transcendence.

 

[twelveoone]

Surrealist, symbolist, bunch of modernist imagery can only be called so because it is beyond the scope of expression that relies on experience. Realist expression pushes such things as dream experience to the margin of what is expressible or even possible of being experienced. Obviously we have dreams, so how do we express dream imagery? It is transcendent expression in every sense of the word that you give above.

There is a modicum of expression that is left out of everything expressed in language. Language is biased toward expressing physical experiences/reality which is the main reason we developed math as a tool to model reality. It has nothing to do with physical vs. spiritual either. Language can only give limited expression therefore metaphor exists to enhance our capability of expressing an idea. The spectrum of emotion can't be described adequately under current concepts and categories so we open language to things such as surrealism, poetry, metaphor.

If I had said 'Poetry has a tendency toward anti-realist ideology' or something of that nature, you guys would be smart to call me out on it, because anti-realism has nothing to do with sign and symbol. I can throw around transcendent, sublime, materialism if I'm capable of expressing what I mean by them because they are and have been pertinent to what differentiates poetic expression from all other modes of expression. You can always disagree.

Of course great poetry is attempting to convey a human experience and actually expressing something the reader values whether it's an idea, emotion, other experience xyz. The problem is it's not conveying any old human experience, but the sort of experience that prose(and language in general outside of poetry and mythology) is incapable of expressing.
There are plenty of good poems being written right now, there's just not many great poems that are moving and worthy of analysis for that fact that they are so moving.

Now, why should I do that?
Part of the problem, and it has always been the problem, is that it has to reinvent itself every two generations, revitalize itself, either though rebellion or importation, in part because every generation has it's own way of thinking, check your history. The importation has either come from other countries or other disciplines. Poets are supposed to be a little faster on the uptake. Every "great" that I can think of, did something a little different, and often it took a generation of two before they became codified into some sort of canon. Your point about the study of the past, is well taken, why reinvent the wheel? But the wheel itself has become more of subservient part in technology. And in some technologies, it is of little use. Replaced by the electron.
Pardon my handy-dandy analogy. Hint: "going viral", memes, convergence theory applied to what next?
The rhythm of the country is not the rhythm of the city is not the rhythm of the screen is not the rhythm of somebody not listening.

 

[twelveoone]

No they aren't beyond expression because by existing, they are expressed. They are artifice, they aren't transcendent.

You are discussing stylistic movements, not transcendence. Their existence can better be expressed through discussing semiotics, not through some quasi religious idea of transcendence.

semiotics is not some sort of quasi religious idea?
or to paraphrase the fashion industry
Semiotics is the new Freud (or Jung, etc.) is the new Black.
I do smell a new movement slogan.
Artifice for Artifices sake!

 

[twelveoone]

I'm of no mind to discuss DeFunctionalism

the test of some bullshit is to see if people react to said bullshit, subject to external bullshit influences

X=poem
Y=poem is good (external bullshit influence)
Z=no it is not, Y is bullshit (external bullshit influence)

Wow, I am fucking good, I just described the whole poetry situation in an xyz equation.

 

[butters]

I'm of no mind to discuss DeFunctionalism

the test of some bullshit is to see if people react to said bullshit, subject to external bullshit influences

X=poem
Y=poem is good (external bullshit influence)
Z=no it is not, Y is bullshit (external bullshit influence)

Wow, I am fucking good, I just described the whole poetry situation in an xyz equation.

here, have a strawberry

 

[bogusagain]

semiotics is not some sort of quasi religious idea?
or to paraphrase the fashion industry
Semiotics is the new Freud (or Jung, etc.) is the new Black.
I do smell a new movement slogan.
Artifice for Artifices sake!

No. Semiotics is about communicating with symbols. The alphabet is 24 symbols, a word is made up are a series of those sysmbols. The aggregate of symbols we call words, each word is represented by a sound. Then we have visual symbols. You can take it to extreme but anything you take to extreme disappears up its own backside.

 

[Epmd607]

No they aren't beyond expression because by existing, they are expressed. They are artifice, they aren't transcendent.

You are discussing stylistic movements, not transcendence. Their existence can better be expressed through discussing semiotics, not through some quasi religious idea of transcendence.

I'm getting at why they exist in the first place. Ezra Pound and TS Eliot embrace symbology, imagism, and also surrealism and this is all of English language poetry until confessionalism makes its comeback and the navel gazing that makes you and me barf on our keyboards.

The act of poetry in transforming the personal experience into universal symbol is the heart of the transcendent act. The everyday symbols can't hold enough water to quench the thirst of the horse, but you're calling bringing the horse to the river 'artifice' or superficial meandering around expression or something.

 

[Epmd607]

I'm of no mind to discuss DeFunctionalism

the test of some bullshit is to see if people react to said bullshit, subject to external bullshit influences

X=poem
Y=poem is good (external bullshit influence)
Z=no it is not, Y is bullshit (external bullshit influence)

Wow, I am fucking good, I just described the whole poetry situation in an xyz equation.

symbol + repetition + mythos = poetry
where x + y + z =/= (x+y+z)

myth exegesis, symbol to stand for interpretation,
new interpretation of myth based on new symbol,
repeat and order based on sound preferences which should aid expression
so next player can then interpret and disseminate

 

[twelveoone]

symbol + repetition + mythos = poetry
where x + y + z =/= (x+y+z)

myth exegesis, symbol to stand for interpretation,
new interpretation of myth based on new symbol,
repeat and order based on sound preferences which should aid expression
so next player can then interpret and disseminate

mine was funnier,
but this looks interesting

strip down the jargon and it looks what you and bogus are saying is pretty much the same thing
myth creation is not that far off from signifier and the signified
really don't both have to do with relationship of symbol to meaning

 

[twelveoone]

symbol + repetition + mythos = poetry
where x + y + z =/= (x+y+z)

myth exegesis, symbol to stand for interpretation,
new interpretation of myth based on new symbol,
repeat and order based on sound preferences which should aid expression
so next player can then interpret and disseminate

suppose we replace some of the words, substitute archetype for mythos, what happens?
you also have it as an additive basis, not multiplicative?
subtractive? divisionative? (if that is the right word)

http://www.literotica.com/p/mythos

does the symbol for cleave mean anything? nonsense or something else?
does the symbol for mean mean anything?

would better terminology work?
associative vs dissociative

 

[twelveoone]

a dissertation on bullshit.
spread it around it is fertilizer
mix fertilizer with diesel fuel...
somewhere there is an analogy in all that

 

[twelveoone]

and somewhere in the prehistory of this thread was a series of questions?
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1025871&page=4
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?

I think some were answered
but alls not well that ends not well
as you find your own answers
don't you?

 

[oggbashan]

...

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?

I think some were answered
but alls not well that ends not well
as you find your own answers
don't you?

Any response to any creative work is likely to be 'you find your own answers don't you'.

A reader's response to a poem could be completely askew from the poet's conception because reader brings their own ideas, experience and knowledge to their own interpretation.

For example: A few months ago I attended a local art exhibition by a group of local semi-professional artists. One of the works was a painting of a scene from a Greek tragedy. I liked it and spoke to the artist about it. It soon became obvious that he had little idea of the play, its position in Greek drama, and even the significance of the scene in the progress of the play. He had taken a Victorian illustration of that scene from an art book and put his own spin on that illustration, not on the drama itself.

I had read far more into the painting than his knowledge could have created.

I still thought it was a good piece of work, but my personal interpretation had brought far more to it than the artist had intended. Was the painting still 'special'? It was to me. Apart from anything else it made me go back to consider the original Victorian painting in more depth.

I can have the same reaction to a poem, reading more into it than was intended - or far less - because my knowledge and experience just doesn't match that of the poet. I might not know the symbolism used or the references made if the poet is from another country.

As far as I am concerned, the structure and mechanics of a poem are far less important than my reaction.

Does it make me think?

Does it make me see something familiar in a new light?

Or does it make me think WTF? because I don't understand it at all?

If the last, is it my limitations, or the poet's?

 

[Matryoshka]

a dissertation on bullshit.
spread it around it is fertilizer
mix fertilizer with diesel fuel...
somewhere there is an analogy in all that

Out of dung rises Phoenix
Takes flight with majestic wings of flames
Or implodes raining fiery, searing ash

 

[twelveoone]

Any response to any creative work is likely to be 'you find your own answers don't you'.

A reader's response to a poem could be completely askew from the poet's conception because reader brings their own ideas, experience and knowledge to their own interpretation.

For example: A few months ago I attended a local art exhibition by a group of local semi-professional artists. One of the works was a painting of a scene from a Greek tragedy. I liked it and spoke to the artist about it. It soon became obvious that he had little idea of the play, its position in Greek drama, and even the significance of the scene in the progress of the play. He had taken a Victorian illustration of that scene from an art book and put his own spin on that illustration, not on the drama itself.

I had read far more into the painting than his knowledge could have created.

I still thought it was a good piece of work, but my personal interpretation had brought far more to it than the artist had intended. Was the painting still 'special'? It was to me. Apart from anything else it made me go back to consider the original Victorian painting in more depth.

I can have the same reaction to a poem, reading more into it than was intended - or far less - because my knowledge and experience just doesn't match that of the poet. I might not know the symbolism used or the references made if the poet is from another country.

As far as I am concerned, the structure and mechanics of a poem are far less important than my reaction.

Does it make me think?

Does it make me see something familiar in a new light?

Or does it make me think WTF? because I don't understand it at all?

If the last, is it my limitations, or the poet's?

we have totally different styles, totally different approach, and yet in your two (?)posts, I so totally agree. It's nice to see feet on the ground (pardon the cliche)

And this is pretty much of a credo isn't it?
Does it make me see something familiar in a new light?

 

[Epmd607]

and somewhere in the prehistory of this thread was a series of questions?
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1025871&page=4
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?

I think some were answered
but alls not well that ends not well
as you find your own answers
don't you?

What I mean by special is the same as I mean by great. Great poems find themselves moving readers regardless of the age and experience of the reader(assuming the reader has an actual interest in poetry and has read more than sidewalk chalk nursery rhymes.)

Can a poem elicit the same reaction from every reader? Will every reader put forth the effort in interacting with the poem as to share something with said poet?...no. Great poems speak to the levels of readership in different ways, it's the space where poetry thrives. The geographer obtains more information from the census data about city X than the guy who's curious if his city has grown in population over the past decade. Both can satisfy a curiosity, but the geographer is going to become more curious as he pours over the data.

I almost petitioned OpenField to analyse his own poem for us: http://www.literotica.com/p/inheritance-4

Which would fly in the face of critical tradition, sacrilege to art, nullifying spaces for readers to plug in their variety of experiences etc. But I thought maybe him sacrificing his poem might teach a handful of us a new trick, or maybe he had made a mistake in his expression and he'd learn something new. ClearDayNow has sacrificed parts of a few of his poems this way, likely unwittingly, in his comment sections.

Basically, to say what I've already said in a new way: I don't believe prose poetry is capable of utilizing paratactic syntax, it doesn't leave enough to interpretation while not saying enough of value to the interpreter of symbols. I think it's at the heart of what actually makes prose poetry something separate from poetry. Prose poetry relies on subordinating conjunctions as vital technique to resemble prose, where most forms of poetry neglect the story form in favor of sound technique. Similar to how songs don't really tell stories because of how confining rhythm and repetition are in verse-chorus-verse format.

Prose poetry has advantage over song and poetry in setting scene, plot and character development, songs have advantage in bringing out the beauty of the language, poetry has the advantage in communicating difficult nonlinear ideas, emotions, mytho-logic symbolism.

The well read, well practiced poet has the best chance at saying something special. Same as the well practiced animator, who has studied animators past has the best advantage in creating a supremely gratifying cartoon for children.

 

[rotsak]

 

[oggbashan]

we have totally different styles, totally different approach, and yet in your two (?)posts, I so totally agree. It's nice to see feet on the ground (pardon the cliche)

And this is pretty much of a credo isn't it?
Does it make me see something familiar in a new light?

Where we don't agree is possibly that I see most of this thread as pretentious nonsense and a detailed discussion of form and structure but NOT substance.

I consider the mechanics and symbolism of any poem to be far less important than the content. A limerick or clerihew can contain as much insight as a finely wrought sonnet, and perhaps even more.

The message is being lost in the analysis of the method of delivery.

 

[twelveoone]

Where we don't agree is possibly that I see most of this thread as pretentious nonsense and a detailed discussion of form and structure but NOT substance.

I consider the mechanics and symbolism of any poem to be far less important than the content. A limerick or clerihew can contain as much insight as a finely wrought sonnet, and perhaps even more.

The message is being lost in the analysis of the method of delivery.

mechanics and symbolism are part of the content

 

[twelveoone]

Basically, to say what I've already said in a new way: I don't believe prose poetry is capable of utilizing paratactic syntax, it doesn't leave enough to interpretation while not saying enough of value to the interpreter of symbols. I think it's at the heart of what actually makes prose poetry something separate from poetry. Prose poetry relies on subordinating conjunctions as vital technique to resemble prose, where most forms of poetry neglect the story form in favor of sound technique. Similar to how songs don't really tell stories because of how confining rhythm and repetition are in verse-chorus-verse format.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parataxis
looks like it can be easily transferred.
does it really rely on subordinating conjunctions (and) more than verse?

 

[twelveoone]

Where we don't agree is possibly that I see most of this thread as pretentious nonsense and a detailed discussion of form and structure but NOT substance.

I consider the mechanics and symbolism of any poem to be far less important than the content. A limerick or clerihew can contain as much insight as a finely wrought sonnet, and perhaps even more.

The message is being lost in the analysis of the method of delivery.

I find it amusing, but view it more as a discussion of form and structure as a delivery of substance (or conveyance of content)
Wonder Why?
Ogden Nash
made his cash
by murdering the rhyme.
he did it all the time.

Insight is the understanding of a specific cause and effect in a specific context.
Cause and Effect should be read as one unit. The clerihew illustrates that.

The term insight can have several related meanings:

It becomes a little more complicated. And without getting into a discussion of the merits of René Descartes, I think we are looking at more than one cause and the possibility that one cause may effect another cause before we even get to the effect.
But, no matter, I think this thread is shot.