Hi Mike,
I don't think there's room in a poem for superfluous words (and I usually 
examine my drafts to eliminate them - rarely letting adjectives or adverbs 
linger -- they really have to work hard, maybe be unusual, to remain). I 
also don't like (I could even say DISlike) getting rid of "the" and "a" in 
front of things (because I always say those words when I'm speaking about 
things and it sounds/feels wrong to not use them on paper in a poem. It's 
ugly, curt, abrupt. Omiting them takes the grace away from the poem. I don't 
like poems that jerk and push words together.
On the other issue of using "and" so many times... I try to replace some of 
them with "then" "while" "as" & "when" (and other such words) because I 
really, really, notice it when two consecutive lines begin with the same 
small word! I guess, if the poem's a monologue then there may be more "ands" 
than anything else... But then it's possible to make the word a feature of 
the construction (starting each stanza with an "and" can be delightful!). 
Small words, such as "and" are as much a part of the poem as the bigger 
nouns and verbs are!
AND if I'm wanting to get a sense of breathlessness in a poem I find a 
longer line (often) creates a faster flow (and that can even let a small one 
word, two word, or one phrase sentence add to the drama and vitality of the 
piece). But I must also admit that I sometimes play a poem as one long 
sentence (the longest I've felt happy with is in a poem that's somewhere 
between 40 and 50 lines long!).
And the musical effect of a poem... Well, like Arthur's said, I invariably 
want to hear my poem (and that helps smooth it out) - maybe like Basil 
Bunting said, "Poetry like music is to be heard." Mozart, Stravinsky, 
Leadbelly, Jimi Hendrix, John Cage... I guess each poem creates its own 
music in its writing... and sometimes I'm straining to hear it clearly. Even 
the Sex Pistols songs had a kind of flow...
Bob






>From: Mike Horwood <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re. Bang - Bob
>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:57:47 +0200
>
>Hello Bob,
>                Thanks for your comments and observations. I, too, like the 
>effect of a long flow followed by a short, abrupt phrase. It can lend great 
>impact to the short phrase as well as varying the rhythm. I donīt do it 
>here, as you noted, and Iīm not sure it would work, at least not as I 
>imagined this poem in its present form because I wanted to get that 
>breathless, excited voice racing on from one idea to the next. I feel the 
>abrupt, shorter phrases might work against that. Interesting that you have 
>also commented on the `andīs. Arthur mentioned them too. There are a lot. I 
>like them because they run away with the voice of the poem, hurrying it on 
>to the next thought. I agree absolutely with you that the small words can 
>do so much to carry the rhythm of a line. I feel that sometimes poets who 
>try to pare their work down to the minimum overlook this aspect. What are 
>your views, Bob, on the question of keeping `redundantī(this will need some 
>defining at some point) words in a poem rather than cutting, on the grounds 
>that they work for the musical effect of the poem? I raised this issue in a 
>recent posting but Iīve forgotten what I called it now. However, Arthur has 
>already posted a thought-provoking response to it under the title 
>`minimalismī.
>
>Best wishes,  Mike


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus