Hi Sally J (and others...),
You write: I was always being told off for using "poetry words" - and if I
had been there I may have been aiding and abetting those who were doing the
telling off! But I tend to think that some words have been used too much in
poetry, they're tired and weary and almost threadbare. But there's lots of
fresh words, words with energy and vitaility, and those words can belong,
can make magic, can dance. (Peter Sansom once clamied that Ian McMillan
wanted to see more vests and settees in poems! It's mentioned somewhere in
his book Writing Poems, Bloodaxe). Your poem about the bed and the
concluding lines about grandchildren (Big Bang!) mentions things, uses
words, that I feel (and Peter Sansom & Ian McMillan?) belong in poetry!
I guess every word has its own musicality on its own. I'm delighted with the
small-brass-band-ish ooom-paph-pha tune you managed to play with your choice
of words in your poem! There's a grin induced by reading it (even before the
guy lkights his pipe!). Given the tone and texture of the piece (and the
comments made about certain bits) the words and language you use seem
appropriate to the subject (they don't just dance with the subject - they
cavort with the subject!).
(... and now I'm thinking: when did I last use the word "cavort"? Could I
play with it, get it to create a line, perhaps, get it to link arms with
other words and get me started on a poem...)
I scribbled down a phrase by a Romanian poet maybe a decade ago (when their
Dictator was on the way out), someone called Daniel Crasnaru, who said "now
we are able to use all the words in our language." I think he was saying
something important - but I don't think he meant we should use all the words
all the time!
Bob
>From: Sally James <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Re Bang - Christine (I mean Mike)
>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:45:45 +0000
>
>I was always being told off for using "poetry words" on a course I was on
>and maybe they were right but but.....I also like the musical quality and
>sounds that words have like sparkle and tinkle and flowing and short sharp
>words like ice and bang and shot. Words are words with sounds as well as
>meaning and fashion comes and goes and if we like the word and it fits the
>piece that we are writing then let it be is my tuppence worth. Sally j
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>From: Bob Cooper <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Re Bang - Christine (I mean Mike)
>>Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 02:30:32 +0000
>>
>>Hi Mike (and all...)
>>You write, Mike:
>>Is it justifiable to use a redundant word purely for its musical quality?
>>I would be interested in hearing any opinions on this point.
>>
>>I'm tempted to say an emphatic no! But I'm not sure what you mean? Could
>>you give an example?
>>Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: arthur seeley <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: Re Bang - Christine
>>>Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:38:58 -0000
>>>
>>>Hear,hear! Arthur.
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "grasshopper" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 6:19 PM
>>>Subject: Re: Re Bang - Christine
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Mike,
>>> I haven't seen the crit concerned here, so my comments do not refer to
>>>that, but, in general, I would say there is definitely a fad these days
>>>for
>>>clipping words until a poem reads like telegraphese. Quite simply, it's
>>>silly -often a little word (O, those articles!) is needed for the flow of
>>>the line. I sometimes wonder if the clippers read the lines aloud, or if
>>>they do, if they really listen.
>>>I get the impression sometimes that some revisers think you are charged
>>>by
>>>the word. Poetry is not about expressing something in the fewest possible
>>>words.
>>>Kind regards,
>>> grasshopper
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Mike Horwood" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:27 AM
>>>Subject: Re Bang - Christine
>>>
>>>
>>>Hello Christine,
>>> Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Other
>>>people have made similar comments about other poems and I begin to
>>>realise
>>>that my style is definitely a lot more wordy than many people write in
>>>themselves, or even like to read. Conversely, I sometimes feel when I
>>>read
>>>work posted on the list or in magazines that it has been cut back so far
>>>that thereīs not much more than a list of images. In the end I guess this
>>>just comes down to individual taste and preferences. Some of the cuts you
>>>suggest here, especially in the first stanza, feel to me as if they would
>>>break up the rhythm and flow. I was aiming at a rather excited,
>>>breathless
>>>speaking voice. But perhaps more interesting than the virtues of specific
>>>cuts in this poem is the general question of just how bare/ minimalist/
>>>precise a poem needs to be. I donīt want to be misunderstood as
>>>advocating
>>>pointless repetition or strings of adjectives, but I would like to ask
>>>this;
>>>can words be used purely to carry the rhythm of the line and for the
>>>pleasure of the sound their letters make in combination with other words?
>>>Is
>>>it justifiable to use a redundant word purely for its musical quality? I
>>>would be interested in hearing any opinions on this point.
>>>
>>>
>>>Best wishes, Mike
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
>>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
|