This is a fascinating discussion (that's moved on into talking about voice,
but in it's roots, is well worth exploring too). Wish I’d been able to
log-on and join in earlier!
I sense it’s touching on things that are something we all see as an issue:
how workshops work at poems.
I don’t see the purpose of the WORKS, or any workshop that critiques (that
discusses and suggests changes to poems, and therefore learns about poetry
and its craft on the job) as a way of dumbing down a poem. But it is a way
of highlighting words that seem to shout too loudly, grate, giggle, or
grumble when they shouldn’t be doing that. It’s often a debate about
language crowd control. And then the poet’s then got to start sifting
through all the different faced words again until he or she again comes
across one that may look like the one that’s wanted and checking it out
that’s surely a good thing.
I sometimes like to talk about words being weary, being over-worked and
ready for the retirement home. They’re usually descriptive words (adjectives
and adverbs, and adjectival or adverbial phrases – cos they sometimes bring
others with them).
But then I see other words as bright, shiny, and just-the-job kind of words.
Sometimes they’re brand-new, and even though it’s not their newness I love
most, I find these seem to want to be used more than the ones that seem
weary even when I discover them in dictionaries. It’s like with Arthur’s
poem, describing trees as round shouldered is new to me (and fits the poem
because it links in with the physical appearance described later) but arbour
feels older (as if it’s bringing suitcases of resonances with it of pastoral
poems that it doesn’t need in this new poem – and it’s a big, heavy suitcase
to carry!).
And, as you say Sue, Shakespeare’s an interesting guy to compare things
with, not just because of him as a writer, but because of the way language
was changing all around him all the time. I’ve heard it said that he first
wrote one in ten words in his plays. I don’t want to believe that as an
accurate figure – but I do want to acknowledge that, because I want to
highlight him as a user of contemporary words in, sometimes, their first
recorded ways (and sometimes he rediscovered words but used them in new
ways). I feel he, like Ezra Pound, would be saying “Keep it new.” He had an
audience to please.
I’m also not sure that all the words I use in my poems are mine anyway. I
sort of sense words must fly round invisibly and then occupy me - and others
– (while they’re still flying round looking for yet more people). I sort of
borrow them, or steal them, for my poems. And if other poets complain about
my borrowings or thievings - because there’s still honour among thieves, and
admiration at what others get away with - I listen.
I’d prefer to be called a word-thief than one of the poetry police!
Bob


>From: grasshopper <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Bathing by Starlight-Sue
>Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:50:32 -0000
>
>Dear Sue,
>             As you've mentioned Shakespeare, I think we should remember
>than
>in other times, other conventions applied. Shakespeare, for instance,
>however much actors try to 'naturalise' his dramatic verse now, did not
>write in a naturalistic way. Too often, I think, we forget the form in
>which
>his plays were performed. Female parts were played by young boys, and the
>speeches were declaimed in the grand manner, which is a style of delivery
>that is very alien to us.
>               At other times, there was a convention that there was a
>special language for poetry, that looked back to the past, and used archaic
>words and special abbreviations like 'oft' and 'e'er' and a rather
>hi-falutin' style and a sprinkling of 'O's, so you could be sure it was
>Poetry. Not at every time, -I think of Chaucer and the vigorous verse of
>some of the Metaphysicals, who revelled in the rhythms of natural speech..
>Busy old fool, unruly Sun...., but in a lot of the poetry of the past, we
>hear this Poetickal voice, and we accept it because it was the contemporary
>artistic convention.
>        However, I don't think the high and archaic tone is the accepted
>convention today, and if it is used, the author risks alienating the
>reader.
>I think the decision about the voice of a poem has to be taken for each
>individual poem, but broadly this is how I see it. If the poem is written
>in
>a voice other than the poet's, as a dramatic piece, the 'archaic' feel may
>be okay. It is when the poem is written in the autobiographical 'I' that I
>feel problems can arise. The author can seem pompous, or self-important,or
>pretentious,-basically saying ,look at me, what a Poet I am! What lovely
>special Poetical words I!'m using!  It can come across as mannered and
>self-conscious, and distance the reader rather than drawing him/her in.
>          For that reason, I think Arthur's second version is much better
>and
>that it will speak more directly a modern reader.The persona of the writer
>comes across as warmer and less aloof to me.
>           But ,of course, it is all a matter of personal taste. I've tried
>to explain my feeling about this as you asked for opinions, but I apologise
>if I've expressed myself clumsily.Perhaps basically I feel a poet should
>write like another person in order to touch the reader today, and not as a
>Poet set apart by special language. Does that make sense to anyone?
>           When speaking about a voice or a style, I am aware I'm about the
>last person who should try to formulate guidelines, as I'm often aware that
>I don't seem to have a 'style' in the way many authors do.
>  Kind regards,
>  grasshopper
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sue Scalf" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:47 PM
>Subject: Re: Bathing by Starlight
>
>
> > In a message dated 02/13/2002 3:18:03 AM Central Standard Time,
> > [log in to unmask] writes:
> >
> > << Well I wanted to convey the only sound was the noise made by the
>feeding
> >  stream into the pool, chattering, clattering , pattering, babbling etc
>all
> >  seemed cliche( another crime) so I looked deeper into the lexicographic
> >  dustbin of my mind and found loquacious, said it to myself afew times ,
>felt
> >  it had a watery nature all of its own by sound alone and it contained
>the
> >  description I required, so I chose it.It was not chosen to impress with
>my
> >  vocabulary but because it seemed the right word. >>  Don't take it out,
> > Arthur.  It expresses something in a new fresh way; furthermore, it is
>you.
> > It doesn't sound like every other poet on God's green earth.  I want to
>hear
> > you.  I want to hear that loquacious stream.  Though no poem is perfect,
> > there is no reason for you to change this word or to change your voice
>or
> > style.  You put me there until I could feel and hear the water, and  I
>saw
> > that sky with its wheeling stars.  Nothing would become as quickly
>boring
>as
> > the perfect poem because it would cease to resonate, it would cease to
>draw
> > the reader in.  Instead, we would just admire its perfections, close the
> > book, and forget it.  This dip in a dark pool as you recover from
>sickness,
> > break the skin of waters, hear the wonderfully wet "lolquacious" stream
>will
> > always involve a reader who wants to be drawn right down there beside
>you
>on
> > to the bank, and to step out, weak sick, and aware of his place in that
>great
> > wheeling universe.  Almost anyone  who helps in a workshop is giving it
>full
> > effort, but the poet has to remain true to some of his ideals and
>original
> > designs.  We would wind up with a manufactured and quite dead piece,
> > otherwise.  Can you imagine Shakespeare listening when someone said,
>"No,
>No,
> > Will, that won't do.  You can't use that much alliteration in one line.
>You
> > just can't possibly say all that about your father lying in fathoms and
> > pearls for his eyes. That is far too much.  Tone this down. Put it away.
> > Make simpler word choices."  This is not to detract from criticism.  Let
>us
> > hear it all, weight all, and then decide based on our original intent,
>but
> > realize sometimes you do have it right, and hold on to it.  This is not
> > intended as any slight to the person who made suggestions to you about
>your
> > work choices; he realized they were only suggestions.  Don't take them
>as
>the
> > right ones without a struggle, certainly not readily.  Mull it over.
>And
> > sometimes leave it alone.
> >




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com