Subtle or Vague?

[My Erotic Tale]

it seems to me overall, that something that is vague or subtle may have the same effect on the reader, the difference comes in the writers intention (or lack thereof)

where did this whole vague plague start anyway? I have never heard the words used so much before in my entire life put together!

I do not like to question reviewers or critiques or commentors, that is not really the job of the writer, in my opinion. Is it okay to ask for clarification?

I do not want to seem argumentative towards taste, it is beyond dispute, but I also feel intrusive even asking for an explanation of what a reviewers interpretation of a description. They do enough work just getting the reviews out there let alone answer questions.

Do you think it is okay to ask, in a non-argumentative manner, for clarification over comments in order to see the point of view someone has of my poem?

thank you
Ana~

I believe there was a better way to go about
his post, I know he has a .... sore toe where I'm
concerned and I was dealing with his pompus
posts nicely, but you are correct in saying ...

'Do you think it is okay to ask, in a non-argumentative manner, for clarification over comments in order to see the point of view someone has of my poem?'

If your gonna police the police then comments
will be made ...how ever and I do mean however...

my last post was not-honorable , a low blow
in sparring that would be a disqualification
in reality its a tool. the judges are partial too! <grin>
but this is not a confrontation its
a conversation and I should have compassion for
ignorance or a persons handi cap, in no way is jim
ignorant ... MAD genius perhaps edgar allen poe! <grin>

well there is no honor in it. I apologize <thanks temple>
I swung the sword of truth when it would have been
more honorable not to! My shield is nothing but
honesty!

I went to the temple of the mind and
asked for enlightenment ... the temple is
all wise <grin> honor above all things ...
why argue over toma'to or tomo'tos
silly really, I called it as I saw it. I'll leave it at that.


bow.....(~_~)
.

 

[jthserra]

Somehow you want to make this about you...

I found Sack's poem compelling and although I was torn about the poem, I felt it was worthy of comment. Although it was mentioned in Saturday's new poem review, I was disappointed in the flippant manner in which the poem was discussed. Not sure whether the remark about it being vague was made out of ignorance, malice, or sarcasm, I picked up on it because I felt, given the quality and the subject of the poem it deserved more than that passing comment.

Face it Art, you were simply wrong. The poem was not vague, it was clear and distinct, but also very subtle in the way it presented the emotion. It was this subtlety that distinguished the poem.

My comment on the poem apparantly drew a comment or two, though some of them got moved. Given the extensive discussion we have had here regarding vagueness I thought here was an excellent opportunity to discuss the point further, taking a bit of a twist on the discussion. I enjoyed the irony that a discussion about vagueness would be inspired here by Sack. I placed the discussion in a new thread because it was no longer a new poem review.

1201 devil's advocacy aside, there is a distinction between subtlety and vagueness and I am convinced if I told 1201 I felt one of his (you are a he 1201?) poems was subtle in its presentation he would take it as a compliment. If I told him it was vague I am sure he would feel I was not complimenting the poem.

Art, you claim to be here to learn, and yet instead of going back to the poem and re-reading it to see what I was talking about you took offense, trying to argue that you weren't wrong, that it was merely a difference in phrasing. If instead you took the time to try to discover the nuance between a well crafted, subtle poem and something less distinctive, you might have seen what I was talking about.

So rather than call me pompous for making the point I made while lauding Sack's poem, why not look deeper into the poem and perhaps if you can see what I was talking about.

You know, when I first came here I posted a form I was just learning, a rondeau redoubled I think it was, Lauren Hynde commented in the new poems threat that I was wrong, it wasn't what I said it was. Perplexed, I pmed here and asked her about it... and sure enough, I had worked from a flawed model, one with an incorrect refrain. She corrected me. I thanked her for her insight and went back and corrected the poem, learning the subtle distinction in the form as I did it.

Sack's poem, the first of his I believe I have commented on, provides an excellent learing opportunity. Look at the way he used the images,

"impressions in sand
a shiny ring
petals of a dandelion

you were there..."

to bring us into the poem, slowly introducing us to the little girl, not by describing her, but the things she left behind:

"impressions in sand" ... yes, he caught my intrest
"a shiny ring" ... most likely female
"petals of a dandelion" ... yes a young female

"you were there..." ... a fateful refrain, teasing our curosity.


In the very way he started this poem Sack brought the reader into the words and patiently introduced us to his little friend. From the first lines I was involved and by the end I felt the intense sense of loss Sack wanted to portray. I felt it not so much by what he said, but how he went about saying it.

I don't know Sack, he commented on some of my work and we both said some things in some forums. After reading his poem, I think I will try to get to know him better, if only to pick his brain as I try to write something as subtle, moving and well crafted as "Little Girl"


jim : )

 

[annaswirls]

I have not been following too closely to know who said what about whose poem etc, I just know it is dangerous to critique critics who are critiquing for free, they are not professionals, they are simply coming on to state their opinion. Period.

Sometimes I have seen, in general, critics that volunteer occasionaly seem to take themselves too seriously and sometimes have a "last word" kind of attitude, and that bugs everyone. I also know that it is difficult to read a person's emotion and attitude through this medium. I know I have had people read what I meant as a compliment, plain and simple, as being an insult, and I swear I was neither vague nor subtle in what I thought was a compliment.

I know I have been on the bugger and the bugged side, but you take it in perspective. Which is tough because people do read the reviews in making choices in what to read. I always like when reviewers make the statement-- in my opinion.... Most, maybe all, DO.

Like Temple did with my poem, too vague and esoteric for my taste. For MY TASTE. That is the difference. He did not come right out and say this is too vague and esoteric.

I dont know if anyone did or did not in the players of this thread, I cannot keep track of who said this and that.

my head spins.


and I know I am vague but I do it on purpose -- for a reason, sometimes my stuff comes out too direct and I lose what I was intending, so I make it more vague.


It is like the difference between a snapshot of a musical trio and an abstract painting of the same trio. One would never accuse Picasso of being subtle. Maybe not even vague. Just interpretive. His interpretation on the view.


I stand by Liar's philisophy and adopt it as my own, it depends upon the intention. If you want to paint a picture clearly, to communicate exactly what you see, then to be vague is not a good idea.



I did not find the little girl poem to be vague at all, I would say it was not direct, not telling but showing, which is a good thing.

Telling would be writing something like
she was a little girl
she liked dandelions
and she carried a lunch box to school
the school down elm street...etc


what the writer did was more roundabout, more poetic

and it was intentional.


It could have been done even more representational, more abstract to give the writer the intended feeling, or to leave that interpretation open.

it is a matter of what the poet intended to happen to deem a poem sucessful or not, or maybe not.....

For example, I'm dreaming of a white christmas" was adopted by a skin head group as a racist anthem. It makes me sick. It was not intended, but is it the artists fault?

this is a very interesting topic. even if I am writing to myself



now get to work anna

 

[My Erotic Tale]

Re: Somehow you want to make this about you...

I found Sack's poem compelling and although I was torn about the poem, I felt it was worthy of comment. Although it was mentioned in Saturday's new poem review, I was disappointed in the flippant manner in which the poem was discussed. Not sure whether the remark about it being vague was made out of ignorance, malice, or sarcasm, I picked up on it because I felt, given the quality and the subject of the poem it deserved more than that passing comment.

Face it Art, you were simply wrong. The poem was not vague, it was clear and distinct, but also very subtle in the way it presented the emotion. It was this subtlety that distinguished the poem.

My comment on the poem apparantly drew a comment or two, though some of them got moved. Given the extensive discussion we have had here regarding vagueness I thought here was an excellent opportunity to discuss the point further, taking a bit of a twist on the discussion. I enjoyed the irony that a discussion about vagueness would be inspired here by Sack. I placed the discussion in a new thread because it was no longer a new poem review.

1201 devil's advocacy aside, there is a distinction between subtlety and vagueness and I am convinced if I told 1201 I felt one of his (you are a he 1201?) poems was subtle in its presentation he would take it as a compliment. If I told him it was vague I am sure he would feel I was not complimenting the poem.

Art, you claim to be here to learn, and yet instead of going back to the poem and re-reading it to see what I was talking about you took offense, trying to argue that you weren't wrong, that it was merely a difference in phrasing. If instead you took the time to try to discover the nuance between a well crafted, subtle poem and something less distinctive, you might have seen what I was talking about.

So rather than call me pompous for making the point I made while lauding Sack's poem, why not look deeper into the poem and perhaps if you can see what I was talking about.

You know, when I first came here I posted a form I was just learning, a rondeau redoubled I think it was, Lauren Hynde commented in the new poems threat that I was wrong, it wasn't what I said it was. Perplexed, I pmed here and asked her about it... and sure enough, I had worked from a flawed model, one with an incorrect refrain. She corrected me. I thanked her for her insight and went back and corrected the poem, learning the subtle distinction in the form as I did it.

Sack's poem, the first of his I believe I have commented on, provides an excellent learing opportunity. Look at the way he used the images,

"impressions in sand
a shiny ring
petals of a dandelion

you were there..."

to bring us into the poem, slowly introducing us to the little girl, not by describing her, but the things she left behind:

"impressions in sand" ... yes, he caught my intrest
"a shiny ring" ... most likely female
"petals of a dandelion" ... yes a young female

"you were there..." ... a fateful refrain, teasing our curosity.


In the very way he started this poem Sack brought the reader into the words and patiently introduced us to his little friend. From the first lines I was involved and by the end I felt the intense sense of loss Sack wanted to portray. I felt it not so much by what he said, but how he went about saying it.

I don't know Sack, he commented on some of my work and we both said some things in some forums. After reading his poem, I think I will try to get to know him better, if only to pick his brain as I try to write something as subtle, moving and well crafted as "Little Girl"


jim : )

thank you jim: )

I am humbled and enlightened~

(I admit I learned a few things from this...
discussion) <smile>

the remarks hit me like sand paper
at first
then the finished smooth product (lesson)
was ... finishing <grin>

like the sensi that hones his pupil
one knock at a time~

bows~ (~_~)

 

[twelveoone]

Re: Somehow you want to make this about you...

I found Sack's poem compelling and although I was torn about the poem, I felt it was worthy of comment. Although it was mentioned in Saturday's new poem review, I was disappointed in the flippant manner in which the poem was discussed. Not sure whether the remark about it being vague was made out of ignorance, malice, or sarcasm, I picked up on it because I felt, given the quality and the subject of the poem it deserved more than that passing comment.

Face it Art, you were simply wrong. The poem was not vague, it was clear and distinct, but also very subtle in the way it presented the emotion. It was this subtlety that distinguished the poem.

My comment on the poem apparantly drew a comment or two, though some of them got moved. Given the extensive discussion we have had here regarding vagueness I thought here was an excellent opportunity to discuss the point further, taking a bit of a twist on the discussion. I enjoyed the irony that a discussion about vagueness would be inspired here by Sack. I placed the discussion in a new thread because it was no longer a new poem review.

1201 devil's advocacy aside, there is a distinction between subtlety and vagueness and I am convinced if I told 1201 I felt one of his (you are a he 1201?) poems was subtle in its presentation he would take it as a compliment. If I told him it was vague I am sure he would feel I was not complimenting the poem.

Art, you claim to be here to learn, and yet instead of going back to the poem and re-reading it to see what I was talking about you took offense, trying to argue that you weren't wrong, that it was merely a difference in phrasing. If instead you took the time to try to discover the nuance between a well crafted, subtle poem and something less distinctive, you might have seen what I was talking about.

So rather than call me pompous for making the point I made while lauding Sack's poem, why not look deeper into the poem and perhaps if you can see what I was talking about.

You know, when I first came here I posted a form I was just learning, a rondeau redoubled I think it was, Lauren Hynde commented in the new poems threat that I was wrong, it wasn't what I said it was. Perplexed, I pmed here and asked her about it... and sure enough, I had worked from a flawed model, one with an incorrect refrain. She corrected me. I thanked her for her insight and went back and corrected the poem, learning the subtle distinction in the form as I did it.

Sack's poem, the first of his I believe I have commented on, provides an excellent learing opportunity. Look at the way he used the images,

"impressions in sand
a shiny ring
petals of a dandelion

you were there..."

to bring us into the poem, slowly introducing us to the little girl, not by describing her, but the things she left behind:

"impressions in sand" ... yes, he caught my intrest
"a shiny ring" ... most likely female
"petals of a dandelion" ... yes a young female

"you were there..." ... a fateful refrain, teasing our curosity.


In the very way he started this poem Sack brought the reader into the words and patiently introduced us to his little friend. From the first lines I was involved and by the end I felt the intense sense of loss Sack wanted to portray. I felt it not so much by what he said, but how he went about saying it.

I don't know Sack, he commented on some of my work and we both said some things in some forums. After reading his poem, I think I will try to get to know him better, if only to pick his brain as I try to write something as subtle, moving and well crafted as "Little Girl"


jim : )

jim, yes it was, it was also a bit of a provocation. My biggest complaint about you is you don't say enough, always weighing in with intelligence, insight and follow-though. It is what is needed most. That and examples, to back up what you have said.

Perhaps, it is an unreasonable expectation to ask people to step outside the "I" and see the "you" on the other side. I try, I fail, don't think most people try, here, anywhere.

This was part of the reason for the introduction of the definition of the word "meaning" here. With a little bit of prompting, you explained what you saw, enabling others to see it also. I do get tired of hearing the phrase "deeper meaning" and others, without an explanation. I need to know what you see, otherwise we may be talking about two different things, or worse talking about the same thing and argueing (or worse) about it. Prefering to say " My god is better than your god"; instead of, "I prefer unripe bananas, you prefer ripe."

and anna says: It is like the difference between a snapshot of a musical trio and an abstract painting of the same trio. One would never accuse Picasso of being subtle. Maybe not even vague. Just interpretive. His interpretation on the view.

Thank you anna
Thank you jim
With great respect - 1201

 

[thenry]

Jim Wins

Also:

One would never accuse Picasso of being subtle.

I think his work is more than interpretation. Saying just because he painted (at times) with blocks and lines Picasso is not subtle is losing the forest for the trees. What's interesting about Picasso is the subtle difference between what a viewer interprets and what is actually on the canvas, the pedestal, or arching over your head in a plaza. It's the reason why he is famous and kindergarteners are not.

It's also why a great deal of e.e. cummings' poems are loved and the output of Ipsum Loren and a great deal of college freshmen is not.

 

[Angeline]

Re: Jim Wins

Also:



I think his work is more than interpretation. Saying just because he painted (at times) with blocks and lines Picasso is not subtle is losing the forest for the trees. What's interesting about Picasso is the subtle difference between what a viewer interprets and what is actually on the canvas, the pedestal, or arching over your head in a plaza. It's the reason why he is famous and kindergarteners are not.

It's also why a great deal of e.e. cummings' poems are loved and the output of Ipsum Loren and a great deal of college freshmen is not.

Thank you! lol. *That* is why I posted the e.e. cummings poem.

 

[thenry]

Thank you! lol. *That* is why I posted the e.e. cummings poem.

I'm glad you did. I needed a way to tie my knee-jerk reaction back to poetry.

 

[twelveoone]

Colonel Kurtz - he crazy
he got dem eyes

This is the vague thread
This is the subtle thread
...
jug, jug, jug, jug
terue