...and comparing the different nuances in a sequnece, that come from saying
the same thing again and again can be one of the pleasures of a sequence, in
The Rubaiyat for example.
Colin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin Dewar" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: discussion topic: series of poems/Bob
> Regarding length, it matters more to me whether I find a poem interesting.
> If I like it and it's also long, I think, "all the more for me to enjoy".
> If I don't like it, then being short on its own won't redeem it. One of my
> favourite poems is EB Browning's "Aurora Leigh" which is a novel in blank
> verse. Another that I like is The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. That gets the
> best of both worlds, because each stanza can be lifted out on its own and
> enjoyed like a haiku (Japanese for quickly). Famously the first:
>
> Awake! for morning in the bowl of night
> Has flung the stone that puts the stars to flight:
> and lo! the hunter of the east has caught
> The sultan's turret in a noose of light.
>
> It's a great one for the kids at the top of cliffs with extravagant arm
> movements and the clouds scudding in - the time of day doesn't matter -
> or you can say it ironically on a Sunday morning.
>
> I'm not allergic to repetition BTW. Unless you use exactly the same words,
> are two things ever truly repeated? Even if you did use the same words
> they can developed in different ways. There are plenty of lines in
> Shakespeare like this. Actors say them differently and they are received
> differently.
>
> I suppose it comes down to how confident you are in the link that language
> forms with another person. Isn't it the case sometimes, that you have to
> say things in different ways for people to grasp what you wanted to say
> once?
>
> Colin
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Cooper" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 4:26 PM
> Subject: discussion topic: series of poems
>
>
>> Matt writes:
>> "to open up another discussion point, what has been everybody's
>> experiences of writing poem sequences like this?"
>> and he goes on: "As well as the discipline that James mentions, it must
>> offer an opportunity to allow poems to work off each other, but I suppose
>> it carries its own risks, such as repetition. I ask because I've been
>> working on a series of linked poems and prose pieces about a very obscure
>> historical character, and have found it both more difficult than writing
>> 'occasional' poems, but also more rewarding in many ways. I'd be
>> interested to hear people's thoughts."
>>
>> Hi Matt (and all else who're reading this),
>>
>> I, too, find myself wanting to write poems that are in a series. I find,
>> however, I'm not too disciplined in how I approach it. I don't, for
>> instance, map out the issues/themes/topics I feel important to cover in
>> the series, I just write one and then another - then put them in a
>> possible order and start wondering about how to fill in the gaps!
>> I guess, because we're conditioned to read and write short poems - and
>> the long poem has fallen from favour - narrative poetry, as a genre,
>> needs sequences or series of poems.
>> I wonder, sometimes, about the attention span of readers of poetry.
>> Perhaps that's why I feel happier reading a series of short,
>> self-contained, poems that have subtle links, and underlying impressions
>> that rise to the surface when I discover them, but I'm daunted when faced
>> with a poem that goes on for pages and pages. However...
>> It could be that short poems are like nibbling chocolate, or eating
>> oranges (for rhyming poems) or plums(from the icebox in the fridge),
>> whereas a series of poems is like a 5 course meal with lots of things in
>> each course, and a fine wine or two (and even with sherry before and
>> port - or a really good Malt! - afterwards!).
>> Bob
>>
>
|