Hello Carl,
Well, here we are again. Perhaps I should first try to clear up any misunderstandings. I certainly donīt like the idea of defending my poems nor of explaining them. Readers must read them in the way they wish, itīs not my business. That said, of course, I had an idea in mind when I composed it and in the course of discussions such as we have here my `ideasī during composition may come out. But I certainly would never try to persuade a reader that they should like one of my poems if they donīt, nor that they should get out of it what I thought I had put in. If this is what you mean by defensiveness, I agree with you that itīs fruitless. And I can agree with you that the phrase or line which draws criticism is certainly worth looking at again, regardless of the reasons given. But where we part company is when you say that that line or phrase must have something wrong with it. You see, I can imagine a friend of Keats looking over his shoulder as he wrote `This living hand...ī and saying `Yes, itīs very nice John, but I donīt think you should change the tone in the final line. It doesnīt suit the poem.ī And the friend would have been wrong IMHO. So I also want to understand the reasoning behind it. It is this desire that leads me to question (in the sense of asking for more information) some comments. This is the case in the exchanges which we have had and which you have interpreted as defensiveness. I am not concerned with defending anything Iīve written, Iīm interested in understanding the rationale for the comments that are offered. I believe that this helps in oneīs poetry writing as much as repairing the individual failings that readers point out.
Perhaps I should add that plenty of readers have made criticisms of work Iīve posted here and as you remark all feedback is useful and I welcome it. And if I disagree with or donīt understand their poetics I enjoy discussing the question further, if they are interested in doing so. This is why I have been trying to pin down exactly what fault you felt you had identified in my poem.
All of this is really preamble and not really why we are here (and it probably sounds defensive as well, but there you go). Much more to the point is your point about being telly. Others have made the same point about my writing. It may well be a fault but how to define the nature of the beast and identify it when it rears its head is what I find not so simple. Maybe Iīve got a connection missing in my brain but Iīm sometimes surprised by the lines that have been singled out for this criticism. Bob referred to one in his comments on this poem `Desireī and I suggested a rewrite in my reply to him but as I said there, it seems much like saying the same thing a different way (which may simply mean I havenīt solved the problem). The example you take here `Later he called it confidence....ī is telling, okay, but it is also reporting. Itīs not that I am calling it confidence, itīs that Iīm reporting what he called it. Is there a difference? Iīm genuinely perplexed about this.
Okay enough already. I donīt like to keep writing about my own work as if itīs the only interesting thing to discuss and if youīre getting bored with all this then just ignore it, if not, then Iīd be interested to hear if you feel you can enlighten me further.
Best wishes, Mike
--- Alkuperäinen viesti ---
Hello again Mike! It never pays to be defensive. I myself have disagreed
with reasoning presented about my poems but have always found that the
point where the critter paused for comment did indeed have a problem,
either at that point or in the set-up intended to inform that point. In
general, if people revised their poems with half the energy they expend
defending them, they'd make more rapid progress.
> Iīd like to take one more example, then Iīll finish. This time from
> your poem; the `antiseptic airī. ... Nothing in the poem justifies
> this explanation. Does this not mean that you are breaking your own
> rule that assertions must be justified by what goes earlier?
That term may be weak, and I will certainly take into consideration that
you and Sue both find it so.
> And how do we define a statement in a poem which functions not at a
> literal level but at a metaphorical one? Is it showing or telling?
> Does it need to refer to something earlier or does it justify itself?
Where a critter pauses for comment, the writer should take a closer look,
irrespective of any reasoning offered. Many successful writers do tender
statements that are not developed in the same manner as the rest of the
poem. Akhmatova is a master of telling without being telly. I think you
are not. Lines like "Later he called it confidence, / finally a form of
trust." are examples of rampant telliness. It isn't even an interesting
adjective: it's just a pair of vague, imageless words, thrust out for
the reader to accept.
> By the way, have you come up with any of those references to
> stream-as-desire that you mentioned? Iīd like to read some.
What I really meant to say was that the stream is not well connected to
what happens in the poem, and that natural metaphors that don't work
coherently is a commonplace in novice poetry. You can defend your poem
all you like, and you can push me away from one particular statement and
towards another, but in the end, I know I saw a problem in your poem,
and I was nice enough to tell you about it.
|
