Structure in poetry

[FifthFlower]

Harris and his supporters stuck to their guns, declaring that the poems that had been written were indeed works of genius, whatever the intentions of their authors.

What if a computer had generated the poems? Could they still be called works of genius?

The reason I ask is that I found a haiku generator on the pages of Snakeskin. (To see it, you have to click on "Snakeskin's experiments" and then on Linda Crespi's "The Haiku and Tanka Generator". I couldn't find a direct URL to it, but someone with more smarts might be able to.)

This could save some brain cells, at least for a first draft.

 

[Eluard]

Here is pt. 2 of the Australian consequences of the Ern Malley fiasco. (This bit is not on the web.)

This is the Sydney end of the story, as opposed to the Adelaide part.

When McAuley returned to Australia and Sydney, where he was grew up, he had a religious conversion: he went from being an atheist to a Catholic, quite a conservative Catholic at that. He founded a magazine called Quadrant, in the early sixties, and he imposed his values as an indelible stamp on the character of that magazine: strongly Catholic and, in poetry, strongly anti-Modernist, anti-free verse. Now Quadrant is an institution and it still sells in every newsagent across the country. But the editorial stance has remained unchanged: a conservative Irish Catholic stance — flavoured by the Irish Catholic Sydney environment in which it is published — and a fiercely anti-Modernist stance on poetry, reinforced under the current poetry editor Les Murray: if it don’t rhyme it aint poetry. There are many people in Sydney who have the attitudes of this magazine. So here, the anti-Modernism and anti-free verse view has a distinctly religious overtone. It is part of a larger cultural alignment.

Thus whereas Adelaide went on its freebooting liberal, Modernist way, Sydney is riven with a deep warfare between the conservative parts and the modernist and radical opponents. And I should point out that the Modernists are often ex-Catholics, giving it all an altar-boy-on-alter-boy dimension which I find pretty tiresome — even though a stoush between aging alcoholics ought to be a fun thing to watch!

The only devotee of formal poetry that I knew in Adelaide was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court — who would show up at poetry readings in a torn jumper and courduroys, consume a flagon of wine, and read (or rather growl out) his translations of Horace. That was Adelaide for you!

 

[Eluard]

What if a computer had generated the poems? Could they still be called works of genius?

The reason I ask is that I found a haiku generator on the pages of Snakeskin. (To see it, you have to click on "Snakeskin's experiments" and then on Linda Crespi's "The Haiku and Tanka Generator". I couldn't find a direct URL to it, but someone with more smarts might be able to.)

This could save some brain cells, at least for a first draft.

Someone still has to choose the good ones from the chaff — so there is still an act of creativity at some level.

 

[Angeline]

I do Hallmark well.

There is no such thing as poetry.

You are incredibly elitist...ducks

I may not be formless, but I am certainly vacuous...

Darling any of us could do Hallmark well. It's like a card trick. But then so is a sonnet or a vilanelle, so maybe you're right.

But of course there is poetry. Anyone who appreciates jazz, such as yourself, knows that.

 

[manipulatrix]

.....

 

[Eluard]

Darling any of us could do Hallmark well. It's like a card trick.

:: wince at that pun ::

 

[unpredictablebijou]

.yes.​

what she said.

bj

 

[twelveoone]

All poetry scans. Scansion is merely the notation of stress and non-stress, among other things. The question is more about the regularity of a poem's scansion.

I think.

No, it doesn't. (Japanese, Chinese) Even, assuming this is about English. Simply put, poetic tools are for the establishment of a pattern, and the poetry is when that pattern is either broken or an interference pattern set up. That pattern can be established by also white space and the interplay and muliple meaning of words.

Scansion is a bit of myth, anyway. A binary system. I posted this link a few years ago here.

Dan Schneider says it best.

 

[twelveoone]

What if a computer had generated the poems? Could they still be called works of genius?

The reason I ask is that I found a haiku generator on the pages of Snakeskin. (To see it, you have to click on "Snakeskin's experiments" and then on Linda Crespi's "The Haiku and Tanka Generator". I couldn't find a direct URL to it, but someone with more smarts might be able to.)

This could save some brain cells, at least for a first draft.

Continue on with this, and it can be done, suppose you program in common stress, rhyme, when do you think they can make a sonnet generator. Not too far off.

Also let's apply the Senna Jawa rule of 10/90, the 10% is what is written, the 90% is what is imposed by you the reader. This does not conflict with Stanley Fish's How to Recognize a Poem When You See One (pointed out to me by my brother)

Or in other words a pattern is perceived by the viewer. Couple this with Chomsky's Colorless green ideas sleep furiously statement about grammar, and the counter agrument that A meaning can be arrived at. Scared yet, my little yeti's? That kind of blows the doors of perception right off.

But Tzara'a question was about stucture. What is a structure? Commonly, something that contains and supports an internal space, differentiating it from an external space. The structure itself is a pattern. And it can also be amorphous.

What does this have to do with poetry?
Back to a binary.

If a pattern is perceived, and a structure is present, than it must be poetry.

Or you assign values to the importance of ther patterns, Metre, Rhyme, etc,, etc.; now we can agrue that the Rainman may be one of the most succesful poets to come out ot this place. He does not value Metre, Rhyme, but one his more common tools is Alliteration. He does it well.

(Love ya Pat for the line break post in this thread)

The object of useing a poetic tool is to beat it into the head of the perceiver, just enough so that THEY discover it, quite bluntly put.

 

[twelveoone]

And for you Tzara

a fog

enjoy
IT IS NOT AT ALL WITH IDEAS, MY DEAR DÉGAS,
THAT ONE WRITES LINES OF POETRY.
IT IS WITH WORDS.

the words, something I learned from TaraBlackwood22, the words themselves set up interplays with other words. And A word can make all the difference, something I learned from annaswirls.

In that light , what interplay between two words garnered me an "E" for this piece of
trash

another failure analysis piece of mine, testing my own trueism "One must have a strong opening line" really 1201, it opens with three pukerifically lame lines.

C’est la vie, poets.
Just be carefull swingin those tools, that you don't hit yourselves and cause youself delusions.

 

[FifthFlower]

Continue on with this, and it can be done, suppose you program in common stress, rhyme, when do you think they can make a sonnet generator. Not too far off.

Also let's apply the Senna Jawa rule of 10/90, the 10% is what is written, the 90% is what is imposed by you the reader.

...

They also have a sort of sonnet generator on that site.

I don't accept Senna Jawa's rule. Sorry. The ratio is closer 100/0 as I view it.

 

[TheRainMan]

i think Senna apportioned poetry as 50/50 -- between writer and reader. (his prose figures were 90% writer / 10% reader).

as far as 100/0, i have trouble thinking that even the most directed prose is 100/0, that the reader has no resposibilities or duties at all.

 

[twelveoone]

i think Senna apportioned poetry as 50/50 -- between writer and reader. (his prose figures were 90% writer / 10% reader).

as far as 100/0, i have trouble thinking that even the most directed prose is 100/0, that the reader has no resposibilities or duties at all.

J

INTRODUCTION

prose: author -- 90%, reader -- 10%;
poetry: author -- 50%, reader -- 50%.

The poetry author's 50% is sensual, the reader's half is transcendental, intellectual, ... (but first, it is the reader's FIRST duty to absorb the sensual half provided by the author: the images, the smells, the movement, the sounds, the melody and texture...).

END of INTRODUCTION

POETRY:

1. poetry is the art of words; (the internal, atomic description of poetry).

2. poetry as art (globally) is described by the three principles:

a. foundation: man is but a particle of Nature;
b. ethics: each element of a poem has to serve poetry;
c. goal: poem should go far beyond its text.
​

[/color]

You're right. And that is a reasonable goal.
And the reader often gets out what he puts into in.
And it is the writer's best interest to lead the reader into wanting to put that 50% into it, eh, Senna?

 

[Eluard]

i think Senna apportioned poetry as 50/50 -- between writer and reader. (his prose figures were 90% writer / 10% reader).

as far as 100/0, i have trouble thinking that even the most directed prose is 100/0, that the reader has no resposibilities or duties at all.

The reason none of this talk of percentages makes sense is a logical one. Ask yourself what the whole is that the percentage is meant to be a percentage of. What is the object that the reader is meant to have in his possession 50% of?

The deep confusion in this thought is between percentages of effort, and percentages of meaning. But the latter simply doesn't exist.

 

[FifthFlower]

The reason none of this talk of percentages makes sense is a logical one. Ask yourself what the whole is that the percentage is meant to be a percentage of. What is the object that the reader is meant to have in his possession 50% of?

The deep confusion in this thought is between percentages of effort, and percentages of meaning. But the latter simply doesn't exist.

Eluard, I think I agree with you. So the "object" needs to be defined before percentages are assigned between reader and writer for the discussion to make sense.

It makes more ethical sense to attribute to the writer 100% responsibility for the existence and meaning of the work, even for prose. Take for example a racist poem or prose diatribe to see why this should be the case. The reader has no responsibility for the existence or meaning of the work and no duty toward it.

Senna Jawa's explanation that "The poetry author's 50% is sensual, the reader's half is transcendental, intellectual" simply makes no sense to me.

 

[TheRainMan]

The reason none of this talk of percentages makes sense is a logical one. Ask yourself what the whole is that the percentage is meant to be a percentage of. What is the object that the reader is meant to have in his possession 50% of?

The deep confusion in this thought is between percentages of effort, and percentages of meaning. But the latter simply doesn't exist.

El,

what 1201 was referencing when he brought up those percentages were older threads that went on before you were here.

1201’s “given” in that post is that a piece of writing becomes a 2-person enterprise as it’s being read: writer and reader.

no matter whether you are apportioning effort, or meaning, or anything else, at that point both writer and reader have some hand in the piece.

as to whether Senna’s theory of poetry being 50/50 holds water (which i think it does), that would take a thread about “structure,” which this is, off in another direction.

. . .
Senna Jawa's explanation that "The poetry author's 50% is sensual, the reader's half is transcendental, intellectual" simply makes no sense to me.

it makes sense to me.

 

[Eluard]

El,

what 1201 was referencing when he brought up those percentages were older threads that went on before you were here.

I know that, I've read some of those old threads.

1201’s “given” in that post is that a piece of writing becomes a 2-person enterprise as it’s being read: writer and reader.

no matter whether you are apportioning effort, or meaning, or anything else, at that point both writer and reader have some hand in the piece.

I understand that a piece of writing requires a reader (even if that reader is identical to the author on some occasion) and that the reader must bring something to that enterprise. What I suggest is logical nonsense is that there is one thing that the author's and the reader's effort can be regarded as two halves of.

At bottom there is a completely misleading analogy here: a poem is not like a swimming pool that the poet fills up half way and then says to the reader/swimmer, 'Now you contribute the other half, by the act of swimming.' This talk of percentages, no matter what the numbers are, is just muddle-headed nonsense.

If one just wants to say that the reader is required to actively and sympathetically interpret the words on the page, then I agree. But that doesn't license this talk of percentages.

Anyway — I guess what you are saying is that this is off-topic, and maybe it is at that. Just makes me angry to hear it, s'all.

 

[twelveoone]

I know that, I've read some of those old threads.



I understand that a piece of writing requires a reader (even if that reader is identical to the author on some occasion) and that the reader must bring something to that enterprise. What I suggest is logical nonsense is that there is one thing that the author's and the reader's effort can be regarded as two halves of.

At bottom there is a completely misleading analogy here: a poem is not like a swimming pool that the poet fills up half way and then says to the reader/swimmer, 'Now you contribute the other half, by the act of swimming.' This talk of percentages, no matter what the numbers are, is just muddle-headed nonsense.

If one just wants to say that the reader is required to actively and sympathetically interpret the words on the page, then I agree. But that doesn't license this talk of percentages.

Anyway — I guess what you are saying is that this is off-topic, and maybe it is at that. Just makes me angry to hear it, s'all.

In reality it is even worse. The writer creates a thing. The reader reads a thing. Think of the thing as something that dances with both the writer and the reader. So it is a 50/50 and a 50/50 but who takes the lead?

Unless it is somekind of line dance...

 

[Tathagata]

In reality it is even worse. The writer creates a thing. The reader reads a thing. Think of the thing as something that dances with both the writer and the reader. So it is a 50/50 and a 50/50 but who takes the lead?

Unless it is somekind of line dance...

depending on what the reader brings, ie: his/her frame of reference,
" The Lake Isle of Innisfree" could become the fuckin Macarena

 

[twelveoone]

depending on what the reader brings, ie: his/her frame of reference,
" The Lake Isle of Innisfree" could become the fuckin Macarena

It's not?

Just emphasises Pat's statement about resposibility. And also the thing (text) dancing can be a totally different dance with the reader. That may not be a bad thing. You just pointed out a close to worse case scenario.

But back to struture...
Thinking about it beforehand, it most likely the wrong way to go about it. What are the words doing? Will the structure enhance it? Classic example
He cracks it, he off rhymes it, but he uses the structure to contain the violence to focus it.
I don't think Yeats wrote many sonnets, and I don't think he sat down to write one.

 

[Tathagata]

It's not?

Just emphasises Pat's statement about resposibility. And also the thing (text) dancing can be a totally different dance with the reader. That may not be a bad thing. You just pointed out a close to worse case scenario.

But back to struture...
Thinking about it beforehand, it most likely the wrong way to go about it. What are the words doing? Will the structure enhance it? Classic example
He cracks it, he off rhymes it, but he uses the structure to contain the violence to focus it.
I don't think Yeats wrote many sonnets, and I don't think he sat down to write one.

I think it's a wonderful thing
but yes, there is a downside
sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

 

[bogusbrig]

You're right. And that is a reasonable goal.
And the reader often gets out what he puts into in.
And it is the writer's best interest to lead the reader into wanting to put that 50% into it, eh, Senna?

This is where the 50/50 theory comes unstuck. The writer can only hope to receive the response from the reader one assumes the writer desires by creating work that 1. initially attracts the reader to read the work in full, and 2. create a work with enough substance that the reader feels that a greater effort on their part will be rewarded.

With some four line poems, I've known my will to live has petered out by the second line.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

depending on what the reader brings, ie: his/her frame of reference,
" The Lake Isle of Innisfree" could become the fuckin Macarena

*snort *

Y'all are mostly way above my head, but what I noticed was this. If I were going to divide anything in half or talk about a proportionate relationship between the writer and the reader, it would have to apply to the overall effect of a piece, its result. Who is responsible for what a piece ends up doing in the world, if it does anything at all? By the word do, I mean verbs like communicate, shift, demonstrate, teach, or create catharsis, for example.

I generally despise the word "impact," especially since people began using it as a verb, but let's use it for a moment: the "impact" of a piece can only be guided part way by the writer. Once you let that dog go out and form its own relationships, you're only in certain control of what it chooses to do.

Maybe this is a proportional relationship of sorts, but that's not really anything to "do" or "work on;" it's more something to simply acknowledge. For me, it's a meaningful thing to think about how much I have to let go of a piece once I show it to another person, how much it then begins to form its own relationships, and so if I edit something after that the edits must take into account the direction that piece seems to be going with the individual reader. I should at least honor that, to some extent.

As I say, y'all are way over my head, but when I wonder to myself if there is any sort of mathematic proportion that can be created for the relationship between reader and writer, this would be it - how much can I designate ahead of time what a piece is going to do once I release it to communicate with others?

And the thing is, I don't know the answer anyway. Better to ask the proportions of the responsibility between parent and child and the outside world. It would, I suspect, be as easily calculated.

*ducking out again to let the regular program continue *

bijou

 

[Eluard]

depending on what the reader brings, ie: his/her frame of reference,
" The Lake Isle of Innisfree" could become the fuckin Macarena

I think this talk about "frames of reference' is pretty much nonsense as well — though of a fairly widespread kind. The term comes from the theory of relativity and if you try to press the analogy it falls apart. Readers/writers have beliefs, preconceptions, prejudices, expectations: they bring these things to a work when interpreting it — and they can do that task well or badly (or very badly, as in the Macarena case). Call this a "frame of reference" if it makes you happy, or gets you laid, or both. But when they do so interpret a work they are not in any sense co-creators of that work. All of this crap — which has been around now for about forty years in the ghettos of academia— is just trying to make the role of the reader much more important than it is. It was fostered by critics who were eaten up with artist-envy.

 

[Eluard]

*snort *

As I say, y'all are way over my head, but when I wonder to myself if there is any sort of mathematic proportion that can be created for the relationship between reader and writer, this would be it - how much can I designate ahead of time what a piece is going to do once I release it to communicate with others?

bijou

Personaly I wouldn't shape a piece to fit any particular reader — because others would react so differently. I make poems that say what I want to say, and what I make is not a 50% entity that requires someone else to supply what I was too lazy-assed to have made in the first place.

Still, I agree that this is an off-topic, pointless discussion. I don't see anyone (well no one that I care about) making poems and then inviting me, qua reader, to supply the poetry that they were unable to put in. People pay lip service to this silly doctrine but it doesn't affect how anyone actually writes.

Y'all are mostly way above my head, but what I noticed was this. If I were going to divide anything in half or talk about a proportionate relationship between the writer and the reader, it would have to apply to the overall effect of a piece, its result. Who is responsible for what a piece ends up doing in the world, if it does anything at all? By the word do, I mean verbs like communicate, shift, demonstrate, teach, or create catharsis, for example.

But this will not be a constant proportion at all — the proportion in question is meant to be a constant for poetry, definitional of the genre. It is meant to be a different proportion than that which exists for prose.