The Tsotha improvement project thread

[twelveoone]

Egads.

and somehow you thought this was a safe place

 

[butters]

we should do comedy
first we have to decide who get's to sit on who's lap and be the dummy

somehow if you sit on my lap, I may be prone to do something stupid

which when you think about it, is kind of creepy

but as the Royal families always said

Incest is Golden

fisting is so not on the agenda


she's so beautiful
as are the lyrics

creepy? depends on if the crowd's full of grinning clockwork clowns holding chihauhua purses that drip blood

 

[Tsotha]

we're all on our own paths to 'better writing', tsotha, and all i can say is if it feels wrong, don't do it. you're no beginner, and our paths all twist and switch back on themselves, reminds me a bit of snakes and ladders! just keep questioning, thinking, and writing. nowt much else you can do, really! now throw me a six 'cos i want to stop one place ahead of the snake, sit and chat awhile, maybe learn something before slipping down a level again

Err... ok, then.

and somehow you thought this was a safe place

I know, right? Lit PoBo, from poetry advice to strange bonsai insertions.

Thank you all for your advice; I should probably invest some time learning from it, now.

 

[Senna Jawa]

"you and me" so what?

Tsotha has presented:

You and me,
we are like a bonsai tree.
A pretty seed meant for great things
planted in a pot too small.
A young trunk made gnarled by force,
sustained by roots grown too big,
too starved, pushing the envelope,
sustaining thin, atrophied limbs,
cut again and again,
never meant to bear fruit.
An experiment,
perfect in its execution,
perhaps good for exposition.

Tsotha​

You have started with "You and me". But if there were just one lyrical subject alone in the poem it would not make any difference. Am I right?

(I made a single point now since I'd like the discussion to be focused on each point separately; also, I am making my point short on purpose--we may say more in the possible follow up).

 

[Senna Jawa]

(Poetically) Horrible last 3 lines

Tsotha has presented:

You and me,
we are like a bonsai tree.
A pretty seed meant for great things
planted in a pot too small.
A young trunk made gnarled by force,
sustained by roots grown too big,
too starved, pushing the envelope,
sustaining thin, atrophied limbs,
cut again and again,
never meant to bear fruit.
An experiment,
perfect in its execution,
perhaps good for exposition.

Tsotha​

Tsotha, the last three lines are terrible. Just think what poetry is about.

(I made a single point now since I'd like the discussion to be focused on each point separately; also, I am making my point short on purpose--we may say more in the possible follow up).

 

[Senna Jawa]

Questions 3 4 ... after answers 1 and 2

I have more comments (about the strategy of the piece, about its language...) but let's decide (each in her/his way) about answers 1 and 2.

 

[twelveoone]

Tsotha, the last three lines are terrible. Just think what poetry is about.

I'm sure Tsotha, has thought about what poetry is, implied in this statement (as always) is think about what senna thinks is poetry (which is fine to do and I even recommend) but the further implication is that when you align your way of thinking with Senna's you are correct, and that perhaps is wrong on so many different levels.

If the last three lines are terrible, state why here. Don't play these cult tactics of alignment.

 

[Angeline]

I'm sure Tsotha, has thought about what poetry is, implied in this statement (as always) is think about what senna thinks is poetry (which is fine to do and I even recommend) but the further implication is that when you align your way of thinking with Senna's you are correct, and that perhaps is wrong on so many different levels.

If the last three lines are terrible, state why here. Don't play these cult tactics of alignment.

I'm sure he is going at it in his own way and will get there. I think you are reading too much into what he is saying. We are all free to agree or disagree with each other, but let's all keep it as civil as possible. And if people choose not to respond, that's ok too. It's not a war for the one right way, just a discussion. I think most here would agree with that. Don't you?

 

[twelveoone]

for the record, I like the last three lines
the eks sound adds to the strangulation effect and since poetry is an associative process the implication is Ex, as in no longer lovers.
There are 10,000 ways of lookin' at 'em and I am wrong about half the time.
There are 10,000 ways of writin' em, and neither I nor senna are writing this one.

 

[Tsotha]

Senna Jawa, thank you for reading and taking the time to comment, I appreciate your input; such directed questioning of my choices is useful, especially so because my capacity for doing it myself is limited (made evident by my lack of skill in editing).

You have started with "You and me". But if there were just one lyrical subject alone in the poem it would not make any difference. Am I right?

Perhaps I do not understand what lyrical subject means, but I only see one subject. There is only one voice saying everything: "me". However, if what you are saying is that taking away "you and me" does not make any difference, then I disagree. The "lyrical object" of the poem (if that even makes sense) is a relationship, "you and me". Consider this:

A bonsai tree.
A pretty seed meant for great things
planted in a pot too small.
A young trunk made gnarled by force,
sustained by roots grown too big, too starved,
and thin, atrophied limbs, cut again and again,
never meant to bear fruit.​

There is no lyrical subject anymore, the above is just a statement of facts about bonsai. There is no trace of "you and me", no hint of that which caused the poem.

Were I to present this to a thousand readers, and ask for their opinion about the meaning, I should not be surprised if I received about 900 answers saying "it's describing a bonsai, d'oh", and at least one odd answer saying that it is a metaphor for a cake that received too little yeast and failed to grow.

Tsotha, the last three lines are terrible. Just think what poetry is about.

Thinking about "what poetry is about" yields many answers. I like problems with exact solutions, but poetry isn't like that. My own answer is a work in progress, as it will always be; in any case, it is not ready to be shared.

What I do know is that "what poetry is about" has changed with time. Once, poetry was written by a small handful and sponsored by the noble, so poetry was whatever pleased milord. Later, the disillusioned or bored burgueoise felt inclined to make sonnets about how nice everything was in the (imagined) past, and also unattainable love. Then came those who mocked these "childish" notions about poetry, and they wrote beautifully designed poems, with academic precision, like pieces of machinery. And then came those who thought this quest for prowess was caused by something shoved up their asses, and it was mocked with throwaway poems written in paper napkins in between two beers.

When you say that the three last lines are terrible, and ask me to think about what poetry is, I assume you don't like them because you don't consider these lines poetic. Is that it?

What I see, when I look at these three lines, is a preachy comment by the "narrator", the lyrical "me". He is telling the reader something, directly. The alternative would be to remove the narrator's opinion and expand these lines into a longer piece, which showed: 1) how this is an experiment, 2) how it is perfect in its execution, and 3) how it is perhaps good for exposition.

I would say that, given that there is a narrator, and he is speaking to the reader, the lines are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. If, however, your objection is toward the approach as a whole (that is, speaking to the reader), then yes, I must agree that (in that context) the lines are terrible.

(I made a single point now since I'd like the discussion to be focused on each point separately; also, I am making my point short on purpose--we may say more in the possible follow up).

Pill-sized wisdom? Perhaps to test my reaction, like when one applies a small amount of a new substance on the skin, to check for allergy?

the eks sound adds to the strangulation effect and since poetry is an associative process the implication is Ex, as in no longer lovers.

Good.

 

[Remec]

Perhaps I do not understand what lyrical subject means, but I only see one subject. There is only one voice saying everything: "me". However, if what you are saying is that taking away "you and me" does not make any difference, then I disagree. The "lyrical object" of the poem (if that even makes sense) is a relationship, "you and me". Consider this:

A bonsai tree.
A pretty seed meant for great things
planted in a pot too small.
A young trunk made gnarled by force,
sustained by roots grown too big,
too starved,
and thin, atrophied limbs,
cut again and again,
never meant to bear fruit.

There is no lyrical subject anymore, the above is just a statement of facts about bonsai. There is no trace of "you and me", no hint of that which caused the poem.

Just a stray thought I had while reading your last bit...but consider if you left the poem in the truncated form shown above, but entitled it "You and Me"?

 

[Tsotha]

Just a stray thought I had while reading your last bit...but consider if you left the poem in the truncated form shown above, but entitled it "You and Me"?

It would again point the reader toward the meaning. However, how is it different from having the hint in the poem itself? It's a bit of a cheat. Like having a footnote... "But it's not in the poem!"

 

[butters]

for the record, I like the last three lines
the eks sound adds to the strangulation effect and since poetry is an associative process the implication is Ex, as in no longer lovers.
There are 10,000 ways of lookin' at 'em and I am wrong about half the time.
There are 10,000 ways of writin' em, and neither I nor senna are writing this one.

i completely missed that! sorry, Tsotha

 

[Tsotha]

i completely missed that! sorry, Tsotha

Well... I didn't expect anyone to see that.

 

[Angeline]

It would again point the reader toward the meaning. However, how is it different from having the hint in the poem itself? It's a bit of a cheat. Like having a footnote... "But it's not in the poem!"

Many poets would argue that the title is part of the poem. I'm not arguing for or against Remec's suggestion. I just think that is true about titles. That is why the whole advice thing is great but only if you can sort through all of it and just take what works for you. On the other hand, if people keep asking why you used x (or y or z) and what it means, it's usually an indicator that something is not coming across in the poem.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Perhaps I do not understand what lyrical subject means, [...]

Let me rephrase the question:

If there were just one person alone in the poem (instead of "you and me") what difference would it make?​

I claim that none. And that made the poem weaker (in my humble opinion). There is no direct connection between a single bonsai tree and the fact that there were TWO people. That's poetically an inferior situation.

PS. Let's keep meritorious. And not in the general shambo-mambo style but concrete. I will comment on your answer to my second question when I see it. One question at the time, please. Let's avoid, if possible, a nothing discussion about everything.

PPS. Remec and Angeline are right about titles (regardless of the value of the variation, including the title, which is a separate issue). Often titles are nothing but identifiers of a poem. And that's an inferior situation. Basically, if there is a title, it must be a part of poetry, it should have its artistic contribution just as any element of a poem.

 

[twelveoone]

Good.

Are you saying that was intended?
must be my mambo-shambo style of reading

 

[Tsotha]

Let me rephrase the question:

If there were just one person alone in the poem (instead of "you and me") what difference would it make?​

I claim that none. And that made the poem weaker (in my humble opinion). There is no direct connection between a single bonsai tree and the fact that there were TWO people. That's poetically an inferior situation.

PS. Let's keep meritorious. And not in the general shambo-mambo style but concrete. I will comment on your answer to my second question when I see it. One question at the time, please. Let's avoid, if possible, a nothing discussion about everything.

PPS. Remec and Angeline are right about titles (regardless of the value of the variation, including the title, which is a separate issue). Often titles are nothing but identifiers of a poem. And that's an inferior situation. Basically, if there is a title, it must be a part of pooetry, it should have its artistic contribution just as any element of a poem.

Senna Jawa, thank you for the reply. I will answer your second question when you make it; you told me to "think", and so I did. If you expect me to decipher the point you're trying to make, this is going to be very non-meritorious indeed.

 

[Tsotha]

Are you saying that was intended?
must be my mambo-shambo style of reading

Indeed. Lend me your eyes.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Senna Jawa, thank you for the reply. I will answer your second question when you make it; you told me to "think", and so I did. If you expect me to decipher the point you're trying to make, this is going to be very non-meritorious indeed.

Yeah, cute, I am sure. Have it your way.

 

[Tsotha]

Yeah, cute, I am sure. Have it your way.

You can choose to read my message in whatever tone you wish; that is beyond my control. Nonetheless, thank you for the input.

 

[Tsotha]

Actually, no. Wait a second. You ask me to try to answer your question and interpret your non-points about my poem ("your last three lines suck! But I'm not saying why! Think about it!"), and when I do so (at length), you mock me by ignoring my attempt to communicate, and further yet by calling it non-meritorious shambo-mambo?

 

[twelveoone]

Indeed. Lend me your eyes.

you don't, some of this is training and practice, which everyone can and should do, and some of it is very simple (I think) it is more psychology and pattern recognition, than poetry per se, there are colourations in words, in position. An MO. As poetry has overlaps with music, it also has overlaps in other fields. You know mambo-shambo shit. One of the saddest overlook is that it works very similar to comedy. That moment when you "Get it" pretty much the same, there are scary other overlaps, which I don't want to discuss, suffice to say it uses the same tools in similar ways as advertising and propaganda, the Song of Roland being an early example, as history total bullshit, as Crusader bait par excellance.

 

[twelveoone]

You and me, we are like a bonsai tree.
A pretty seed meant for great things
planted in a pot too small. A young trunk
made gnarled by force, sustained by roots
grown too big, too starved, pushing the envelope,
sustaining thin, atrophied limbs, cut again
and again, never meant to bear fruit.

.........................An experiment, perfect in its execution,
.................................perhaps good for exposition.

Bear with me, text is the same. Thought I saw something, suppose the top was box like, with a two line tail, or even one.

This is a hack job on my part as far as editing, but for now, just look at it, a box, an escape. In fact, as I remembered it, I thought it did look like that.
"You" I would keep, and despite it being a metaphor, you use "like"...

It would again point the reader toward the meaning. - you scare me. Don't over do it, it is a game.

If I had to access the reaction of an audience in something like new poems, this would be top third, the other two bad ones, yeh, his and mine, bottom third. this has traction, the other two, well we won't go there.

 

[todski28]

todski's trivial thoughts

You and me,
we are like a bonsai tree.
A pretty seed meant for great things
planted in a pot too small.
A young trunk made gnarled by force,
sustained by roots grown too big,
too starved, pushing the envelope,
sustaining thin, atrophied limbs,
cut again and again,
never meant to bear fruit.
An experiment,
perfect in its execution,
perhaps good for exposition

you and me as a start line begins the poem in a conversational tonality, and alludes to this as a relationship between two people, the image of a bonsai tree is sharp and succinct, leading me to believe that it is this image he is using to describe the relationship between them.

"a pretty seed meant for great things,"

the image of a seed is delivered, the word pretty, makes me think of something delicate or fragile, but still full of potential, as indicated by the words meant for great things.

"planted in a pot too small"

brings in the feeling of being restrained, or confined, giving the relationship a "too small space, no room to be what "N" seems to think it should be, no room for the seeds potential.

"a young trunk gnarled by force"

young to me indicates it is a relatively new relationship that is failing to grow properly due to confinements and restraints.

"sustained by roots grown too big"

so much strangulation and compression as if the "N" and the second person are so close as for there to be no air in the relationship, but there is still the all consuming attraction.

I like this piece. The metaphor of the bonsai tree(even though you use a simile in L2) is well explored. My only objection is "pushing the envelope". This expression was coined by aircraft designers who wanted to go faster and higher, always trying to find the limit of their machine. The envelope is a malleable barrier, which yields when pushed. A bonsai tree is opposite. It is grown to be confined and constrained and the goal is to create a miniature of a true tree.

if pushing the envelope is defined by this malleable barrier then in a metaphor context could it not be used as a ways of describing one person in a relationship attempting to push it in another direction? thus creating that malleable barrier? in this instance the barrier will not yield and therefore is the restraint or envelope while the test area is the confines of the bonsai tree itself (or the relationship).


"sustaining thin, atrophied limbs"

seems to me this is where the relationship is falling apart, thin and atrophied seem to point towards relationship failure but it is sustaining, or barely hanging on.

"cut, again and again"

cut is a strong violent word, adding the repetitions, seems to add an emphatic quality that the "N" and second lyrical subject are fighting, all the time, relationship break down.

"never meant to bear fruit"

resignation that though the seed had potential and was beautiful but was a lost cause, fruit leads me to think of ripe and healthy, lack of it is the opposite.

An experiment,
perfect in its execution,
perhaps good for exposition

the building of syllables here stresses for me finality, an experiment, is just that young love, that we all go through, perfect in its execution as in the "N" has learnt from this experience, a hard reality most people go through in their first relationships, the final line I think ponts as the "n" and the second party separating and the "N" is now ready to tell every one it is over.

the repetitious ex sounds as pointed out by 1201 were in context a helpful cue for me.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

despite my attempt of defence for "pushing the envelope, I don't think it fits, if it wasn't for Bronzeage pointing out what it actually means I would have been totally confused by the reference. As far as offering any other insights, I have nothing.