Grassy,
I wonder if this would work just as well without the captions. To suggest
this may be to miss the point, and I can see that there is an interesting
tension (or the possibility of an interesting tension) between the
detachment of the captions and the emotive content. However I'm not sure if
they fit together in this poem (at least to my reading) but set up
expectations which are not met by the poetry. Of course the poetry meets
other expectations and I agree with Catherine's comments about the fecundity
of the language. Incidentally there are a few points where the language
parts company with ordinary usage e.g. should be "claim the air as their
element, inflate the sky with song", frequent enough to seem intentional, I
guess? Innovation is more of a struggle than consolidation I admit. One
possibility would be to write the poem without the captions, redrafting with
orthodox sentences and then ask yourself if there is a significant
difference between the two, which there may be. If you do change the title,
I'd keep the word , love in it. It's useful for getting to grips with this
rich poem.
Colin
----- Original Message -----
From: "catherine JF" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: New sub: One Reason to LOve
> Hello - This is interesting. To be truthful you lost me after the second
> stanza. This feels like many poems condensed into one with not enough
space
> for them to breathe. The density of the images and metaphors is (I find)
a
> bit overwhelming and I found it hard to digest.
>
> Having said that I'm fairly awed by your linguistic fecundity!
>
> Catherine
>
>
> >From: grasshopper <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: New sub: One Reason to LOve
> >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:18:00 +0100
> >
> > One Reason to Love
> >Subject: The discovery of connections.
> >
> >Argument: from observation
> >
> >Someone throws you a line, and you gulp it
> >like a rising trout, the spinning feathers engulfed, then
> >turn down into the boiling waters, and spit out the hook.
> >The feathers fly again, as pheasants, peacocks, larks,
> >claiming the air as their element, inflating the sky with song.
> >
> >Digression: the purely subjective
> >
> >I hear the intricacies of their melodies, those rills,
> >those skeins of notes, as if they match the map
> >of my nerves, synapse by synapse, as if they were made
> >for me, a robe embroidered with my name and nature,
> >needlepoints marking the flow of chi, Maori lines
> >inscribing flesh, skin as mythology, a tattoo of blood-beats.
> >
> >Corollary :subjective presented as objective
> >
> >The connections which bind the water to the air,
> >the sea to the mountain, a mind to eternity,
> >sensed in the thrill that moves across a night calm
> >after its black was ripped open by electricity,
> >red forests seen in embers, a far planet striated
> >like grapefruit segments, the brain washed with lemon
> >after fainting, euphoria after a migraine.
> >
> >Coda : the possibity of resolution
> >
> >Heraldic creatures which faced away from each other,
> >inlets and outflows, heads and tails, tips and toes,
> >now fold together like a sheet of paper
> >halved, like words bleeding ink as they touch,
> >like the click of insect genitalia, like a Chinese box
> >solved, opened, and another puzzle inside.
> >
> > (grasshopper)
|