Post by gryphonpoet on Aug 26, 2006 2:49:08 GMT -5
I went to dictionary.com and found the follwing entry for poetry...
"the art of rhythmical composition, written or spoken, for exciting pleasure by beautiful, imaginative, or elevated thoughts."
As far as the words they used, it is a wonderful definition. But the words (as in almost all dictionary entries) have a quality of sterility, a sense of something not felt. The definition holds no emotion.
But I pose the question, isn't that depth what poetry is all about? If there is nothing stirred by the writing, then of what purpose is it?
The emotion must be in place with poetry. Otherwise, it is a slice of bread left out of its bag for several hours and eaten. The poem without feeling is a deposed king, whining in the dark about his mistreatment.
Poetry must elicit a response before it slides into obscurity and forgotten. And that, my dearest people, is a poem's hell from which there is neither escape nor redemption.
Poetry must elicit a response before it slides into obscurity and forgotten. And that, my dearest people, is a poem's hell from which there is neither escape nor redemption.
Post by gryphonpoet on Aug 29, 2006 14:45:02 GMT -5
Speaking grammatically...
The term "that" begins a clause that refers to the most recent noun. In this passage it would be the concept of becoming obscure and forgotten. Hell, of course, is the eternal, emotional torture of the seperation from one's creator. A poem, once obscured and forgotten is so rarely brought out of that state that it is effectively impossible for it to happen.
To simplify further, I personified the poem and assigned it a soul as a illustration of my point in writing this post.
If you still don't get it, don't worry. I know that you are focused on the concrete meanings of words, not the metaphorical ones. We've had similar conversations before. Remember?
I wrote a poem on poems a while back - when I find it it I'll post it ;D
I also feel that it should invoke a response, or make the reader stop to think how the poet felt or meant. I have read some poems and thought 'Wow, that's amazing, if only I knew what he meant' and others, you think 'Huh, that was a waste of space'
I hate it when someone tries to be too mystical or elusive. I love it when the poet breaks the norm e.g. ee cummings
Poetry to me is a set of lines on a page, that evoke an emotion, inspire me in someway, or make me stop and think. They convey a snapshot in time or space, sometimes relating in some strange way to ourselves.
Ok, end with some Alexander Pope, the lines that are going through my head at present: Come, if thou darest, charming as thou art. Oppose thyself to heaven. Dispute my heart. Come with one look of those deluding eyes. Blot out each bright idea and the skies Ok, they aren't exact but thats the essential of it
CTO Cmdr Raiser, USS Broadsword (ACTD) TO Lt.JG Ro'kar, USS Perseus (ACTD) "The warrior of Light, like the experienced fighter, knows his or her own immense strength and never fights someone who doesn't deserve the honour of combat" - Paulo Coehlo
Post by gryphonpoet on Aug 29, 2006 20:11:38 GMT -5
Eunhathes responded to this when he read it by saying, "Only you could write a poem about writing a poem." Lol... I reckon he was wrong in that one. ;-)
Yes, a reaction that could and maybe even should include a response. But then, sometimes not responding is a response in itself, isn't it?
The term "that" begins a clause that refers to the most recent noun. In this passage it would be the concept of becoming obscure and forgotten. Hell, of course, is the eternal, emotional torture of the seperation from one's creator. A poem, once obscured and forgotten is so rarely brought out of that state that it is effectively impossible for it to happen.
To simplify further, I personified the poem and assigned it a soul as a illustration of my point in writing this post.
If you still don't get it, don't worry. I know that you are focused on the concrete meanings of words, not the metaphorical ones. We've had similar conversations before. Remember?
Please don't patronize me. Contrary to popular belief, I am capable of comprehending metaphor; it's just that I feel metaphor is often used in places it ought not to be, and when it appears where it shouldn't, I am nonplussed. I understood the devices you used just fine; the intent of my post was to illustrate that your metaphor had ceased to be grounded in the discussion, which, contrary to popular opinion, is not the best way to communicate.
Also, I give you Dickinson and Sappho as counterexamples to your assertions about forgotten poems.
If you want my definition of poetry: poetry is what happens when a man falls in love with a language and has a beautiful child by her, and then another man falls in love with her. It is the love that is the poetry — not the language, or either of the men, nor the child. Poetry is an expression of the love of beauty.
The genders are flexible of course, but I think the point is made.
As to poetry about poetry, take a look at Shakespeare's Sonnet 100.
Poetry is not about love and beauty. Some poems are about love and beauty but poetry is not. Poems are about an expression of the writers feelings, emotions, most inner thoughts. I know of plenty of poetry that is ugly, depressing, and distasteful. I know that I write poetry like that because when I do write poetry I am in an ugly depressing and distasteful mood. It is the writers child of emotion. The very essence of how the writer sees and interprets the world and that point in time. Shakespeare had plenty of ugly work. Hamlet. I rest my case with just that one example. Yes it is a play but it is done in poetic meter and rhyme. Poe's works are about as dark and ugly as you can get when it comes to poetry. Robert Frost's "Richard Cory", A rich man that had everything and went and killed himself.
Poetry is how the writer see it to be. It is full of metaphors, similes, allusions, and so forth. So in order to read poetry People need to understand that the works is full of these type of language's. They do not have to love language to read poetry, nor do they need to love it to write poetry.
As a personal reference, I hate language. I hate writing it, I hate grammar, I hate spelling. I would rather not touch it with a ten foot pole. But I do write poetry, stories, and I read a lot. I like reading though. But that's besides the point.
The point is that a person need not to like to write at all, Only write about ugly things, and get his or hers emotions down onto paper in some form that suits the writer for it to be poetry.
"You think that you can tell us apart? Many have tried, but then again, many have failed. What do you think the price for that is?" The Three Sisters Lylie-governess to a child of the first plain "You grew up. Thats a shame. The carousel never stops turning. You cant get off either. Its a shame."
Post by gryphonpoet on Aug 30, 2006 0:48:27 GMT -5
curulambe said:
Please don't patronize me. Contrary to popular belief, I am capable of comprehending metaphor; it's just that I feel metaphor is often used in places it ought not to be, and when it appears where it shouldn't, I am nonplussed. I understood the devices you used just fine; the intent of my post was to illustrate that your metaphor had ceased to be grounded in the discussion, which, contrary to popular opinion, is not the best way to communicate.
Also, I give you Dickinson and Sappho as counterexamples to your assertions about forgotten poems.
If you want my definition of poetry: poetry is what happens when a man falls in love with a language and has a beautiful child by her, and then another man falls in love with her. It is the love that is the poetry — not the language, or either of the men, nor the child. Poetry is an expression of the love of beauty.
The genders are flexible of course, but I think the point is made.
As to poetry about poetry, take a look at Shakespeare's Sonnet 100.
Please re-read each paragraph as I address them...
Paragraph 1) At the time the original post was made, it was not a conversation. It was a statement done as a prose-poem, without line breaks. That was also for effect.
I did not intend to patronize you with my response. I happen to know there is at least one person under the age of 15 reading these words who would benefit from an explanation that minutely detailed. I was not speaking ONLY to you, but also to the others who viewed the post before and after your response.
Also, I stand by my statement. You look at things very concretely. I take an extremely abstract approach. We HAVE had conversations where the difference of opinions has boiled down to that very concept.
I purposely started the post with a definition (the MOST concrete term possible) and from there injected continuous metaphor. It not only belonged there, but it made the point I wanted to state, the way I wanted to state it. Which is another reason I took your question ("Say what?") as an indication that you pursued the literal version again.
Paragraph 2) And how many tens of thousands of poets have passed into obscurity and NOT been retrieved? Again, I stand by what I wrote. It is effectively impossible to be rescued from that hell.
Paragraph 3) Your definition covers about 1/3 of what poetry is. Loving and playing with a language is not unique to poetry. Word play also is necessary to write effective prose or fiction.
But what of the dark poetry? What about poems that have nothing to do with love of beauty? Will horror make the writing be a poem no more?
Paragraph 5) I took it as a compliment to the effort, not a comprehensive and literal (again) statement about what had been written by others.
However, I AM glad that you, Curulambe, have enough pluck to stand up and make an opinion. I was hoping that by posting what I did, it would spark conversation. It worked. Keep the words coming. I am listening.
Paragraph 2) And how many tens of thousands of poets have passed into obscurity and NOT been retrieved? Again, I stand by what I wrote. It is effectively impossible to be rescued from that hell.
Paragraph 3) Your definition covers about 1/3 of what poetry is. Loving and playing with a language is not unique to poetry. Word play also is necessary to write effective prose or fiction.
But what of the dark poetry? What about poems that have nothing to do with love of beauty? Will horror make the writing be a poem no more?
Much of this is a continuation of an old discussion which we can keep going in PMs if you'd like. I'll address what's on topic.
I think you're taking my use of "beauty" too narrowly, and also unnecessarily constraining the idea of poetry. Poetry (to me - NB that this is all my opinion) does not have to take the form of verse. Poetry is an experience which is invoked by language. I find poetry in the insane wisdom of Don Quixote, in the ambition for immortality of short-lived Achilles, in the frank simplicity of Reed Richards in love, in the stark despair of Guildenstern as the lights go down, in Titus Andronicus' brutal revenge - or, rather, in accounts of all these. The horrific has its own beauty.
As to the idea of poems being condemned - honestly, I think there's a good reason that very few poems are remembered. Genius has a way of lasting, while mediocrity falls by the wayside - barring disaster, of course. That statement isn't going to earn me a lot of friends around here, I imagine, but there it is.
(EDIT: Oh, joy! Another -1 karma. Does the truth hurt?)
Last Edit: Aug 30, 2006 14:22:48 GMT -5 by curulambe
Post by gryphonpoet on Aug 31, 2006 1:24:19 GMT -5
Ok... I can see where you're coming from, now that you've defined what you meant by the word "beauty" a little more. I can even concur to a certain extent. However, the statement I originally made was that poetry (as a genre) NEEDS to elicit an emotional reaction. These items of poetry and prose in which you find beauty have drawn an emotional response from YOU, Curulambe. Some of them have in me, as well as other works I have read.
THAT is my point. THAT is what I was saying in this series of metaphors. THAT is where we get poetry from. The need to respond and be responded to.
Finally, when you look back at this thread, you will see exactly what I had hoped would happen. The original post sparked reactions from multiple people. The posts are lenghty and driven by evidence, not opinion. Though it will be eventually reconciled to the hell of obscurity, it has been, however briefly, remembered. So to my point of view I didn't merely post a poem, I posted a successful poem.
As far as continuing in PM, that isn't necessary. There has been no flaming to this point. Quite the contrary, I am enjoying this conversation immensely. I'm not afraid to debate. I am not afraid to listen. I am also not afraid to stand when I am right or sit when I know I am wrong, then change my perspective.
(PS - Just as a parenthetical aside... I only exhalt when the person does something I feel is extraordinary. I only smite when someone does something equally horrible. Something I heard once about going around and coming around like a wheel, you know?)
Ok... I can see where you're coming from, now that you've defined what you meant by the word "beauty" a little more. I can even concur to a certain extent. However, the statement I originally made was that poetry (as a genre) NEEDS to elicit an emotional reaction. These items of poetry and prose in which you find beauty have drawn an emotional response from YOU, Curulambe. Some of them have in me, as well as other works I have read.
THAT is my point. THAT is what I was saying in this series of metaphors. THAT is where we get poetry from. The need to respond and be responded to.
Finally, when you look back at this thread, you will see exactly what I had hoped would happen. The original post sparked reactions from multiple people. The posts are lenghty and driven by evidence, not opinion. Though it will be eventually reconciled to the hell of obscurity, it has been, however briefly, remembered. So to my point of view I didn't merely post a poem, I posted a successful poem.
[...]
(PS - Just as a parenthetical aside... I only exhalt when the person does something I feel is extraordinary. I only smite when someone does something equally horrible. Something I heard once about going around and coming around like a wheel, you know?)
The point that I've been trying to make is that poetry is not a genre or an art form but an experience. It is an experience which many people closely associate with verse, which is an art form. The distinction between "prose" and "poetry" isn't one that I find meaningful.
Also, the posts in this thread, while lengthy, have been driven almost solely by opinion. In matters of this kind it is very difficult to point at facts because it's so easy for someone to say "Well, my experience is different". As to a "successful poem", what is that? The idea of a successful poem implies the possibility of an unsuccessful poem. What is that? Is it a great poem which is only ever read by idiots who can't appreciate it? Is it the masterwork of Bashou, which he burned after writing it because he thought it was too good for the world? Is it a bit of McGonagall's worse-than-doggerel that brings people to tears with amusement at how bad it is?
(The comment about karma wasn't directed at you, but at whoever made the smiting. I suspect whoever did it are self-avowed poets who found my statements about poetic mediocrity insulting to their pride.)
Post by gryphonpoet on Aug 31, 2006 14:40:54 GMT -5
I think that the only comment that I will make at this point is that in that same paragraph, I also defined what a "successful" poem is. And it is what I have been saying all along. A poem is successful if it elicits an emotional response.
Secondly, though, it has come to my attention that some of my comments to you have been misinterpreted. Upon further review, I see that I put an improper comment in my first response to you, Curulambe. I quote...
"If you still don't get it, don't worry. I know that you are focused on the concrete meanings of words, not the metaphorical ones. We've had similar conversations before. Remember?"
This comment had no place there. I didn't realize how sarcastic and acerbic it was until today. I apologize, because those three sentences have changed the connotation of the conversation. I do not imply that you are incapable of abstraction. Nor do I want to impugn your intelligence.
The statement was disrespectful, incorrect and wrong. I apologize.
Perhaps I should further clarify the issue I have with your definition of a successful poem: does the emotional response have to be the one the author intended to convey, or can it be something totally tangential to the poem itself?
Further: do you then define a poem by its power of emotional evocation? If so, do you confine it to verse, or do you expand the term to include all of art?
Post by gryphonpoet on Aug 31, 2006 23:41:25 GMT -5
There are two parts to any piece of writing. The first is what the writer is trying to say. The second is what the reader actually hears. If they are both the same thing, the writer has achieved his goal.
If not, then the reader (or readers) have something to discuss and feel all over again. Have you ever been in a discussion about Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake"? No two people have the same take on it. So almost 70 years later, a great debate can almost always be engaged about its meaning and intent. It elicits a response.
Each reader has his or her peculiar point of view, that is the nature of being human. Therefore the response from the reader must be, by definition, unique as well. The reader may "get" what the writer is intending, but "feel" something completely different.
Humans are complicated and nebulous, on our best days. There is no reason why our art forms must be easily defined. LOL
The latter question you asked is actually answered by the original post itself. It is not a traditional verse-oriented work, but still it crosses the genre at many places into poetry. So the short answer is... no, it really doesn't have to be a traditional poem in order to be poetry.
Poetic elements can be used in painting in the same way as you can write a poem on a wall in watercolors.
Personally, I enjoy seeing the lines crossed. For instance, when I read a piece of fiction and coming across an elevated description of a field. Or recognizing a character in a painting as representing something completely different than how he or she is traditionally portrayed. (In other words, when a character becomes a metaphor of an abstraction.)
The point I'm getting at is the ridiculous. For example, William Topaz McGonagall, renowned as one of the worst poets of the English language (Adams modeled the Vogon poetry on his). The emotional response his poems tend to elicit is one of pained groans (of the sort elicited by a horrible pun) and facepalming glee - even when he is writing about the collapse of a bridge that killed dozens of people. Why? Because it's just so bad.
Would you consider that poem (which is called "The Railway Bridge of the Silvery Tay", if you want to investigate it) "successful"? I don't know about successful or unsuccessful, but the term I personally use for it is "painfully horrible".
Your choice of example for your point about discussion is interesting; Finnegans Wake has been the subject of some of the least fruitful discussions I've ever had. Still and all, your point is a good one.
I'm standing by my statement that poetry is not a genre but an experience. I also suspect that we're using different words to try to express the same concept.
Post by gryphonpoet on Sept 2, 2006 1:57:47 GMT -5
There seems to be some confusion about two unrelated terms, too. Successful/unsuccessful isn't a measure of how "good" or skillfully written a poem is. In fact, one has absolutely no bearing on the other.
A poem can be crafted with absolute skill and be emotionally flat. (as in Data's "Ode To Spot" from Star Trek) And another can make someone emotionally charged, but be a piece of absolute doggerel.
There is an ultimate goal I'd like to see, however. It would be awesome if those who write poetry on this board help each other to write poetry better than they ever have before. A noble cause, sure. But one that is worthy of the pursuit.
