Woah, DA RULES. It makes me feel all outlaw and perverse. I
immediately want to write a short narrative poem with lots of
vignettes, imagery, metonymy and mystery.
C'mon Jeffrey, you know it can be done.
I hold no brief for creative wriiting classes and have certainly never
done one in my life. But I'm beginning to wonder if you were bitten by
a creative writing teacher as a child.
xA
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Robin Hamilton
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> <<
> The only rule I have is that a poem should not be a short story, or
> vignette. Everything else is allowed.
>>>
>
> Oops -- there goes every single Browning dramatic monologue. And Chaucer
> ... For starters ...
>
> The demolition derby would extend as far back as Archilochus. Lucky Homer
> wrote such a long text (or texts), otherwise the very foundations of Western
> Literature would be trembling in their ... foundations.
>
> <<
> “You systematically favour the kind of vagueness or indeterminacy you
> find in various song lyrics and a particular kind of poetry, perhaps
> because it allows you to happily free-associate.”
>
> I think most people free-associate at some point when reading poetry. I
> always thought this was the point of poetic language—to allow for this.
> Poetry that precludes such an act, in my view, is not poetry.
>>>
>
> "My name is Ostentatious, King of Kings. Look on my works in a strictly
> post-modernist subjective fashion, or else."
>
> As Shelby might have said in her well-known 14 line vignette. Or was it
> Humpty Dumpty? Pound (if one may be allowed such an appeal to authority)
> said that poetry should be *better written* than prose, not simply vaguer.
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 02:48:50 -0000, Jamie McKendrick
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Jeff, I think once again we've reached an impasse.
>> You have very specific, lexical rules for determining the quality of a
>> poem, and yet seem to me often tone deaf to, or just uninterested in,
>
> other
>>
>> elements that I consider equally or sometimes more significant. You
>> systematically favour the kind of vagueness or indeterminacy you find
>
> in
>>
>> various song lyrics and a particular kind of poetry, perhaps because it
>> allows you to happily free-associate. Stuff you're not interested in you
>> refer to as "technique" and as merely "formal", by which I take you to
>
> mean
>>
>> inessential or secondary. I've tried on more than this occasion to
>
> suggest
>>
>> why I find these criteria reductive and unhelpful, but you only seem to
>> understand a small portion of what I'm saying. Otherwise I can't see
>
> why you
>>
>> should need to instruct me with comments like "Bad poetry can rhyme
>
> also you
>>
>> know", adding again that "the presence of technique shouldn't always
>
> be the
>>
>> deciding factor for quality". "Technique" per se doesn't really interest
>
> me,
>>
>> as I've already said - even the term bores me though I guess it could
>
> be
>>
>> resuscitated - and I'm quite aware lots of bad poetry rhymes.
>>
>> No need to apologize for your assumption that "simple, non-avant-
>
> garde
>>
>> language" would please me. But to clarify it's not just that I've never
>> stated such a preference: I've never had it. Neither now - nor in the
>
> past.
>>
>> (The poets I began doing some soon-abandoned, academic work on
>
> were John
>>
>> Berryman then Hart Crane, neither of whom write what I would
>
> consider
>>
>> "simple" language. The poets I've written on at some slight length
>
> over the
>>
>> last years have been Montale and Dante, again far from simple,
>
> though you
>>
>> could find some lines here and there that are powerfully so. Still more
>> recently I've translated and written briefly on Valerio Magrelli whose
>> language is often deceptively simple, in other words achieving
>
> complex
>>
>> effects with plain language, though, again, some of his poems employ
>
> a
>>
>> formidably technical vocabulary. These last months I've been
>
> translating the
>>
>> Mexican poet David Huerta whose poems are densely metaphoric and
>> linguistically complex. Excuse this biographical detour, but it's
>> frustrating to be so consistently misconstrued. I'm only guessing
>
> these
>>
>> misunderstandings arise because you consider me a "mainstream"
>
> writer - and
>>
>> because you think you know exactly what that makes me.)
>>
>> Because I don't subscribe at all to the rules which you apply to poet
>> after poet, I feel quite at liberty to like and enjoy many whose
>
> language
>>
>> would appear to you "lexically" plain or dull.
>>
>> Jamie
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>
>>
>> “Since you're keen to make distinctions between poetry and prose, I'd
>> have thought these things might have interested you more.”
>>
>> My point in such comparisons is to point out the contrast between the
>> lexical differences rather than the formal ones. Bad poetry can rhyme
>> also you know, so the presence of technique shouldn’t always be the
>> deciding factor for quality.
>>
>> “Thanks for the Ward song - but I found it almost unbearably
>> schmaltzy.”
>>
>> And you didn’t Armitage’s poem?!
>>
>> “Speaking of suppositions, why do you assume "simple, non-avant-
>> garde language" would please me? I don't think I've ever stated such a
>> preference.”
>>
>> Perhaps not expressly, but your vigorous defense of the Armitage
>
> poem,
>>
>> here, and, at other times, mainstream poetry in general has led me to
>> believe this. If I’m wrong, my apologies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:01:08 -0000, Jamie McKendrick
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff,
>>> I fear you haven't really considered my point about technique - that
>>
>> sound
>>>
>>> and rhythm are not decorative extras for a poem but integral to it.
>>
>> Since
>>>
>>> you're keen to make distinctions between poetry and prose, I'd have
>>
>> thought
>>>
>>> these things might have interested you more. As for the poem's
>>
>> imagery, I've
>>>
>>> already said why I think it works.
>>> Thanks for the Ward song - but I found it almost unbearably
>>
>> schmaltzy. It
>>>
>>> is not at all on a similar theme and it's linguistically inept, though
>>> despite his reverential mention of Wordswoth and Browning "who all
>>
>> seem to
>>>
>>> be saying the same thing" I don't suppose he'd think it was a poem.
>>
>> Speaking
>>>
>>> of suppositions, why do you assume "simple, non-avant-garde
>>
>> language" would
>>>
>>> please me? I don't think I've ever stated such a preference.
>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 4:11 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>>
>>>
>>> Jamie, technique in itself does not make a poem. It is the
>
> combination
>>>
>>> of that with imagery, allusion, metonymy, a certain mystery, etc. The
>>> Armitage poem has little of the latter aspects. That’s why I am
>>> criticising it. I find the poem’s sentiments and execution of them
>
> one-
>>>
>>> dimensional.
>>>
>>> If you want to hear a better rendition of a similar theme then listen
>
> to
>>>
>>> Clifford T. Ward’s song“Home Thoughts from Abroad” which does it
>>> better, in simple, non-avant-garde language (which should please
>>
>> you).
>>>
>>> Here is a link to it on YouTube:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9G0ENZJLI8
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:49:50 -0000, Jamie McKendrick
>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeff,
>>>> I'm not sure why what I've written should seem " mostly technical
>>>
>>> points"
>>>>
>>>> or exactly what it would mean if they were.
>>>> Surely technique, in which sound-effects play a large part, should
>>
>> be
>>>>
>>>> relevant in describing why it's a poem rather than "perhaps, good
>>
>> prose
>>>>
>>>> fiction" as you call it. I've also mentioned a complex of imagery
>
> that
>>
>> is
>>>>
>>>> tightly worked, and to spell out a bit more what I called the
>
> vaporous
>>>>
>>>> elements in the poem, the 'st' sounds which begin with "missed"
>>>
>>> (homophone
>>>>
>>>> 'mist'), which leads to 'steam' in the next line, then is heard again
>
> in
>>>>
>>>> just, dust, lipstick, lost, upstairs, understanding, lipstick,
>>>> stowed...just
>>>> to take one thread of sound through the poem (and there are
>>
>> others) -
>>>>
>>>> suggest to me that Armitage has, even at this very early stage of
>
> his
>>>>
>>>> writing an acoustic sense that can be a central part of the way we
>>>
>>> hear a
>>>>
>>>> whole poem - rather than a mere technical point, or even as "the
>>>
>>> measure of
>>>>
>>>> poetic accomplishment" which you bring out of nowhere. What I'd
>>>
>>> argue is
>>>>
>>>> that these are effects, including the rhythmic ones which (I agree
>>
>> with
>>>>
>>>> Robin) are a marked and positive aspect of Armitage's work, that
>>>
>>> make a flat
>>>>
>>>> paraphrase an utterly insufficient means of describing (and
>>>
>>> intentionally
>>>>
>>>> negating) the poem. This poem or any other. It seems to me that
>>
>> your
>>>>
>>>> obsessive concentration on 'empirical markers' means you ignore a
>>>
>>> whole
>>>>
>>>> range of other features integral to a poem.
>>>> (Your Jacket article makes it clear, as I'd guessed all along, that
>>
>> your
>>>>
>>>> zealotry on behalf of this term "empirical" is deeply indebted to
>>>
>>> Easthope,
>>>>
>>>> in particular to his dim and philistine reading of Edward Thomas's
>>>> 'Aldlestrop'. But perhaps we oughtn't to get into that again.)
>>>> Jamie
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:23 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jamie, these seem mostly technical points you like about the poem.
>>>
>>> But
>>>>
>>>> the poem is still like a thousand other poems expressing similar
>>>> sentiments. It is, perhaps, good prose fiction writing; the sort that
>
> is
>>>>
>>>> esteemed in some creative writing classes, but is this to be
>>
>> considered
>>>>
>>>> the measure of poetic accomplishment?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:55:09 -0000, Jamie McKendrick
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's a poem written when Armitage, I'm guessing, was 25, or
>>
>> younger.
>>>>
>>>> There's less fizz and word play in it than in many of the poems of
>
> his
>>>>
>>>> first book: it's quieter and maybe not that ambitious. That said, I
>
> like
>>>>
>>>> the vaporous sweep of the poem from its first image of
>>>> what's "missed...by moments" , the steam of the "just-boiled
>
> kettle"
>>>
>>> to
>>>>
>>>> the final images of "the air, still hung with spores of your
>
> hairspray;/
>>>>
>>>> body-heat stowed in the crumpled duvet."
>>>>>
>>>>> The lines:
>>>>> "and in this space we have worked and paid for
>>>>> we have found ourselves and lost each other"
>>>>> stand out for me, and I think will have "cost" something to write.
>>>>> Its handling of the pentametre looks to me more
>>
>> than "adequately"
>>>>
>>>> skillful, as does the subtle "st" and "sp" sound-patterning that runs
>>>> through it
>>>>>
>>>>> It's easy to make a crushing equivalence between the domestic
>>>
>>> and
>>>>
>>>> the bourgeois, but most of us live our lives in domestic settings
>
> and
>>>>
>>>> interiors, and I see no dishonour in their inclusion in a poem. As
>>
>> both a
>>>>
>>>> love poem and a poem about a relationship in crisis, I think it has a
>>>> kind of tenderness and integrity.
>>>>>
>>>>> (I doubt, though, that this account will tear Robin away from his
>>>>
>>>> admiration for David's post and the "specific points" he has
>>
>> somewhere
>>>>
>>>> found in his and Mark's dismissals.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamie
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Mark Weiss
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 11:11 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And aren't paid for.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 06:02 PM 2/16/2010, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "How's that?"
>>>>> I'd say it did quite well on the nastiness scale.
>>>>> Though it doesn't distinguish itself from 20,000 other bits
>>>>
>>>> of "criticism" posted every day that cost nothing to write.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 16 February, 2010 22:51:43
>>>>> Subject: Re: Response to my criticisms of Armitage's poetry
>>>>>
>>>>> Shall I try? Probably 20,000 poems a day are posted or
>>
>> published.
>>>>
>>>> Most are skillful and nothing more. Most take no risks whatsoever.
>>>
>>> Most
>>>>
>>>> want to be liked. Most are crashingly boring. This is one of those.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is, this sort of waste makes it harder to fight
>>
>> through
>>>>
>>>> to find the good stuff, the stuff that's cost the poet something to
>>
>> write
>>>>
>>>> and that will cost the reader something to read.
>>>>>
>>>>> How's that?
>>>>>
>>>>> At 05:46 PM 2/16/2010, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >It's adequate. Could I be nastier?
>>>>> I dunno, Mark. Could you be?
>>>>> Jamie
>>>>>
>>>>> Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban Poetry
>>>>
>>>> (University of California Press).
>>>>>
>>>>> http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
>>>>>
>>>>> "Not since the 1982 publication of Paul Auster's Random House
>>>>
>>>> Book of Twentieth Century French Poetry has a bilingual anthology
>
> so
>>>>
>>>> effectively broadened the sense of poetic terrain outside the United
>>>> States and also created a superb collection of foreign poems in
>>>
>>> English.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing else like it." John Palattella in The
>>>> Nation
>>>>>
>>>>> Announcing The Whole Island: Six Decades of Cuban Poetry
>>>>
>>>> (University of California Press).
>>>>>
>>>>> http://go.ucpress.edu/WholeIsland
>>>>>
>>>>> "Not since the 1982 publication of Paul Auster's Random House
>>>
>>> Book
>>>>
>>>> of Twentieth Century French Poetry has a bilingual anthology so
>>>> effectively broadened the sense of poetic terrain outside the United
>>>> States and also created a superb collection of foreign poems in
>>>
>>> English.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing else like it." John Palattella in The
>>>> Nation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
--
Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
|