Well now. I can envisage situations where the image of the moon as an oil
rig that's gone adrift (splendidly original as it is, Bob) could sit up and
shout Look at me! because it was altogether too modern an idea for its
context. As for associating words with sounds rather than meaning, I too
tend to do this, and find it something of a dangerous habit, at least in my
hands! I try to remember to ensure it's backed up by sense.
On the subject of shards, or as the King James Version has it, sherds -- a
tale you might find amusing. My father, reading the lesson in church ( many
years ago, he's now 88), came upon that Old Testament verse that goes _
though I have lain among the potsherds _ and pronounced it, very carefully,
as pots herds. My mother had him on the spot afterwards. What's a pots herd,
John? And he answered --Well, someone who herds pots, I suppose. He was a
head-teacher and and a lay preacher, and should have known better; but the
fact was, he didn't expect twentieth century sense from the Bible.
I wonder if what we're at base worrying about, with some of these words,
isn't the fear that people may cease to expect sense from poetry. If anyone
wants to let loose a surrealist hare, though, that might be rather fun . . .
Also I have a strong personal dislike for the word galore, which I refuse to
use even in conversation; even before it got into advertising jargon it
struck me as a silly word, though I know it has an honourable derivation.
Put it down to prejudice!
best, Joanna
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Cooper <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: (and pensioned off words)
> Hi grasshopper & Vera,
>
> I don't know how to divide up my defence of what I've said (and the can of
> words I've opened up). I know, myself, I probably wouldn't want to use the
> words anyway (this is my first defence) because I don't like their
> associations. A story... In one poem (a poem I'm now well pleased with) I
> wanted to describe the moon in a way that fitted in with the rest of the
> poem and the sequence (in other words, as Vera's phrased it in her post,
it
> was "congruent in its setting")... in the end "the moon is an oil rig
that's
> gone adrift" took enough attention away from the moon (and avoided the
kind
> of associated sentiments of other poems) to make the line work. It seems
> some words draw too much attention to themselves and the adage "murder
your
> darlings" seems good advice. If any word - never mind if it's filigree,
> shard, (or whatever) - just sits there and waves and shouts then I sense
it
> might well have to go (to give the rest of the poem a chance). Perhaps in
> poetry I'm "image obsessed" (I think) rather than "word obsessed." And I
> also think I often associate words with sounds rather than meaning anyway.
> Words, dammit, they can just get in the way of what I'm trying to make
> happen! But I'm not just writing for myself. I sense (as I can't remember
> who first said it) "there's someone looking over my shoulder when I'm
> writing a poem..." (So, that's my 2nd defence)
> And, perhaps, like you grasshopper, if I ever became attracted to using
> words I know will cause "poetic-language-offence" to some people (but I'd
> like them to continue reading the poem) I'd highlight the word with my
> felt-tip called irony... and, if I was as skilful and mischievous as
Dorothy
> Nimmo was, I'd play with the word for all it was worth.
> I think, as well, I want more ordinary things in poems, the words we're
> talking about seem less than ordinary (because they're striving so hard to
> be extra-ordinary). Perhaps your comment about not using particular words
in
> serious rhyming verse because of the birthday-card associations of the
word,
> may be part of what's going on. (But, now, I'm thinking: should I try and
> get "galore" into a serious poem...)And now I'm liking the image of shards
> hung on zimmer frames, filigrees in bath chairs, rills dribbling with
> dentures... Images! But words, they're like fish, they're slippery,
moving,
> lively, and (as the poet said) "y shudda seen th one thad gorra way!"
> Bob
>
>
>
> >From: Vera Rich <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: (and pensioned off words)
> >Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 07:38:19 -0000
> >
> >Dorothy Nimmo sounds as if she belongs in Paul Roche's 'The Barbarians
have
> >come'!
> >(As does some of Bob's imagery). Perhaps she should be 'pensioned off
> >quietly'.
> >
> >
> >Surely it is a matter of whether or not the word is congruent in its
> >setting.
> >
> >How, for example, could one write a competent poem on selenography
without
> >the word 'rill'?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: grasshopper <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: 25 November 2001 19:30
> >Subject: Re: New Sub: Ave Maria (and pensioned off words)
> >
> >
> > > Dear Bob,
> > > If you start accepting rules about which words not to
> >use,
> > > how far is to accepting being told what words to use? There are
certain
> > > words I wouldn't use in serious rhyming verse,eg galore, because of
> >their
> > > associations with 'greeting card' verse. but I would still use them
> > > ironically. We all have personal no-go areas.
> > > When I write, I choose the words I use, and I won't be dictated to by
> > > anyone. I think it is total craziness to outlaw words like love and
> > > filigree. In fact it makes me want to write a poem about Love's
filigree
> > > just to be bolshy.
> > > I've just remembered , I used the line: 'a filigree of silver
daisies',
> >in
> > > the Amy Lowell Hyperpoem project. Nobody mentioned it, but I expect
they
> > > were all snickering under their breath........
> > > Kind regards,
> > > grasshopper
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Bob Cooper" <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 3:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: New Sub: Ave Maria (and pensioned off words)
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Gary & Ryfkah,
> > > >
> > > > Your sentiments of wanting to keep and use such words fit into what
> > > Dorothy
> > > > Nimmo says ("I would like to apply for a licence for...) but then
she
> > > > continues: "It might be kinder to let them go quietly." Then there's
> >the
> > > > last stanza which is (to me) the most heartbreaking (but also
> > > > black-humoured) lament!
> > > >
> > > > I just recognise that (some) words get old and weary, and then die.
I
> >mean
> > > > the goode-olde-worlde words like "glade" and "rill" (and how many
> >others?)
> > > > probably stand more chance of lingering in poetry after they've left
> >the
> > > > rest of language (but they're frail, possibly in old-folks homes and
> > > > suffering from dementia, none the less). Dictionaries as coffins?
> >Maybe...
> > > >
> > > > I recognise, however, that new words are being invented all the time
> >(and
> > > > not all of the new ones are (or remain) nouns, naming new
discoveries
> >and
> > > > things). I guess if I reach a time when I long for words that have
> >expired
> > > > and don't get excited by words that are fresh and powerfully loud
and
> >new
> > > > then I've reached a moment when I've not lost a few words but lost
> > > something
> > > > greater, the delightful skill that's in the drive of creativity
which
> >is
> > > > inbuilt in language itself. So, one site I love is visiting is
> > > > http://www.quinion.com/words/turnsofphrase/index.htm and (guessing
> >and)
> > > > revelling.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: Ryfkah * <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > >Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
> > > > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > >Subject: Re: New Sub: Ave Maria (Bob)
> > > > >Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 19:43:29 EST
> > > > >
> > > > >Thank you Bob; I certainly think about words deeply but find it
> >amusing
> > > to
> > > > >have some anathema and some not. It makes me want to use all the
> > > forbidden
> > > > >words in a poem. Soul is not to be used here in the USA but
> >sometimes,
> > > > >especially from a kabbalist like myself, soul is exactly what is
> >needed.
> > > > >
> > > > >kol tuv, Ryfkah
> > > > >In a message dated 11/24/01 8:57:03 AM,
[log in to unmask]
> > > > >writes:
> > > > >
> > > > ><< Hi Ryfkah
> > > > >(and anyone else interested in the word ?oshard?...)
> > > > >
> > > > >Over the last decade in the UK (and where else in the world?) poets
> >in
> > > the
> > > > >know have often smirked when words like ?oshard,?
?ogossamer,?
> > > > >?opatina,?
> > > > >?olambent,? and ?ofiligree? have been used in poems. Like it
or
> >not
> > > > >that?Ts how
> > > > >it?Ts been for more than a decade - and still is.
> > > > >
> > > > >I?Tm a coward because after I once used one of the words, and I
was
> > > > >criticised (and heard the rest of the list of ?ono-no words), I
> >never
> > > used
> > > > >any ever again. But I don?Tt think I lost anything (by changing
the
> > > word),
> > > > >and probably gained quite a lot, in a lot of subsequent poems, by
> > > changing
> > > > >the focus of my descriptive language.
> > > > >
> > > > >If anyone?Ts interested there?Ts a great poem called LAST WORDS,
> > > written
> > > > >by
> > > > >Dorothy Nimmo, I think the web address is
> > > > >http://www.bath.ac.uk/~exxdgdc/poetry/poets/nimmo12.html
> > > > >and the poem?Ts there...
> > > > >
> > > > >But all I did was use Google and type in Dorothy Nimmo (and it was
> >the
> > > > >first
> > > > >site that came up!). Dorothy was a fine poet (and a fine person).
> >Look
> > > the
> > > > >poem up - it's fun!
> > > > >
> > > > >Bob
> > > > > >>
> > >
> > >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|
