Grassy,

Each to their own poison I say.

Evidence-based poetry? This might have to take into account that poetry is
in fragile position regarding evidence. Firstly it deals with subjective
realms of experience for which there may be no evidence (as opposed to
science where the evidence really will determine our understanding of
events). To demonstrate that the moon is beautiful; what evidence will be
sufficient for this? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Secondly,  the conveying of evidence though language may be insufficient to
reach another person. To say, "I made a honey sandwich " conveys a great
deal to someone who has had the same experience but very little to someone
who has never had it. All the evidence and language in the world can not
raise the understanding of the second person to the level of the first. If I
think that the audience already knows something for themselves then I am
unlikely to go to length to demonstrate it. I trust them to draw from their
own experience or analogous experience. I think of them as intelligent
adults. Maybe the reader has not met my salesgirl but they may have met
other people that are similar in some way. Such experience can often be
assumed as part of the reader's phenomenological world. I am not talking to
a Martian after all but of a member of my own species who will not need
everything demonstrated from first principles. I might not want to clutter
the poem with those kinds of details. I might want to get down to the really
important stuff as directly as possible. Of course I may be wrong on either
of those points (that it is shared or that the audience agrees that the
topic is important) but that would merely make me think more carefully the
next time. It would not cause me to treat the audience like Martians. Often
it is just the fact that we are members of the same species that makes
something communicable at all. So a single word like "swan" has enormous
phenomenological significance. No amount of describing of beaks and feathers
can advance my impression of what it is.

In poetry we may not be about to make an intervention, which really does
need the best evidence to determine the best course of action. It is not a
randomised controlled, double-blind trial. At least for me it isn't. If you
wanted to describe the unfolding of evidence through a randomised double
blind trial I would not shoot you down in flames for it, because each to
their own poison is my motto. For me poetry is about conveying impressions
of the world, ideas reactions or perspectives of situations. In any
scientific sense these are neither true nor false. They may indeed be
unverifiable. A very empirical person  would say that they were meaningless.
However they are not subjectively meaningless. They are life-enhancing
moments, whether or not they are pleasant. But this does not mean that truth
or falsehood must be attached to them. Since no course of action arises from
a binary decision about them they can be held indefinitely in limbo. They
help to enrich the external world (if it exists) and make life more
interesting. I would like to think that they are communicable.

The next thing is that evidence-based poetry is no guarantee that the result
will be less lecturing in tone. It really depends on how you say it. If
someone has a loose lace, I may get then to tie in different ways. The first
might cause irritation and the second gratitude. The poetry of impressions
and perspectives is not less subtle or implicitly more didactic. As for
being an ordinary man or woman there can be plenty of human frailty in such
poems. Quite often I set up the protagonist as figure of fun or foolish
example. A little self-mockery goes a long way.

Evidence is what exactly? Surely none of us believes that there is no bias
in the evidence we choose to present. It is the very presentation of facts
in our chosen way that makes it possible for the audience to draw (our)
conclusions from them. Then if evidence is just evidence then the reader can
read whatever they want into such a poem. Maybe the door isn't heavy. Maybe
the protagonist is providing evidence of their advanced infirmity. I know
that some people like it this way and I'm not against it. Each to their own
I say. But for me as a statement of subjective preference, I think it is a
challenge to the communicative process. I don't mind thinking of the theme
of my poem representing a cluster of homologous meanings. However, if the
reader comes up with something that is completely off the beam and likes it,
of course I am delighted but I may well write another poem on the same topic
at a later date. Similarly if (don't know if anyone does) someone wrote
random sense impressions I would probably lose interest in their poems after
a while. I wouldn't feel that I was gaining any impression of what it was
like to be them, to see the world through their eyes. I would of couse still
respect their judgment.

If a poem is not be biased then it must present evidence in favour of all
sides of the argument and I don't know that poetry can handle that. It is
too big a burden.

Don't forget that in the absence of evidence, an impression is not a
conclusion. It is just a hypothesis. If I present a perspective in one of my
poems, I am not expecting the reader to accept it. I expect them to test it
against their own experience. Maybe they will react differently from me. A
hypothesis is not less part of the scientific or artistic process than the
accumulation of evidence. Indeed many scientists would say that you have to
start with a hypothesis rather than with evidence. In a poem the reader
might be presented with a hypothesis on its own or evidence on its own
(though rarely is it so pure). It's hard to argue one in favour of the
other. A hypothesis doesn't come from nowhere. It arises from events.

Take the last part of your bum poem for instance, "Thunder shakes the
eastern view and wakes old lions from sleep, in war all truth lies
deep."(Sorry for absence of line breaks). I expressed my appreciation and
others did too. This could be taken as a hypothesis, derived from your
impression of things in the external world. Not much evidence here. But
that's great. It is an untested hypothesis. It might get me thinking. Have
colonial processes been reawakened? How would the Iranians feel about it? To
the right of them Gan has been pacified/liberated and to the left Iraq is
being pacified/liberated. They have terrorists. They want to go nuclear. Do
they hate our values? They are on the evil axis. Is a colonial process
present in Iraq? You have got me thinking along a fresh perspective and it
is up to me to look for the evidence for it using  my own faculties.

I can also use your excellent poem to demonstrate another point. Not only is
the poetry of impressions and perspectives just as empirical in spirit as
evidence-based poetry, it is also just as modern.  Revolution through
content, not form I say. Again I mean this as a statement of personal
preference rather than a mandate. As a mandate it would be ridiculous and
self-limiting. Your poem would not have been written three years ago. It's
content is very up to date. However there are new ideas and types of
experience coming into existence all the time. What does it mean to be a
member of a virtual group? How does the individual cope with the pluralism
of society? What are the implications of subjectivism? These are all modern
topics up for grabs. But using a format other than evidence-based poetry
doesn't make such poems less modern.

There are horses for courses. Everything is subjective but some things are
more subjective than others. Evidence based poetry is at its best, I think
when it is dealing with a fairly empirical subject But some things modern
are very subjective and so you might need to raid your box for other tools
to deal with them through poetry. If just evidence-based poetry comes out of
the tool box then some things will go out unsaid and if unsaid will seem to
not to exist after long enough.

You may have guessed that I am fairly subjectivist in outlook and therefore
pluralistic in outlook . For me to argue that evidence-based poetry should
not exist would be as unpalatable as arguing that only EBP should exist. I
think EBP is a really interesting idea. I want there to be to be
evidence-based poets out there and I want them to show me things about the
world. Maybe I will show them something in turn one day. Maybe I already
have. Just as some of your poetry is evidence-low and still marvellous, so
some of mine is evidence-rich, even if not marvellous.  Maybe I can write an
evidence-based poem one day and an evidence-free poem the next. None of us
is completely anything. Each turned incompletely to a common goal, I say.

One more point, which is a stand-alone point, to live or die on its own
account: it is possible to enjoy poetry that improves our understanding of
the world. I know that I often look for it and enjoy it when I find it.
There are another 4000, 000, 000 people or so out there in the world. I
can't be the only one. Yes I enjoy poetry when it works thorugh the symbol
to this end, but sometimes I write poems that are just prosaic statements
(all symbolism and showing stripped out) probably less than 5 percent of my
out put, and hardly at all nowadays. Such poems live or die according too
their content. They have burnt their bridges and if they fail they fail
badly, as they often have. But if they succeed they have made the difficult
simple, without reducing it (rather than the simple difficult). That again
is just a personal taste. By the time I die I want as complete an
understanding of the world as it is possible for a stupid person like me to
have. Poetry can help me in that process. Can it help others, be node nexus
for perspectives on life? If it is difficult for me to curb my tendency to
pass on ideas it must be because I have a love of ideas myself.  I am highly
tolerant of people trying to educate me. I think it is great when someone
communicates something to me that I didn't know. It makes my life more
interesting. This is not a new idea. Zen Buddhism ways have been
communicated through Japanese poetry.

Grassy, please don't be put off by this argument. I enjoy challenges to my
ways of thinking. I would have shot myself in the foot if you were to say to
yourself,  "Not going to explain anything of Colin again. He's too damned
argumentative."

Thanks for the ideas and keep them coming.

Kind Regards,

Colin













 ----- Original Message -----
From: "grasshopper" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: Show or tell - Colin and others


> My own feeling about showing, not telling, reflects a change in the way
> poets are viewed now. I think we tend to regards a poet as Everyman these
> days, rather than a teacher,or a prophet or a sage, so we don't want to be
> lectured, basically.
> It means authors have to be more diffident in pronouncing upon things, in
> imposing their opinions or interpretations as the only ones.
> If we regard a poem as an argument, then the author has to provide
evidence.
> It's no use telling us a scene is beautiful ,or a person is two-faced, or
> assuming that your musings are fascinating - give us the evidence. And
while
> you doing it, don't forget to entertain and/or delight us in the process.
> Kind regards,
>    grasshopper
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "co s shah" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 4:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [THE-WORKS] Show or tell - Colin and others
>
>
> > Dear Mike,
> > Thanks for bringing up the topic of 'show, don't tell'. Here's what I
> > feel:
> >
> > The new mantra in poetry writing is "show, don't tell". However, the
> > highly individualistic approach that modern culture has brought in
> > should allow an artist "to show" or "to state" as he or she chooses.
> >
> > Another thing of interest is that the poet himself (or herself) is
> > encouraged to offer critique even if he has had hardly written one good
> > poem. I feel the job of discovering poetry and offering criticism belong
> > to two different categories. They are different; and it requires two
> > separate artists to accomplish the jobs with finesse and dignity. One is
> > a poet, the other a critic.
> >
> > Instead of floating with the current, it would be worthwhile for a
> > sincere critic to pause for a while and contemplate on the changing
> > trends in criticism.  What was "correct and in-thing" in criticism
> > yesterday finds dustbin (see I have tried to 'show' and not 'tell')
> > today. Why is it necessary and compulsory to change our views from time
> > to time regarding 'what constitutes true artistic excellence'? It is
> > indeed very difficult to answer this question. This particularly
> > happens in the field of poetry and painting. Modernity replaces
> > Romanticism, and post-modernity tries to show weaknesses in 'modern'
> > art. In fact all the three phases or stages have had produced most
> > wonderful artists and poets, and a few geniuses of high order.
> >
> > Then why the change is desired, and insisted upon? Why does one
> > rebellious critic finds faults with prevalent literature, and how does
> > he foresee a paradigm shift in the exposition of art and creativity? Two
> > things are possible; either he must have come across a definite
> > freshness of thought and novelty in the writings of a lesser known poet,
> > or his own thought must have found something new, intuitive, in the
> > world around him that he feels needs to reflect in the field of poetry
> > as well. However, nothing new is ever created; all that appears new is
> > discovered by higher evolved intellect, both individual and collective.
> > An individual stumbles upon a new discovery, new ideas in the field of
> > art, etc., and puts the same in his poem.
> >
> > His discovery might be nearer the truth; his discovery might be
> > universal in appeal. He finds new meaning in the same symbols around us.
> > New poetry takes birth based on the same 'ocean and the sky, rivers and
> > clouds, the sun and the moon', and on the same emotions and feelings of
> > human mind. But now the poet finds new meaning therein, a meaning that
> > elevates humankind, both at individual and societal level, to new
> > heights of understanding and glory. The search to find new paradigms
> > will continue, till one reaches the highest truth, which for an artist
> > may be ever elusive Beauty.
> >
> > c s shah
> >
> >
>