Structure in poetry

[Eluard]

Here is why the term “frames of reference” is really not appropriate, why it is a bad analogy. And a pretentious one to boot.

In the theory of relativity no object has a velocity that is intrinsic to it. The motion of an object simply does not exist as a property of an object. (Nor is there such a thing as the time elapsed for an event, where that time elapsed is intrinsic to the event, but I’ll just concentrate on velocity here.) When we talk of the train’s speed as though the train has that speed as a property like its shape, we are just making a mistake. The train has no speed at all, in and of itself.

But although the velocity of an object does not exist there is something else: velocity-relative-to-a-frame. In different reference frames, the velocity can be anything you like up to the speed of light. Choose your reference frame and the velocity gets determined by it.

Weirdly, and many people find this almost paradoxical, though no object has an intrinsic velocity, the change in velocity is perfectly intrinsic. Change in velocity is acceleration, and that is not merely relative to a frame, it is intrinsic to the object itself.

So, for it to make sense to talk about different readers having different frames of reference for a poem, say, and for these different frames of reference to determine the meaning of the poem, there would have to be no intrinsic meaning to the poem at all. Nothing. There would have to be nothing that the poet meant when writing the poem. So if you interpret Shakespeare’s 78th sonnet as a set of instructions for the flying of a Blackhawk helicopter, or as the Macarena, that would be fine, because there is nothing intrinsic to the poem which is its meaning.

Maybe you believe that — but I don’t, and I don’t think many people would. (If one had talked about there being no intrinsic value to the poem, but only value in some reader’s frame of reference, then fine — that would make a shade more sense, but I still don’t think I’d go along with it.) Personally I believe that the meaning of the poem is determined by the intention of the poet when he wrote it. And it is the job of readers to try to grasp that meaning, acknowledging that we may never be able to do it perfectly, and that we bring to the task our limited knowledge and preconceptions and personal experience.

This issue about the relative importance of the writer in the act of making a work seems to me an important one. Pity that some don't want it discussed at all, and others discuss it in such a cack-handed fashion.

Isn't discussing such things the point of a poetry discussion forum? Ah no, sorry, we're really here just to flirt!

 

[champagne1982]

However, in photography, it's all about the frame.

 

[EriAliSaa]

However, in photography, it's all about the frame.

Don't forget picture frames. Or framing someone for a crime. Or the frame of mind when looking at a dancing banana

DANCE BANANA DANCE!

 

[Tathagata]

Here is why the term “frames of reference” is really not appropriate, why it is a bad analogy. And a pretentious one to boot.

In the theory of relativity no object has a velocity that is intrinsic to it. The motion of an object simply does not exist as a property of an object. (Nor is there such a thing as the time elapsed for an event, where that time elapsed is intrinsic to the event, but I’ll just concentrate on velocity here.) When we talk of the train’s speed as though the train has that speed as a property like its shape, we are just making a mistake. The train has no speed at all, in and of itself.

But although the velocity of an object does not exist there is something else: velocity-relative-to-a-frame. In different reference frames, the velocity can be anything you like up to the speed of light. Choose your reference frame and the velocity gets determined by it.

Weirdly, and many people find this almost paradoxical, though no object has an intrinsic velocity, the change in velocity is perfectly intrinsic. Change in velocity is acceleration, and that is not merely relative to a frame, it is intrinsic to the object itself.

So, for it to make sense to talk about different readers having different frames of reference for a poem, say, and for these different frames of reference to determine the meaning of the poem, there would have to be no intrinsic meaning to the poem at all. Nothing. There would have to be nothing that the poet meant when writing the poem. So if you interpret Shakespeare’s 78th sonnet as a set of instructions for the flying of a Black hawk helicopter, or as the Mac arena, that would be fine, because there is nothing intrinsic to the poem which is its meaning.

Maybe you believe that — but I don’t, and I don’t think many people would. (If one had talked about there being no intrinsic value to the poem, but only value in some reader’s frame of reference, then fine — that would make a shade more sense, but I still don’t think I’d go along with it.) Personally I believe that the meaning of the poem is determined by the intention of the poet when he wrote it. And it is the job of readers to try to grasp that meaning, acknowledging that we may never be able to do it perfectly, and that we bring to the task our limited knowledge and preconceptions and personal experience.

This issue about the relative importance of the writer in the act of making a work seems to me an important one. Pity that some don't want it discussed at all, and others discuss it in such a ca ck-handed fashion.

Isn't discussing such things the point of a poetry discussion forum? Ah no, sorry, we're really here just to flirt!

Feel better now?

Trust me we are all talking about how smart you are.


Frame of reference still stands are far as I'm concerned
( but then again I seem to have lost my clue some where, can I call it a clue or is that giving me to much creativity as a reader, or writer, or am I critiquing your work with artist envy from the nether world of academic ghettos?)
You know what I meant by it, but decided to take the long way around so you could show how it relates to physics and relativity.
Nice job

Who is the one trying to get laid again?

By the way, the capitalization of the first line of all your poems....besides attempting to make them LOOK poetic, is also very Anal.
Look that up and make sure I have the right meaning will you??
Thanks super genius
I'd be lost without your guidance

 

[Tathagata]

Do you know why you don't like someone questioning your view about the importance of the reader or critic: because you are conformists. You want to say what everyone else says.
.

It's almost supernatural how well you know me
ask any one
I'm Mr Conformity
Do you have some special power, Is it one of those things people develop once they understand the theory of relativity
Should I make that my new mantra?
e=MC2 Benza guru pad me Sindhi hum?
Truly I am amazed you picked this up
Get out of my head man
Get out of my head!!!

 

[twelveoone]

You know I was just going to call you a stupid motherfucker who has clearly taken too many drugs in his lifetime, but I won't. It would be like getting mad at the drunk who stumbles into the bar and shouts abuse. Something you seem to do often.



be my guest

You know Eluard, I appreciate that, because you seem like a dumb motherfucker who would walk into a bar, say something stupid and get his lights punched out.

Wa-lah

this is your's BTW, take it with you

 

[twelveoone]

Here is why the term “frames of reference” is really not appropriate, why it is a bad analogy. And a pretentious one to boot.

term is coming from where? - Doubt tath was refering to physics

In the theory of relativity no object has a velocity that is intrinsic to it. The motion of an object simply does not exist as a property of an object. (Nor is there such a thing as the time elapsed for an event, where that time elapsed is intrinsic to the event, but I’ll just concentrate on velocity here.) When we talk of the train’s speed as though the train has that speed as a property like its shape, we are just making a mistake. The train has no speed at all, in and of itself.
But although the velocity of an object does not exist there is something else: velocity-relative-to-a-frame. In different reference frames, the velocity can be anything you like up to the speed of light. Choose your reference frame and the velocity gets determined by it.

Again launguage has clues to perception of language, we ARE NOT talking physics; instead poetry, languauge
See Pinker - get back to me

Weirdly, and many people find this almost paradoxical, though no object has an intrinsic velocity, the change in velocity is perfectly intrinsic. Change in velocity is acceleration, and that is not merely relative to a frame, it is intrinsic to the object itself.

So, for it to make sense to talk about different readers having different frames of reference for a poem, say, and for these different frames of reference to determine the meaning of the poem, there would have to be no intrinsic meaning to the poem at all. Nothing. There would have to be nothing that the poet meant when writing the poem. So if you interpret Shakespeare’s 78th sonnet as a set of instructions for the flying of a Blackhawk helicopter, or as the Macarena, that would be fine, because there is nothing intrinsic to the poem which is its meaning.

Almost no one would do that, here you take a worst case scenio. However, many poems can and should be looked at as to various meaning. You discount completely; multiple meanings of word, context of words in RELATIONSHIP to historical context, to other words in the text, and deliberate ambiguity - see Empson - get back to me

How many ways can Hamlet be played?
How many ways can The Waste Land be read? Especially since it was editted by another, and some suspect Eliot used red herrings in the references.

Maybe you believe that — but I don’t, and I don’t think many people would. (If one had talked about there being no intrinsic value to the poem, but only value in some reader’s frame of reference, then fine — that would make a shade more sense, but I still don’t think I’d go along with it.) Personally I believe that the meaning of the poem is determined by the intention of the poet when he wrote it. And it is the job of readers to try to grasp that meaning, acknowledging that we may never be able to do it perfectly, and that we bring to the task our limited knowledge and preconceptions and personal experience.

For starters see Freud, work your way through the 20th century, particulary regarding research on left-right hemisperes of the brain.
Otherwise I tend to agree.
Get back to me, when you are done,

This issue about the relative importance of the writer in the act of making a work seems to me an important one. Pity that some don't want it discussed at all, and others discuss it in such a cack-handed fashion.

Isn't discussing such things the point of a poetry discussion forum? Ah no, sorry, we're really here just to flirt!

Everyone has agreed it is at least 50% as far as I know.

Well maybe it is the way you say it. and maybe it is because of a gut instinct that you are not worth talking to, a fine point arguer who HAS TO BE RIGHT.

Or do you wish to keep trying to outdo every one with sarcasm, just to defend a rather narrow position.

Here I am beginning the question as to whether you can write poetry, if everything has to be narrowly defined, such as your possible misinterpretation of tath's use of "Frame of Reference"

Again Eluard why are you here?

":Ah no, sorry, we're really here just to flirt!" - now what do you really mean by that?

Now I looked at your top ten poets, at least two of which, Vallejo and Celan have been described as been at war with the langauge. Interesting. At war with the language, how do you do that in a narrowly defined space?

Other that that I like you, let's have a drink or two, I'll beat the shit out of you, and we'll be friends forever more, or at least you'll learn just when and how to use sarcasm.

 

[Tathagata]

a smaht percen cent me thiss

-frame of reference
–noun, plural frames of reference. 1. a structure of concepts, values, customs, views, etc., by means of which an individual or group perceives or evaluates data, communicates ideas, and regulates behavior.

Beter col teh dixshuneree peepel and tel them thay maad a mistake

 

[twelveoone]

Feel better now?

Trust me we are all talking about how smart you are.


Frame of reference still stands are far as I'm concerned
( but then again I seem to have lost my clue some where, can I call it a clue or is that giving me to much creativity as a reader, or writer, or am I critiquing your work with artist envy from the nether world of academic ghettos?)
You know what I meant by it, but decided to take the long way around so you could show how it relates to physics and relativity.
Nice job

Who is the one trying to get laid again?

Give him a break tath, he might be working out the physics of it. It's the relativity part that has me worried.

Other than that would you care for an academia nut?

I'll bet you a dollar, HE NEVER watched the three stooges, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
Moe, and Curly, and Shemp were related, Larry wasn't, that's the physics of it. I think there were two others that nobody cares about. But only three of them existed as the three stooges, not five, not four, in one space and one time. However when one talks about the three stooges, one should define the space and time, otherwise one of the ones nobody cares about could break the time-space continuum and set the universe into some kind of spiral.

P.S. Tath, I told you I was a fucking genius, now do you believe me? Who else could percieve the threat of one of the stooges nobody cares about.

 

[twelveoone]

-frame of reference
–noun, plural frames of reference. 1. a structure of concepts, values, customs, views, etc., by means of which an individual or group perceives or evaluates data, communicates ideas, and regulates behavior.

Beter col teh dixshuneree peepel and tel them thay maad a mistake

AHA I got it right

 

[Tathagata]

P.S. Tath, I told you I was a fucking genius, now do you believe me? Who else could percieve the threat of one of the stooges nobody cares about.

working the stooges into an argument certainly earns my respect

 

[FifthFlower]

Personally I believe that the meaning of the poem is determined by the intention of the poet when he wrote it. And it is the job of readers to try to grasp that meaning, acknowledging that we may never be able to do it perfectly, and that we bring to the task our limited knowledge and preconceptions and personal experience.

That makes sense.

 

[Eluard]

Personally I believe that the meaning of the poem is determined by the intention of the poet when he wrote it. And it is the job of readers to try to grasp that meaning, acknowledging that we may never be able to do it perfectly, and that we bring to the task our limited knowledge and preconceptions and personal experience.

That makes sense.

So let me just add that intentions (or intensions, if you like) can be unconscious. So it is the intentions, conscious or unconscious, of the poet when writing the poem that determine the meaning of the poem — and it is the task of readers and critics to try to understand or recapture that intention. Because intentions can be unconscious you can't always trust what poets say about their work — they can be wrong too. Sometimes a reader can be in a better position than the poet to say what the poet really meant.

This also takes care of the problem of ambiguity. It is the intention of the poet that determines which (or maybe all) of the various interpretations is the correct one.

(I will say this: it is not recognising that intentions can be unconscious that has pushed people away from this view. The view I'm describing would be pretty implausible if only conscious intentions were taken into account.)

 

[bogusbrig]

Personally I believe that the meaning of the poem is determined by the intention of the poet when he wrote it. And it is the job of readers to try to grasp that meaning, acknowledging that we may never be able to do it perfectly, and that we bring to the task our limited knowledge and preconceptions and personal experience.

British poet Adrian Mitchell had a poem used in a British national school exam. He said he couldn't possibly answer the comprehension question that was set that asked what the poet was trying to say. The reason he gave was that he was a poet and he didn't so much write a poem as compose a poem, to be interpreted by the reader. He said he hoped the examiner would mark the answers given by the students on the merits of their imaginative answers because none could correctly say what he literally meant because he didn't know that answer himself.

On a wider view of things, I think a poem has to work on its own terms. If the poet has a specific meaning he/she wants to convey, surely prose would be better suited? One of the joys of reading poetry is that at its best, it stirs the imagination and prompts an emotional response rather than an intellectual response. True, like all good art, the intellect is not absent, it is what the poet uses to composes from ordinary mundane language, something (hopefully) extraordinary. Personally I only take time to analyse a poem if it has caught my interest and that usually means provoking an emotion response in me first. What the poet literally means (if they have such a meaning), to me is not an issue as I won't be in a position to ask the poet if I have worked out what the poet means. If the poet is worried about how a reader interprets his/her poem, then the poet has a problem.

 

[Angeline]

British poet Adrian Mitchell had a poem used in a British national school exam. He said he couldn't possibly answer the comprehension question that was set that asked what the poet was trying to say. The reason he gave was that he was a poet and he didn't so much write a poem as compose a poem, to be interpreted by the reader. He said he hoped the examiner would mark the answers given by the students on the merits of their imaginative answers because none could correctly say what he literally meant because he didn't know that answer himself.

On a wider view of things, I think a poem has to work on its own terms. If the poet has a specific meaning he/she wants to convey, surely prose would be better suited? One of the joys of reading poetry is that at its best, it stirs the imagination and prompts an emotional response rather than an intellectual response. True, like all good art, the intellect is not absent, it is what the poet uses to composes from ordinary mundane language, something (hopefully) extraordinary. Personally I only take time to analyse a poem if it has caught my interest and that usually means provoking an emotion response in me first. What the poet literally means (if they have such a meaning), to me is not an issue as I won't be in a position to ask the poet if I have worked out what the poet means. If the poet is worried about how a reader interprets his/her poem, then the poet has a problem.

Well said, BB. I was just thinking this last night, and commented on it briefly in the review chat thread. A poem may be more or less "good" for any number of reasons but not because a reader fails to understand it the way the poet does. That's not possible (or if it happens, it's strictly coincidental). One need only think of the (literally) thousands of interpretations of Shakespeare's plays: all of them valid and supported by the texts. The key is the poem's ability to elicit an imaginative (and yes, I agree, emotional) response from a reader. This is not to say there isn't common ground for readers in a poem. But to know specifically what the poet meant is known only by the poet, and (to me, anyway) is of little importance in determining the value of the piece.

When I analyze a poem I'm thinking about the images, the metaphors, the diction and the structure as criteria for its overall appeal to me as a reader, not whether I understood what was in the writer's mind at the time it was written.

 

[Eluard]

British poet Adrian Mitchell had a poem used in a British national school exam. He said he couldn't possibly answer the comprehension question that was set that asked what the poet was trying to say. The reason he gave was that he was a poet and he didn't so much write a poem as compose a poem, to be interpreted by the reader. He said he hoped the examiner would mark the answers given by the students on the merits of their imaginative answers because none could correctly say what he literally meant because he didn't know that answer himself.

On a wider view of things, I think a poem has to work on its own terms. If the poet has a specific meaning he/she wants to convey, surely prose would be better suited? One of the joys of reading poetry is that at its best, it stirs the imagination and prompts an emotional response rather than an intellectual response. True, like all good art, the intellect is not absent, it is what the poet uses to composes from ordinary mundane language, something (hopefully) extraordinary. Personally I only take time to analyse a poem if it has caught my interest and that usually means provoking an emotion response in me first. What the poet literally means (if they have such a meaning), to me is not an issue as I won't be in a position to ask the poet if I have worked out what the poet means. If the poet is worried about how a reader interprets his/her poem, then the poet has a problem.

Isn't this point entirely taken care of by the immediately preceding post? Or are you saying that when Adrian Mitchell writes a poem he doesn't even unconsciously intend anything? And if he doesn't, how does he know he doesn't? And really, if he doesn't, then I would just want to say that what he writes doesn't mean anything at all: the words are just the result of some random mechanism. Truly bizarre!

 

[bogusbrig]

Isn't this point entirely taken care of by the immediately preceding post? Or are you saying that when Adrian Mitchell writes a poem he doesn't even unconsciously intend anything? And if he doesn't, how does he know he doesn't? And really, if he doesn't, then I would just want to say that what he writes doesn't mean anything at all: the words are just the result of some random mechanism. Truly bizarre!

Without asking him that question directly, I assume he starts with an idea and goes where the idea takes him and abandons the poem when he feels the poem is complete in its own terms. He may well have meant the poem to have a meaning, reading his poems he obviously does have an intended meaning in a lot of his poems but once the poem is in the public domain, it really doesn't matter what intended meaning he wanted the poem to have, if the reader projects a different meaning onto it, that is the meaning to the reader. However, I don't think a poem necessarily is the result of as random mechanism, language has rules of construction that give it a sense. If the words are organized and constructed into recognizable language, if the reader considers it a poem, it is a poem and if the poem interests the reader enough to engage with it, the poet has done his/her job.

Edwin Morgan has used cut and paste methods to create poetry, Burroughs has used cut and paste to create novels, David Bowie has used cut and paste to create some songs. It is difficult to see how any had an intended meaning for the finished work when it was begun and must have created what meaning there is while in the act of creating. Reading the work of all three, I'm of the opinion that they had no intended meaning but were happy for the work to exist on its own terms and the reader/listener to engage with the work. I'm sure they would have viewed the work as a success if their audience was interested enough to engage with it and put in the effort to get something out of it. It is not dissimilar as a visual artist making a collage or making an abstract painting, the work lives and dies by working within its own criteria. The intent of a poet is to write a poem, the painter to paint a painting, the sculptor to sculpt, the song writer to write a song, there needs be no more intent than that to create a successful work.

 

[Eluard]

Without asking him that question directly, I assume he starts with an idea and goes where the idea takes him and abandons the poem when he feels the poem is complete in its own terms. He may well have meant the poem to have a meaning, reading his poems he obviously does have an intended meaning in a lot of his poems but once the poem is in the public domain, it really doesn't matter what intended meaning he wanted the poem to have, if the reader projects a different meaning onto it, that is the meaning to the reader. However, I don't think a poem necessarily is the result of as random mechanism, language has rules of construction that give it a sense. If the words are organized and constructed into recognizable language, if the reader considers it a poem, it is a poem and if the poem interests the reader enough to engage with it, the poet has done his/her job.

Edwin Morgan has used cut and paste methods to create poetry, Burroughs has used cut and paste to create novels, David Bowie has used cut and paste to create some songs. It is difficult to see how any had an intended meaning for the finished work when it was begun and must have created what meaning there is while in the act of creating. Reading the work of all three, I'm of the opinion that they had no intended meaning but were happy for the work to exist on its own terms and the reader/listener to engage with the work. I'm sure they would have viewed the work as a success if their audience was interested enough to engage with it and put in the effort to get something out of it. It is not dissimilar as a visual artist making a collage or making an abstract painting, the work lives and dies by working within its own criteria. The intent of a poet is to write a poem, the painter to paint a painting, the sculptor to sculpt, the song writer to write a song, there needs be no more intent than that to create a successful work.

Mostly I don’t disagree with what you say. If someone wants to take one of my poems and say, well, what this means to me is this…then I am not going to stop them. Mostly. But there are limits to this and it’s the limits that are crucial here for showing what is sense and nonsense in this game of interpretation. So — I will bet you — that if someone took Adrian Mitchell’s poem and said “I interpret this poem as a defence of Apartheid and a tribute to our glorious leader Himmler,” that Adrian Mitchell would scream very loudly THAT IS NOT WHAT THE POEM MEANS. And that shows that he doesn’t really mean it when he says that it is entirely in the hands of the reader.

But if some kindly blue-haired old lady says to me “Your poem Black Psalm for Osiris, to me is all about my husband’s and my trip to Torquay last year and the fun we had playing Bingo.” Then I will happily let her have it that way.

The cut up method is not really random generation. It is really just a way of choosing unusual phrases for juxtaposition. The writer is still choosing what to accept or reject — and that involves intentionality, conscious or unconscious. Bowie’s lyrics are perfectly intelligible — or at least as intelligible as anyone else's.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

So — I will bet you — that if someone took Adrian Mitchell’s poem and said “I interpret this poem as a defence of Apartheid and a tribute to our glorious leader Himmler,” that Adrian Mitchell would scream very loudly THAT IS NOT WHAT THE POEM MEANS. And that shows that he doesn’t really mean it when he says that it is entirely in the hands of the reader.

At the extremely dangerous risk of actually getting involved in this conflict, I will say just this: I'll take that bet. Your points seem otherwise valid and I wouldn't even dare to address the rest of the arguments in this whole hootenanny. However: though I do not know the man, if he's anything like me, he would not scream like that. Nor would he be offended, since he would realize, as most people would, that the speaker was silly and insane. I believe, and will lay five bucks down (or five cane toads or whatever y'all use for currency there in the deep south,) that he might say, how terribly sad, or how awfully silly, or 'please show me where you found that meaning.' In fact, given his opinion about the school system's use of his poem, he might 'give the speaker an A' if he managed to explain sufficiently just how he arrived at that conclusion. If he's well enough known to be used in school examinations, he's probably not so defensive as all that about weird interpretations of his poetry. I think he truly meant what he said.

I believe I myself would respond similarly - that particular philosophy makes sense to me. I know, when I write, what I might be trying to describe or create. I do sometimes start with a meaning or purpose. But i'm not going to let that agenda get in the way if the Fat Lady wants to interpret it a different way - even if she's silly and insane, which does happen occasionally. I'm pleased that she's paying attention and happy for the additional information about the piece, which takes on an independent existence from my own as soon as I show it to someone else. I have to let it do that.

Here's a thought i just had. If I show a piece to someone and they KNOW what it means, and it talks to them firmly and clearly, I assume it's a finished piece, regardless of any difference between my goal and the reader's response. If I was trying to talk about Doom and someone finds Resurrection, or vice versa, as happened to me just recently, in fact, then I figure that piece has its own voice and it's done. If I haven't managed to communicate my personal Doom idea, and it's still important that I do so, then I'd better start over.

If on the other hand a reader is confused about my meaning and is not being spoken to clearly, then either it's just a sucky piece or it still needs work.

if you knew how long it just took me to type that with three fingers you'd be very proud of me.

That's it. I am now ducking and covering.

bijou

 

[Eluard]

Well, I won't argue with you any further because I don't want to be responsible for more finger damage.

Just placate the god of the smileys and be done with it.

All hail god of the
We you
Please take this humble
And (or not!)
And deliver us from
Remember who sprang
Forth from his father
You are the bestest there is.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Well, I won't argue with you any further because I don't want to be responsible for more finger damage.

Just placate the god of the smileys and be done with it.

All hail god of the
We you
Please take this humble
And (or not!)
And deliver us from
Remember who sprang
Forth from his father
You are the bestest there is.

*SNORT*

now that's the aussie i know.

here. have some pie.

bju

 

[denis hale]

for the most part,

no real poet need rhyme
or scan,

but with every line
he best have a plan
for getting into

your heart.

 

[ghost_girl]

n'ere mind

 

[anonamouse]

So let me just add that intentions (or intensions, if you like) can be unconscious. So it is the intentions, conscious or unconscious, of the poet when writing the poem that determine the meaning of the poem — and it is the task of readers and critics to try to understand or recapture that intention. Because intentions can be unconscious you can't always trust what poets say about their work — they can be wrong too. Sometimes a reader can be in a better position than the poet to say what the poet really meant.

This also takes care of the problem of ambiguity. It is the intention of the poet that determines which (or maybe all) of the various interpretations is the correct one.

(I will say this: it is not recognising that intentions can be unconscious that has pushed people away from this view. The view I'm describing would be pretty implausible if only conscious intentions were taken into account.)

Eluard,
regarding, intension, relativity and time sense and verb tense.
I submitted a lovely piece of doggeral called "Epitaph 930", here are the verbs and auxiliaries:
will love
will die
will decay
comes
clean
throw
hope
break
and now we slip into the past
would have wanted (I think the correct way is "would have had wanted" in spoken language most likely would be said as "woodda")
sing
shouldn't that have been "have sung" har, har
In it, nowhere is the present explicit, implied only by the fact of reading "somebody is saying something". In relation to posiiton of where are here right now according to relativity, it's not here.
Two things I predict:
some will read it, see what it is about, be vaguely aware that the time sense is being played with, and some will even enjoy it.
some anal attentives will read it, decide that the time sense is fucked, decide I don't know what I am doing and mark me down without explaining it.
other things will happen, but that does not concern this illustration.

Of course it is bit absurd to write something called Epitaph, when I am alive, even if some wish me not to be. But I can do this, one, because I am the writer, and two, I generally know what I'm doing AND willing to pay the price for it.

Looking back on the future, the physics are all in the verbs.

P.S. I am 1201, and besides reading the people I mentioned above, I also read Philip K.Dick.

 

[FifthFlower]

Minds and Hearts

for the most part,
no real poet need rhyme
or scan,

but with every line
he best have a plan
for getting into

your heart.

Nice one. I kept thinking of it.

The mind's not meek. One must not let
It hide the heart, so hard to get.