Strictly speaking, no. Though in practice some story-like poems do allow
for what I say. It all depends on the ingenuity of the reader. Certain
texts allow for this ingenuity more than others, I suppose.
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:14:29 +0000, Sean Bonney
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Jeff, you're having a laugh, right? otherwise, Mayakovsky's "An
Extraordinary Adventure" isn't a poem, or Frank O'Hara's "The Day Lady
Died", or about a million others.
>what about long stories? or is "Paradise Lost" not a poem either?
>
>http://abandonedbuildings.blogspot.com/
>
>--- On Thu, 18/2/10, Jeffrey Side <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>The only rule I have is that a poem should not be a short story, or
>vignette. Everything else is allowed.
>
>“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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
|