I knew I was taking a risk at 'giving advice', K. But, I felt it was worth
a go. We're not that much different in having 'discovered' such advice
early on in our lives and writing careers, as well as using it, generally
speaking. As you say, tho, a brief reminder, from time to time, seems
helpful.
I'm also well aware that my Simple, General, 'Retro', and anti-intellectual
messages are big turnoffs to most folk. My egocentricity and aggression are
other turnoffs. Duly noted....sometimes actually paid-attention-to. But,
for the most part, I persist because I've bottom-line'ly accepted this ME.
Now, to the Actual Point, K. I was 'using you', benignly, to address an
issue that affects me and every poet I know, no matter how 'successful' by
outward measure. I 'used you' because you're one of the few who posts often
and directly, as well as sometimes revealingly of your own thoughts,
feelings and experiences. Seemed like a good moment to jumpstart a
discussion on what's come to be known as 'Flow'.
We've debated 'Muse' on petc all around every bush and tree in the past, but
I'd thought we could touch elements previously untouched.....p'raps by
changing the word from Muse to Flow.
At the risk, again, of infantilising you and other petc folk, I'll
background a bit. 'Flow' became The word some 20 years ago, ramping up
enthusiasm for loosing one's creativity. It's associated most with the book
by that name, authored by U of Chicago's brilliant psychologist, Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi [pronounced 'Mee-hi Cheek-sent-mee-hi' - Hungarian names].
His book seemed to me timely but sparsely or unfascinatingly 'proved'.
Like Malcolm Gladwell in _The Tipping Point_, for example, his fresh 'take'
in a basically one-pointed book, gave a good rush of associations for the
readers, and then sat in minds like any of the billion self-help or fad diet
books.
If I _knew_ thoroly the Truth of what we can call 'Flow', I wouldn't be
posting this message. My aim's to flush out petc-birds' angles. With the
brains, sensitivities, and seeming unlimited as well as global information
possessed and expressed by petc folk, it seems insane not to launch this
thing! The following questions will, I hope, get some responses:
1) Let's get specific, down to microscopic, with what for YOU engenders
'flow' and when it seems to start, when it stops.
2) What have your esteemed poets said or argued about 'flow'?
Best, and glad you're a patient one, K!
Hon. joodles
2008/9/19 kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
> I'm fully aware of the fallacy of truth equaling best effect, and the
> misguided notion of 'authentic' expression. they're ideas that belong in
> adolescence, but even when I started writing at age 14 I never conceived of
> real events being depicted accurately to be 'poetry' as such. I leaped
> straight into the fictitious, although nothing real is without fiction and
> all fiction exists in & through reality. I hope you don't think I'm some
> sort of slave to reality, when it comes to writing poetry. I never have
> been, and I don't consider myself a novice in that sort of sense. the idea
> of her fingers being splayed, or there being some other real moment to
> inspire the antenna-image, is not the case at all; the whole concept of the
> antenna & of sonance here was about communication & it includes the idea of
> a single sound or message on its own *lacking* something, another sound &
> another message in reply. the poem is meant to be a kind of dialogic
> portrait of a time or moment or, ok sure, relationship.
> this is also the 3rd or so edit, and probably the last.
>
> I appreciate the advice Judy. :) it's all dearly familiar to me, part of
> the
> evolving process, but it's good to be reminded of them by someone else who
> is aware of them too.
>
> KS
>
> 2008/9/19 Judy Prince <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > K, I don't know what others would think or advise, but I'd suggest your
> > fictioning sometimes in poems----even, and probably especially, when it
> > seems so RIGHT to tell it like it was, exactly.
> > e.g., if your girlfriend was sitting on the roof with fingers splayed or
> > peaked like antennae, EVEN IF IT'S TRUE, don't try to fit it into any of
> > your poems. Why? Because it may be not work as well as a nother one
> > might.
> >
> >
> > 1) You need not hold dearly onto images that come to your mind; they're
> an
> > endless family delighted to display themselves to you whenever you wish.
> > More will come and play----so many you'll have to gently point to the
> door
> > and say you need a lunch break....'but do please come again!"
> >
> > 2) Most wonderful and important: if you have EVER come up with fine
> > images, symbols, fresh pairings.....be assured that you will come up with
> > more, exponentially more.
> >
> > You'll be in the 'pruning' stage, cutting off those that look as if they
> > must've been born for a particular line or stanza or completion of a
> poem's
> > sense. Chopping off the image will free you immeasurably. You know that
> > pruned bushes and trees grow back more lush, green, and tall. When
> you've
> > lopped off the 'maybe it'll work' image, what's left isn't a hole, a
> blank
> > space now demanding clothing. It's a temptress watching you and knowing
> > you'll find new ways to see and seduce her---she who must be obeyed---and
> > whom you will WANT to obey. That's the only requirement: desire.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > hon. joodles
> >
> >
> >
> > 2008/9/18 kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > > thanks guys.
> > >
> > > Judy-- I'm aware of the literal trip possibility there, but they really
> > > were
> > > swallows so the whole idea would be changed if that word were changed.
> > > also this is about a specific human female person. and while the image
> of
> > > some weird antenna-woman is certainly off-putting, that also isn't the
> > > intended image; it so happened (and this is essentially beside the
> point,
> > > but still) that there really was a roof of a 40s apartment building in
> > > downtown Helsinki that we spent part of an evening on. I also tried to
> > make
> > > the 'roof/antenna' image less weird or abstract by grounding it in a
> > > reference back to the earlier, more 'experiencing' stanza.
> > >
> > > Doug-- surprising, because I've hardly read a single word of DT all
> year.
> > I
> > > went through a phase of conscious Thomasisms, but that has long since
> > > passed; but now you mention it I do see how that influence could be
> > > construed in this poem. albeit I lack, intentionally, his level of
> > > structural & rhythmic intentionality. because that would be likely to
> go
> > > overboard with anyone except that besotted welshman.
> > >
> > > KS
> > >
> > > 2008/9/18 Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]>
> > >
> > > > i think some of the triplets work well, Kasper, but it's a bit too
> > > > DylanThomasy for me.
> > > >
> > > > Doug
> > > > On 18-Sep-08, at 8:26 AM, kasper salonen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > well since you ask, here for now:
> > > >> http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfr8jjpv_76g6m2shxj&hl=en
> > > >> and soon to be found between a front & back cover. eh, as soon as
> soon
> > > can
> > > >> be with the crowd I'm working with on this anthology/collection.
> > > >> more news as desperation makes way for tittery glee.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Barbour
> > > > [log in to unmask]
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/<
> http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Edbarbour/><
> > http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Edbarbour/>
> > > >
> > > > Latest books:
> > > > Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
> > > > http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
> > > > Wednesdays'
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
> > > >
> > > > Language is sound as sense.
> > > > Music is sound as sound.
> > > >
> > > > R. Murray Schafer
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
|
