Companion to the Five in Five

[Sara Crewe]

See, this is why I say that I'm not a poet. I just write, and don't think once about voice, construction, etc. Hell, half the time I put in line breaks only because Anschul chided me about it.

<---- not a poet

We all start there. But it's like the mafia. It'll just keep draggin' you in deeper and deeper until one day, you're discussing line breaks, antecedents and other serious grammar issues like they are crucial world issues.


Just so ya know, too. I've been writing for years and would never call myself a writer or a poet.


ETA: I didn't say that last line for anyone to say, "Oh Sara you are such an amazing writer please shower us with the blessings that are your words." I just have issues with defining roles and labels and I like to move around and be many things. I will admit that there is a piece of me that defines writer and poet as something or someone with a higher level of skill, determination and dedication than I possess which makes me out of respect for them not use those labels.

 

[Tzara]

See, this is why I say that I'm not a poet. I just write, and don't think once about voice, construction, etc. Hell, half the time I put in line breaks only because Anschul chided me about it.

<---- not a poet

I don't think of myself as a poet, either. Not a real one, anyway (whatever that might mean). I call the things I write poems simply because to call them anything else (e.g., "verse") sounds even more pretentious than calling them poems.

My interest in writing poems came out of an interest in understanding the mechanics of what was going on so as to better be able to read poety, especially contemporary poetry. But it's enjoyable anyway as a kind of recreational thing, like playing Scrabble or doing crossword puzzles.

The main point about any kind of writing is to be able to communicate something meaningful to a reader. Just as a musician doesn't necessarily have to know anything about music theory (or even be able to read music) to be successful, you can create strong and effective poems without knowing or caring anything about the mechanics of what you're doing. (A lot of people would, however, disagree with me on this.) Similarly, having a PhD in the mechanics of poetry doesn't mean you can write anything worth a shit. You still have to have something to say and say it in a way that connects with people.

 

[Homburg]

I can see it. I know far too much about discursive writing. I just seem to wrap my brain around the technical side of poetry. If it sounds good in my head when I read it, or makes my head spin when I write it, it's good by me.

 

[Sara Crewe]

I can see it. I know far too much about discursive writing. I just seem to wrap my brain around the technical side of poetry. If it sounds good in my head when I read it, or makes my head spin when I write it, it's good by me.

I'm sure that's how most people write. What you are describing is what makes your writing uniquely yours. If you tried too hard to write like someone else your writing loses it's power because it becomes an echo.

Knowing what you like is the first step in being able to write. And if all that matters to you is that you like it and appreciate it then you never have to be concerned with what others consider 'good'. It's only when readers are important to you that you have to be prepared to listen to what they like or dislike in your writing. Sometimes you make changes and sometimes you say, "Sara, honey, I think you are whacked and totally wrong," and do whatever ya please.

For the most part, most people don't offer criticisms of other people's writing without knowing if that is something that person is interested in. For me that even goes one step further because I have been yelled at once too often for critiques. I never critique someone's writing unless I am directly asked to do so AND I am totally confident that if I say something that may seem negative that person won't take it personally. That's why I was picking at Tzara's poem.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

Yes, I am. As long as you also are on crack and not looking at my many faults. I don't even hide them behind the curtain. I hand out pamphlets and then dare people to still be my friend. I have the long pamphlet for potential close friends and the one-pager coloured pamphlet for potential acquaintances.

Faults are listed in alphabetical order starting with acerbic

*takes tongue outta her cheek*

And licks Bijou

Yet another piece of evidence that we are twins. A long time ago I began doing the same thing, only I called it "making you sign a waiver"

"I understand that even though you may not seem so initially, you are batshit crazy and and that hanging with you will probably have a catalytic, if not completely disorderly, effect on me. .... and blah blah blah"

How could I not adore you? I mean.

See, this is why I say that I'm not a poet. I just write, and don't think once about voice, construction, etc. Hell, half the time I put in line breaks only because Anschul chided me about it.

<---- not a poet

Sorry, you're still not getting out of it. Some pieces have to be bashed within an inch of their lives, but a lot of pieces come out just the way you describe. Just writing, not thinking about the technicalities. When those arrive, they're often close to perfect right out of the chute. That's rare for me, not as rare for you, and I always think of that as the angels helping me, when it happens.

And sometimes we bash at them just for fun cause we're nerds and we're into that.

Which leads me to this: Sara, I agree, there's a passive thing here that gets to me too. But I keep seeing that as a thing that points up the center of the piece, or maybe even the center of the general canon of his work.

I still think it really, really needs to end with scorched cause that line kicked my ass, and you're right, the grammar of that phrase is a bitch no matter how you slice it.

 

[Homburg]

We all start there. But it's like the mafia. It'll just keep draggin' you in deeper and deeper until one day, you're discussing line breaks, antecedents and other serious grammar issues like they are crucial world issues.

*blink*

Nah. Not gonna happen.

ETA: I didn't say that last line for anyone to say, "Oh Sara you are such an amazing writer please shower us with the blessings that are your words." I just have issues with defining roles and labels and I like to move around and be many things. I will admit that there is a piece of me that defines writer and poet as something or someone with a higher level of skill, determination and dedication than I possess which makes me out of respect for them not use those labels.

Harrumph. We define ourselves. If you are comfortable with a label, use it. Says I, the not-a-poet.

----

Sorry, you're still not getting out of it. Some pieces have to be bashed within an inch of their lives, but a lot of pieces come out just the way you describe. Just writing, not thinking about the technicalities. When those arrive, they're often close to perfect right out of the chute. That's rare for me, not as rare for you, and I always think of that as the angels helping me, when it happens.

I totally am getting out of it.

You. Can't. Make. Me.

And perfect? Pfft. I'm just too lazy to edit or rewrite unless it is a typo.

 

[Sara Crewe]

Harrumph. We define ourselves. If you are comfortable with a label, use it. Says I, the not-a-poet.

.

I tend to see labels as something that are convenient for someone else and not something I need to know who I am.

Sometimes I wear them for others and then sometimes I would rather be naked of anyone else's words and just be.

 

[Homburg]

I tend to see labels as something that are convenient for someone else and not something I need to know who I am.

Sometimes I wear them for others and then sometimes I would rather be naked of anyone else's words and just be.

*nod*

I like my labels. I like controlling them. It makes me happy. I tend to be pretty blatant about them as well. I want people to see me as I choose to be seen, and I don't particularly like certain surprises, so I wear my labels pretty openly.

 

[Sara Crewe]

*nod*

I like my labels. I like controlling them. It makes me happy. I tend to be pretty blatant about them as well. I want people to see me as I choose to be seen, and I don't particularly like certain surprises, so I wear my labels pretty openly.

That's actually probably a wiser way to be. Less confusion for the people you meet. You are an active weeder of people and I tend to be more passive. Sorta. See, soon as I say a word, I think of a million different ways it doesn't fit.


I can't help who I am though--obviously a part of me likes to be complicated. I think I kinda subconsciously use it as a way of figuring out who is smart enough to see the real me without me telling them.

 

[unpredictablebijou]

That's actually probably a wiser way to be. Less confusion for the people you meet. You are an active weeder of people and I tend to be more passive. Sorta. See, soon as I say a word, I think of a million different ways it doesn't fit.


I can't help who I am though--obviously a part of me likes to be complicated. I think I kinda subconsciously use it as a way of figuring out who is smart enough to see the real me without me telling them.

*raises hand*

and I like the part about you being naked.

bj

 

[Homburg]

That's actually probably a wiser way to be. Less confusion for the people you meet. You are an active weeder of people and I tend to be more passive. Sorta. See, soon as I say a word, I think of a million different ways it doesn't fit.

Yes, I weed. Aggressively. Sometimes even blatantly. At times this practice has caused me grief. This is made up for by the number of times it has prevented me from ripping the lungs out of someone too stupid to be allowed to share air with me by virtue of that fact that I did not permit myself to associate with them.

I can't help who I am though--obviously a part of me likes to be complicated. I think I kinda subconsciously use it as a way of figuring out who is smart enough to see the real me without me telling them.

Of course. Oddly enough, I like complicated people. I also consider myself complex. All too often people fail to really get me, and this is why I am as blatant as I am about my labels and identity. I am tired of being obtuse, and recoginise how frikken difficult I can be.

 

[Sara Crewe]

*raises hand*

and I like the part about you being naked.

bj

*smacks Bijou's hand down*


God. You are bad.


I like it.

 

[Sara Crewe]

Yes, I weed. Aggressively. Sometimes even blatantly. At times this practice has caused me grief. This is made up for by the number of times it has prevented me from ripping the lungs out of someone too stupid to be allowed to share air with me by virtue of that fact that I did not permit myself to associate with them.



Of course. Oddly enough, I like complicated people. I also consider myself complex. All too often people fail to really get me, and this is why I am as blatant as I am about my labels and identity. I am tired of being obtuse, and recoginise how frikken difficult I can be.

I think smart people attract smart people. I also think smart people are usually complicated but that's what makes them interesting. I also think that there are a fair amount of smart people who don't think they are complicated but really they are. They are in complicated-denial.

 

[Sara Crewe]

I liked today's T. Flat out. No ifs ands or buts or thats.

Made me feel bad about my live-trap in the basement. I am probably a mouse-family destroyer.

It's the poop. I'd let 'em be if they would only poop in good places--like the toilet.

 

[Homburg]

I think smart people attract smart people. I also think smart people are usually complicated but that's what makes them interesting. I also think that there are a fair amount of smart people who don't think they are complicated but really they are. They are in complicated-denial.

I know a few people that are intelligent and not terribly complicated. Weird folk, and probably seem complicated to those that cannot fathom the contradictions in herent to their lives.

One chap I know is a sterling programmer, bloody brilliant. Yet he is a huge drug user, and has usede all sorts of heavy destructive shit including meth. Most people can get the brilliant pothead, but meth use makes most people shake their head. Yet, with him, given his beliefs, it makes sense. It still messed him up, but it was internally consistent.

 

[Sara Crewe]

I know a few people that are intelligent and not terribly complicated. Weird folk, and probably seem complicated to those that cannot fathom the contradictions in herent to their lives.

One chap I know is a sterling programmer, bloody brilliant. Yet he is a huge drug user, and has usede all sorts of heavy destructive shit including meth. Most people can get the brilliant pothead, but meth use makes most people shake their head. Yet, with him, given his beliefs, it makes sense. It still messed him up, but it was internally consistent.

Drugs muddy an accurate picture of who a person is, I think. I mean serious use does in my opinion.

 

[PandoraGlitters]

I never critique someone's writing unless I am directly asked to do so AND I am totally confident that if I say something that may seem negative that person won't take it personally. That's why I was picking at Tzara's poem.

Sara, you may pick at any of my poems as much as you like and I would thoroughly welcome it. I say this because, whether you consider yourself a poet or not, I do. And Tzara, too. And lots of you folks out there in LitLand.

 

[Tzara]

I liked today's T. Flat out. No ifs ands or buts or thats.

Made me feel bad about my live-trap in the basement. I am probably a mouse-family destroyer.

It's the poop. I'd let 'em be if they would only poop in good places--like the toilet.

Thanks.

I don't think it was about mice, though. I'm not quite sure what it was about. I can guess, but it would just be guess. Happens that way sometimes.

I like mice (animal psych major, you know), but I'm allergic to them (ditto, 'cuz of bites). And, no, I wouldn't want their poop in my basement either.

 

[Sara Crewe]

Thanks.

I don't think it was about mice, though. I'm not quite sure what it was about. I can guess, but it would just be guess. Happens that way sometimes.

I like mice (animal psych major, you know), but I'm allergic to them (ditto, 'cuz of bites). And, no, I wouldn't want their poop in my basement either.

Sure, it's about mice--on one level and then it moves past that which is why it's good.

I could see many themes in it. Fear of loss. Fear of the Unknown. Fear of Death. The Harshness of Existence, The Inevitability of Death, The Complications of Contemplation.

I think it made me think the most about that moment of realization that people have. That moment when we realize life is finite, there are scary things under the bed and we are all gonna die sometimes. That can be a paralyzing moment for some but the strong ones shake it off and keep going despite the darkness. In their moving forward they prove the light.

Anyway, that's what I saw. That and some cute mice.

 

[Eluard]

Tz — can I offer as another solution:

thank god something more than just my fingertips
was scorched


I think this keeps your rhythm and the sense and the grammar.

 

[Homburg]

Drugs muddy an accurate picture of who a person is, I think. I mean serious use does in my opinion.

In his case, yeah, it does. But the only things he uses consistently are pot and alcohol. Everything else wanders in and out of his life a dose or so at a time. He's a weird cat, and smart as hell, but not honestly all that complex.

 

[Tzara]

Sara, you may pick at any of my poems as much as you like and I would thoroughly welcome it. I say this because, whether you consider yourself a poet or not, I do. And Tzara, too. And lots of you folks out there in LitLand.

PG, you can put your poems on some of the comment threads like this one or this one. They are both intended to solicit comment, but my experience is that you are probably better off posting something and then actively asking people what they think. Comment on poems has gotten pretty limp here, I think because people are tired of spending the time to read and think and comment only to have those comments spit out like undercooked cauliflower by the recipient.

My experience, and I suppose most people's experience, is that if you put in the time to read and think about someone's poem and comment honestly on it, you're more than likely to either be trashed as some evil person who is simply being mean or, at best, as some idiot who does not understand the brilliance of the person posting the poem.

Comment, real comment is a hard thing to swallow. It mostly consists of people telling you why your poem sucks.

It's invaluable, but few people can stomach it.

 

[Tzara]

Tz — can I offer as another solution:

thank god something more than just my fingertips
was scorched


I think this keeps your rhythm and the sense and the grammar.

That works grammatically, I think. Rhythmically, too, and may perhaps be better than my solution. But Sara pointed out the main problem with the poem, which is the passive voice. That needs to be reworked, since it is carries through the entire poem. I mean, I'm kind of a distanced guy, but geez. I can't expect my audience to be quite so laid back, unless maybe I doped them all with laudanum first.

Anyway, much thanks to you both. We don't get enough of that kind of analysis around here anymore, which is a shame. I think we've all become too shy of telling people that their work is shit. Oh, sorry. Flawed.

And, though I shouldn't have to do this, let me just re-emphasize: You guys' comments were extraordinarily helpful. So don't y'all get shy, OK?

 

[PandoraGlitters]

PG, you can put your poems on some of the comment threads like this one or this one. They are both intended to solicit comment, but my experience is that you are probably better off posting something and then actively asking people what they think. Comment on poems has gotten pretty limp here, I think because people are tired of spending the time to read and think and comment only to have those comments spit out like undercooked cauliflower by the recipient.

My experience, and I suppose most people's experience, is that if you put in the time to read and think about someone's poem and comment honestly on it, you're more than likely to either be trashed as some evil person who is simply being mean or, at best, as some idiot who does not understand the brilliance of the person posting the poem.

Comment, real comment is a hard thing to swallow. It mostly consists of people telling you why your poem sucks.

It's invaluable, but few people can stomach it.

I can stomach it. I've just usually taken stuff I want to have brutalized elsewhere. But you are right when you respond to Eluard that we don't have enough critiquing going on. I think it is possible to work on flaws alone, (and there always are flaws for me; when I fix one I see three more) but it makes it easier to have an outside eye.

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction on where to post in here to get feedback. I would be happy to give feedback to others. So far, the only person who had ever asked me to was Rainman, so I hadn't been. But yeah maybe getting the critique thread active again would be the ticket. I know that's probably easier said than done.

 

[Eluard]

That works grammatically, I think. Rhythmically, too, and may perhaps be better than my solution. But Sara pointed out the main problem with the poem, which is the passive voice. That needs to be reworked, since it is carries through the entire poem. I mean, I'm kind of a distanced guy, but geez. I can't expect my audience to be quite so laid back, unless maybe I doped them all with laudanum first.

Anyway, much thanks to you both. We don't get enough of that kind of analysis around here anymore, which is a shame. I think we've all become too shy of telling people that their work is shit. Oh, sorry. Flawed.

And, though I shouldn't have to do this, let me just re-emphasize: You guys' comments were extraordinarily helpful. So don't y'all get shy, OK?

You're welcome.

As I'm English — well, originally anyway — I just think the passive voice is being a decent chap and a jolly nice thing to do with/to/under a reader. When Microsoft Word's grammar checker starts complaining about something being in the passive voice I just tell it to go fuck itself and all the rest of its automated siblings. (Ummm, but that's the Orse-strayyan coming out in me.)

In short I see nothing wrong with the use of the passive voice in this poem: it is that combined with the electric imagery (it is passive after all to be shocked) that makes the great word scorched so effective in the end. Passivity is the whole point of the poem: it is about being in the presence of a natural force.