All this word juggling is all very well, and oils the engines, but when
occasionally you write a better poem than usual, don't you find it often
comes out right and logical on its own?

The number of poems that have evaporated away to nothing under rewrites,
(like Michael Jacksons nose?!)
(well it does seem a good illustration)

SallyE

(just  back on line after blown down power.)



bw
SallyE

on 15/11/02 11:17 am, Mike Horwood at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Thanks Bob, for these thoughts. Yes, I felt myself becoming increasingly
> uneasy with the word redundant as the discussion progeressed. You´re working
> method sounds pretty familiar in general outline to mine, although I think
> writers do vary considerably in how they go about this business.
> 
> 
> All the best,   Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Alkuperäinen viesti ---
> Hi Mike (and all others!),
> Yeh, "redundant" isn't perhaps the right words to use to describe what
> you're trying to say... It's a question of definition... And then it becomes
> a question of meaning... (does the refining ever end?).
> I guess if you're referring to the small words like "and" (and your Bang
> poem in particular) then they're not just there for the rhythm - they change
> the tone and the flow of the poem if they're included or excluded. Words
> like "a" or "the" or "that" or "this" in front of named thing or person also
> changes the tone...
> I often find I get all the small words in the first draft - which is usually
> me trying to write down what I'm hearing in my head as quickly and
> uninteruptedly as I can on a sheet of paper - and the words are then in more
> or less the right places (for the rhythm). But then I have the toughest of
> jobs of seeing all the words in all the lines and trying to get the right
> shape to do justice to what's there, and seeing what words are "wrong"
> (because they're repeated, because they're inaccurate, because they're too
> long or too short - because they don't work!). Lines and stanzas get swopped
> around too. Revision's a job of quality control (and rhythm and the words
> the establish it are part of the way the poem is made and revised!)
> If you're interested there's a fascinating book by a guy called Vladimir
> Mayakovsky called How Verses Are Made (the most recent imprint is probably a
> paperback published by Bristol Press, 1990 - the original's Russian and
> written in the 1930s) which "should" be orderable from a library (maybe the
> Poetry Library if yr local library isn't interested in what their member's
> want) which is a delightfull thing to read. Not to agree with all the time -
> but to read! I found his comments about rhythm and words (and which comes
> first - and which matters most) fascinating!
> 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: Re Bang - Bob
>> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:24:19 +0200
>> 
>> Definitions are the question here - what do I mean by `redundant´ ? I was
>> thinking of a word that does not contribute to the meaning ( another
>> problem word) of the poem but may contribute to the rhythm of the line. An
>> example might be all those `and´s in my sub Bang. I´ve also posted a longer
>> (too long?) offering on this debate under Minimalism - Arthur et al if
>> you´re interested.
>> 
>> --- Alkuperäinen viesti ---
>> 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 there´s 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 don´t 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> 
> 
>