Two Poems

[Senna Jawa]

You're no fun and not very interesting either!

It's ok to write poor poems, it's a necessity. But it's a shame to praise them.

 

[Angeline]

Angeline and others are fond of
For The Other... by mascaife.

No, it isn't.

Perhaps to you. But no, it's not fun.

Sometimes we get a tasty soup. And sometimes the soup is already eaten, the pots are rinsed, and we get the rinse water, as in this case.

The author has a knack for the rhythm and melody (well, not consistently, not all the time). And that's where it ends. Otherwise we get a phony language, cliched phrases and a very unoriginal topic and sentiment. It was done very poorly by this author, while wonderfully authentically about two thousand and a hundred years ago.

Here is a poem by General Su Wu, translated from Chinese by Arthur Waley (make your window as wide as you can, so the lines don't get broken).

*****




TO HIS WIFE

Since our hair was plaited and we became man and wife
The love between us was never broken by doubt.
So let us be merry this night together,
Feasting and playing while the good time lasts.

----------​

I suddenly remember the distance that I must travel;
I spring from bed and look out to see the time.
The stars and planets are all grown dim in the sky;
Long, long is the road; I cannot stay.
I am going on service, away to the battle-ground,
and I do not know when I shall come back.
I hold your hand with only a deep sigh;
Aftterwards, tears -- in the days when we are parted.
With all your might enjoy the spring flowers,
But do not forget the time of our love and pride.
Know that if I live, I will come back again,
and if I die, we will go on thinking of each other.

General Su Wu [circa 100BC]
(trans. by A.Waley)
​

​

I meant that spinning to find poems was fun, not the poem itself.

In any case, I'm glad you posted in this thread. I'm always interested in your opinions about poems and I always learn from you.

The Su Wu poem is elegaic. It is unadorned. I think that is the quality that gives it power. The last line especially is very moving because, unlike the rest of the poem which is a list of things the narrator actually does or will do, that is something that may or may not be true. We may not be timeless and the narrator may not be able to think of his wife if he does not return. So that line expresses hope, summarizes the vulnerability of his situation and gives life to the whole poem.

You argue most of the time for poetry to have this quality--for a poem to say whatever it says simply without all the tricks and trappings that some would call the tools of poetry. I know I have written a few things that have that quality that you liked--and I am conscious of how hard it is to write that way (or how hard it is for me anyway). I'm not sure I think every poem should be this way--much poetry I like is not so straightforward, but I also know that while you appreciate some of these writings (like some Neruda, for example) you would not call them well-written poems.

Here is a famous poem, which I'm sure you know. It's the same theme as the Wu Su poem, but more language, more (what some would call) "poetic" language.

Dover Beach
by Matthew Arnold

The sea is calm to-night.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits; -on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand,
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanch'd land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.
Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the Aegean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,

Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

[1867]

Is it well written? If not, why?

If you have time, I'd like to know your opinion. I want to understand what you think the differences are in the quality of these two poems. I've always loved Dover Beach, but I see what you're saying about the Wu Su poem.

I hope you don't mind. Your opinions interest me. They make me think.

Either way, thanks for this explanation. I do appreciate it.

 

[Guest]

It's ok to write poor poems, it's a necessity. But it's a shame to praise them.

If General Su Wu (translated by Arthur Waley) and Matthew Arnold were to miraculously submit poems in Literotica I'd no doubt praise them but, in their absence I have to make do with mascaife. Given the bulk of rhyming work in here, he/she is good.

 

[BooMerengue]

Wow, did I get lucky! Two spins, two of my very favorites...

The Landscape Of Poetry by Kundalinguini
&
Sangria Bloodshed by jd4george.

Not the favorite poems I have saved, but just as good, and I wish both of these writers were still here. (Isn't Kundalinguini actually 2 people?)

 

[Senna Jawa]

Is it well written? If not, why?

It's skillful, meaning that you can feel that this author is no amateur, that he worked on his phrase, that his poem can be recited in a grand manner.

And so what?

The two poems are a world apart. Su Wu's poem is honest, the emotion is true. The poem by Matthew Arnold fails to have this qualities (in more than one dimension). Obviously, his text is but a prolonged and superficial exercise. If you read it carefully, you will see it yourself. Just a little thought will tell you the truth. Be alert.

Su Wu's poem is strong, each of its statements. M.Arnold's poem is not.

When I read Su Wu's poem, I forget that I exist, I am all the action of reading itself. And I don't even feel like am reading POETRY, I am all in his world.

When I read M.Arnold it is like: yes, this is a good poem; I am a cultural and intelligent person; I am supposed to read such poems; I should be able to stomach this poem to its very end.

I can easily give you a pretty long list of technical shortcomings of M.Arnold's poem, but on this occasion I have restricted myself to addressing the global impressions from the two poems. It is not an accident that Su Wu's poem feels/is sincere and M.Arnold's is not, is a professional superficiality.

Senna Jawa

PS.I see this and other discussions on this forum, which are ad hoc concerned with this or that issue. More than once the value of different words was discussed. We have a thread now about "the author v. the reader" question (I was addressing this issue for years). Etc. These discussions don't glue together, they do not add up, do not leave lasting conclusions. On the other hand I have offered in the past to provide a strong base for such discussions, as well as a reference point for discussions about any particular poem. Nothing came out of my offer for whatever reasons. Around this time the idea came to me again. I would simplify my requirement for providing my combined view of poetry. All I ask is that my 2-3 threads would be protected by the moderators from any invasion (accidental or purposeful), i.e. moderators would move any post by another author from my threads elsewhere.

The rest of the eventual activities would be totally unstructured and free from any rules, meaning, that if somebody wants to open a discusion related to the issues in my notes, the one would. If one would like to comment on a poem from the point of view of the ideas presented in my threads than one would. I'd possibly participate in those other threads myself (I may even start some, they'd be public). And if there is no echo then that's perfectly all right too.

There would be no formal logistic construction but the simple protection of the 2-3 threads. And if one of my 2-3 threads gets invaded then I stop the continuation of all of them (they are interrelated) until the offending post/s is/are moved away.

If this is not possible, fine with me. My requirement is that I don't have to do anything more complex than I do now to post a note.

 

[Liar]

Perhaps to you. But no, it's not fun.

I wasn't aware that "fun" was an objective value.

 

[bogusbrig]

I'd like to know the exact reasons why you are so categorical about one poem being better than the other. You say it with such certainty that you have led me to believe you have concrete unarguable reasons for such an unequivocal statement.

To further muddy the waters. We are reading one poem in its original language and one that has been translated. How do we know that the real poet behind Su Wu's poem is not the translator? Since China doesn't have a similar written poetry construction because of its writing form, the invention of its construction in English can only be that of the translator.

As anyone knows who speaks a couple of languages, the translator doesn't so much translate but reinvents and recreates a poem. Language does not translate exactly from one to the other. Words exist in one that do not exist in another, meanings and sense in one language can be less vague or more precise.

There are too many reasons to list as to why I suspect we are comparing apples and oranges here.

 

[Senna Jawa]

I wasn't aware that "fun" was an objective value.

It was a bit of sophistication on my part (with a kind of a paradox common to aphorisms).

 

[Senna Jawa]

I'd like to know the exact reasons why you are so categorical about one poem being better than the other.

Read my post, to which you are supposedly responding.

To further muddy the waters. We are reading one poem in its original language and one that has been translated. How do we know that the real poet behind Su Wu's poem is not the translator?

It's quite irrelevant to our comparisons of these two texts. We are concerned with the poems, not with the authors.

Since China doesn't have a similar written poetry construction because of its writing form, the invention of its construction in English can only be that of the translator.

If you spend time on studying these issues you would know what is and what is not invariant. Think about different renditions of the same musical composition, for instance by Modest Petrovich Musorski (Mussorgsky). One by a classical orchestra, another by a jazz band, and still another by a solo pianist. And you will get the greatness of the Musorski's Picture every time (sure, granted, a poor artist can spoil anything).

[cut the irrelevant and well known tautologies]
There are too many reasons to list as to why I suspect we are comparing apples and oranges here.

Instead of being paranoid just read what I have written and try to fill in the details which I have ommitted on purpose, so that on the next occasion you will not waste your own and our time.

 

[bogusbrig]

I read what you wrote and found it so vague as to be of little value which is why I asked you to expand.

AND I WAS REFERING TO THE POEMS AND NOT THE POETS.

With the amount of evidence you put forward and not having to defend it with concrete evidence that you seem to infer you could supply, I could say Micky Mouse is a better actor than Gerard Depardieu and maybe he is.

It seems to me that you are just full of academic snobbery, one of the main reasons why the arts you purport to champion end up in a cultural ghetto.

 

[bogusbrig]

Oh! If anyone is paranoid it is YOU!

I'll remember not to ask you a civil question next time.

Why don't you fuck off back to Academialand and suffocate in your rarefied air of pompous elitism!

 

[bogusbrig]

Another thing. Having read your poems I can see your astute knowledge of poetry has not made you a better poet than anyone else here!

 

[Senna Jawa]

AND I WAS REFERING TO THE POEMS AND NOT THE POETS.

Instead of shouting, read your own words from your earlier post. Can you do it?

 

[Senna Jawa]

Oh! If anyone is paranoid it is YOU!

It is you, who wrote: "There are too many reasons to list as to why I suspect". I am not expecting you to understand what I write, but can't you read and comprehend your own words? Do you know what you are writing? No? I didn't think so.

My problem with this forum was always that it is so humorless. Your idea of humor is to attach the smiley emoticon , and that's where the humor here ends.

I'll remember not to ask you a civil question next time.

Why don't you fuck off [...]!

Wow! You are so civilized!

 

[Senna Jawa]

Another thing. Having read your poems I can see your astute knowledge of poetry has not made you a better poet than anyone else here!

You wouldn't recognize a good poem even if it kicked you in the ass.

 

[Angeline]

It's skillful, meaning that you can feel that this author is no amateur, that he worked on his phrase, that his poem can be recited in a grand manner.

And so what?

The two poems are a world apart. Su Wu's poem is honest, the emotion is true. The poem by Matthew Arnold fails to have this qualities (in more than one dimension). Obviously, his text is but an prolonged and supeficial exercise. If you read it carefully, you will see it yourself. Just a little thought will tell you the truth. Be alert.

Su Wu's poem is strong, each of its statements. M.Arnold's poem is not.

When I read Su Wu's poem, I forget that I exist, I am all the action of reading itself. And I don't even feel like am reading POETRY, I am all in his world.

When I read M.Arnold it is like: yes, this is a good poem; I am a cultural and intelligent person; I am supposed to read such poems; I should be able to stomach this poem to its very end.

I can easily give you a pretty long list of technical shortcomings of M.Arnold's poem, but on this occasion I have restricted myself to addressing the global impressions from the two poems. It is not an accident that Su Wu's poem feels/is sincere and M.Arnold's is not, is a professional superficiality.

Senna Jawa

PS.I see this and other discussions on this forum, which are ad hoc concerned with this or that issue. More than once the value of different words was discussed. We have a thread now about "the author v. the reader" question (I was addressing this issue for years). Etc. These discussions don't glue together, they do not add up, do not leave lasting conclusions. On the other hand I have offered in the past to provide a strong base for such discussions, as well as a reference point for discussions about any particular poem. Nothing came out of my offer for whatever reasons. Around this time the idea came to me again. I would simplify my requirement for providing my combined view of poetry. All I ask is that my 2-3 threads would be protected by the moderators from any invasion (accidental or purposeful), i.e. moderators would move any post by another author from my threads elsewhere.

The rest of the eventual activities would be totally unstructured and free from any rules, meaning, that if somebody wants to open a discusion related to the issues in my notes, the one would. If one would like to comment on a poem from the point of view of the ideas presented in my threads than one would. I'd possibly participate in those other threads myself (I may even start some, they'd be public). And if there is no echo then that's perfectly all right too.

There would be no formal logistic construction but the simple protection of the 2-3 threads. And if one of my 2-3 threads gets invaded then I stop the continuation of all of them (they are interrelated) until the offending post/s is/are moved away.

If this is not possible, fine with me. My requirement is that I don't have to do anything more complex than I do now to post a note.

Thank you Senna. I appreciate the time you put into this. It's food for thought. I agree with what you say about Arnold vs Wu Su (and your point in the other post that it doesn't matter who did the translation--it's the poem we're discussing).

The Wu Su poem IS truer and not prettied up with "poetic-ness," although in Arnold's defense part of that comes from his place and culture. He was the product of a time and place, which influenced the way he wrote, just as Su was of his. Each of their poems is emblematic of their respective cultures.

And your explanation doesn't make me like Dover Beach any less. I don't think I like it because I'm trying to be an intellectual or cultured--for me, the language evokes a very clear image that I can project myself into though it does seem unnecessarily cluttered compared to your example.

So this leads me to think (of my own writing) that I know it is better to strive for honesty and simplicity (not simpleminded, but no excess baggage) in my writing. I am very prone to go way overboard and, yes, get enmeshed in practices that are red herrings, so to speak, are accepted methods of writing "good" poems, but don't actually do anything but waste time if one isn't being true in one's writing-- just writing clearly as opposed to "promoting good poetry." I'd like to read more poets that you think do this. I need to remember that when one puts the focus on finding the right image or metaphor or whatever, one gets that much farther from the purpose of writing poems.

This is instructive and I thank you for it.

S.

PS I'm not a moderator here anymore so I can't offer uncorrupted threads. I thought you were going to put this information on a website elsewhere. I recall you were thinking about doing that. If you have a link and would be willing to share it, I'd very much like to read what's there.

 

[tarablackwood22]

The old and smart ones linger
in the freshly lit night,
not in a hurry to enter,
having been in the battle of voices
far too long, knowing that the night
will stretch and end only
when some new voice rises
in ecstasy, only
when some arrogant youth
comes running, screaming about sin,
begging the indifferent
for a hand, for a touch,
for a kiss, for help,
for forgiveness for being young
and untouched by grace.
What do the young know
about some corpulent theologian
sitting under his lamp,
his clammy face wet,
his stomach trying to give up
the taste of a moderate wine,
kissing God away with a labored
toss of his pen?

 

[bogusbrig]

You wouldn't recognize a good poem even if it kicked you in the ass.

Maybe not but I can recognize a ASSHOLE when I come across one!

And since when has good and bad needed your stamp of approval?

You made a categorical statement. I asked you for concrete reasons why you made that statement

If I got pissed off with you it is because the first reply I ever have made to one of your posts you reply with a total conceit.

Next time take your head out of your ASS!

 

[bogusbrig]

In fact Senna Jawa, you remind me of those experts that used to effuse about certain Rembrandt paintings until they were found to be fake. Then they simply go silent or disemble with their over intellectualisation as they try to convince everyone they are not the complete assholes they were found out to be!

 

[bogusbrig]

AND I WAS REFERING TO THE POEMS AND NOT THE POETS.

Instead of shouting, read your own words from your earlier post. Can you do it?

My words -

'I'd like to know the exact reasons why you are so categorical about one poem being better than the other. You say it with such certainty that you have led me to believe you have concrete unarguable reasons for such an unequivocal statement.'


IS THAT ANY CLEARER FOR YOU ASSHOLE?

NEXT TIME YOU READ BEFORE YOU GO OFF INSULTING PEOPLE

JERK!​

 

[BooMerengue]

Bogus, you are so out of line here. Why didn't you take this private? Why is it so important? I know for a fact you don't agree with things I've said here- you don't jump on me this way. Just knock it off- this was a good thread, a fun thread til you started. I'm not brilliant by any means, but I spotted within your first post an animosity that is totally unnecessary.

Senna? Don't respond when you've been baited, please. This forum is turning into a free for all, and thats not it's purpose.

And I don't know why I bother... I'm not even here. I'm gone to hide.

So skip this post. Maybe The Poets will just delete all that mess, and the others here can just get on w/ the 2 Poem thingy.

 

[bogusbrig]

Bogus, you are so out of line here. Why didn't you take this private? Why is it so important? I know for a fact you don't agree with things I've said here- you don't jump on me this way. Just knock it off- this was a good thread, a fun thread til you started. I'm not brilliant by any means, but I spotted within your first post an animosity that is totally unnecessary.

Senna? Don't respond when you've been baited, please. This forum is turning into a free for all, and thats not it's purpose.

And I don't know why I bother... I'm not even here. I'm gone to hide.

So skip this post. Maybe The Poets will just delete all that mess, and the others here can just get on w/ the 2 Poem thingy.

There was no animosity. I asked him a serious question. I've never ever responded or ever replied to a post of his and he takes to being defensive and starts being insulting. If he can be insulting so can I.

 

[BooMerengue]

Bullshit. I read most of these threads all the time even if I don't respond. Enough to know how people talk. (What do you call 'tone of voice' on the internet? LOL) Your tone was somewhat hostile in your first post, and your second ended with It seems to me that you are just full of academic snobbery, one of the main reasons why the arts you purport to champion end up in a cultural ghetto. What the fuck? Who are you kidding? Just knock it off. You started it- now stop it.

And you should know I am not defending Senna or his ways. I don't know the man any better than I know you. But I know childishness when I see it.

 

[bogusbrig]

Bullshit. I read most of these threads all the time even if I don't respond. Enough to know how people talk. (What do you call 'tone of voice' on the internet? LOL) Your tone was somewhat hostile in your first post, and your second ended with It seems to me that you are just full of academic snobbery, one of the main reasons why the arts you purport to champion end up in a cultural ghetto. What the fuck? Who are you kidding? Just knock it off. You started it- now stop it.

And you should know I am not defending Senna or his ways. I don't know the man any better than I know you. But I know childishness when I see it.

I asked him a pertinent question and then expanded my point.

He replied by being conceited and condescending and downright insulting.

He is the one that appears to claim the intellectual high ground so I phrased my question in a testing way.

I don't know the man either, I've had nothing to do with him before so his response was totally uncalled for. If he perceived the question as hostile then he is the one that is paranoid. There was nothing personal in the question whatsoever and there was no need for him to have been insulting in response.

I know the asshole now though. The jumped up jerk!

 

[BooMerengue]

You don't even see your own error? C'mon, Bogus- I thought you were smarter than that. Your treatment of his responseis academic. My Mom would just have bent down and said "Don't you see, dear? That person is merely jealous!" Why are you jealous, Bogus?

I asked him a pertinent question and then expanded my point.
So why didn't you just leave it alone?
Ohhh, Boo! Take your own advice for christs sake!
I can't- its the meds!
He replied by being conceited and condescending and downright insulting.
He did not. He flat just did not.
He is the one that appears to claim the intellectual high ground so I phrased my question in a testing way.
What the fuck business is it of your WHAT he claims? Who are you to test someone?

I don't know the man either, I've had nothing to do with him before so his response was totally uncalled for. If he perceived the question as hostile then he is the one that is paranoid. There was nothing personal in the question whatsoever and there was no need for him to have been insulting in response.
You are the one who first took an insulting tone. It's there in black and white...

You go ahead and keep talking to the walls. I'm done w/ this. Shame on you, for adding to the crap that already permeates so much of this forum. And to be fair? Shame on me, too.


I know the asshole now though. The jumped up jerk!
Its plain to see here how you are striving for the high road.