Dear Shah,
              I hope you don't mind me responding to your reply to Bob, but
it seems to me it reveals a difference in an attitude to poetry which may be
culturally-based. You seem to be regarding your poem as some sort of
message, or lesson. In your role as teacher, you feel the reader, or pupil,
can be told how to read the poem - that the details are not essential, and
it is the wider message that is important.
       For myself, I do think that the details are important in a poem. If
they are not important, why are they included ? -just to fill up lines?
Poetry is a form of expression that uses language in a concentrated way, and
every word should count. Also I do not feel that it is the author's task to
tell a reader how his/her poem should be read. It comes down to a rather
crucial point, I think, of the position the author wants to take in regard
to the reader. In the past in the West, the poet often took a stance which
was 'above' the reader, raised by poetic knowledge or inspiration into a
higher plane. I think however that now -and I'd welcome others' opinions on
this - we feel the communication between poet and reader is on a more equal
basis, as one person to another on the same level. I find that sort of
communication more immediate, moving and acceptable, and find it hard to
engage with any poem which seems to be lecturing me or propounding some
philosophical point. You may think you know the 'Truth' about life and wish
to set it out in poetry, but it seems to me that modern poetry, in the West
at least, is more an examination and exploration of different sorts of
truth.
Again I apologise for piggybacking on your conversation with Bob, but I do
feel this is a very important issue.
Kind regards,
      grasshopper

----- Original Message -----
From: "c s shah" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: [THE-WORKS] NEW:Dispassion (Bob)


> Bob, thanks for the critical comments.
>
> There are two characters in this muse; one self and the other a monk.
> Their Journey is from material to spiritual; from possessiveness to
> renunciation.
>
> Accuracy and details are, at times, not the essential aspects of poetry.
> I feel it is the summary - the impression - of the whole piece that
> should be taken into consideration. (I do not mean my errors should not
> be pointed out.)
>
> I agree, the "mine" and "mine field" has caused a slight confusion but a
> reader should guess it relates to treasures mines (coal mines, mines
> with ores of silver and gold, etc.; as we get in Africa), and not the
> explosive mines. I have modified the related para below:
>
> << I touch the foliage and remove the brown leaves, dried in the process
> of transferring their essence to me. Rejuvenated, I walk through the
> valley along the side of river. In her dancing innocence, she encourages
> me to go forward and onward. Leaving the forest of tress, I reach a
> plain with mines of silver ores, and then of gold; and last where are
> scattered diamonds all around. I see a fellow walking alone, leaving the
> treasures behind. Why has he renounced these riches; and why does he go
> still further? >>
>
> c s shah
>