Patrick
I am not organised. I may or may not be analytical.
If you look again at what Andrew said you'll see – in my words –
it's a bit as if he is looking at it as an observer.
And I said that I have not found myself to be good at commenting on
my own work. Partly I am not good at it and partly I am inhibited in
case I stymie my own processes. I *can do it, but not at that level ie
what the hell are you talking about? (I dunno)
We may try to bring organisation to the work. after. I don't call
that censorship. I dont understand what you mean unless you think
somebiody or something is talking through you.
What you say about getting the stuff down – “think rubbish then
another day I see more to them (not more rubbish but more more!)”
sounds very much like me
and then “Ideas spring up and must be written down at once - none
of that 'of course I shall remember then write later' but the fun is
to make something hammer it together or other times tweak into a new
thing”
yes indeed
sounds like bringing organisation to it, after quite a lot of
analysis
call it hammering together and tweaking into a new thing if you want
all best
miaow to the cat
L
----- Original Message -----
From: "Poetryetc: poetry and poetics"
To:
Cc:
Sent:Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:40:27 -0000
Subject:Re: couple sitting (revised)
You all sound so organised -analytical -one thing I have noticed with
me is a mood when I look at my poems and think rubbish then another
day I see more to them (not more rubbish but more more!)I try not to
censor so end up with a lot of stuff then sift shift whift!!through
them
Ideas spring up and must be written down at once -none of that 'of
course I shall remember then write later' but the fun is to make
something hammer it together or other times tweak into a new thing
P Enough rambling feed cat and comb him or be drowned in hairs
-----Original Message-----
From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Andrew Burke
Sent: 30 November 2012 00:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: couple sitting (revised)
Lawrence - I've noticed a pattern in my own output. I write a couple
of wordplay and/or 'cutesy' ones, then I write more substantial ones
which get deeper into the skull - about four or six - then I get to
notice this and take myself seriously and write downright obscure
fiendishly intellectual ones (no humanity present, just philosophy and
big words) - then I quit. If I'm lucky, I'll notice the pattern before
I send any anywhere, and then I throw out the first stream and last
wanker poems. (In the desert between, I cry on my wife's shoulder that
I'm not writing poems anymore for a couple of months until another
round happens.)
Anyone else do similar? How do you all work your creative output?
Andrew
On 30 November 2012 00:46, Lawrence Upton wrote:
>
>
> I have no problem with the reference to language poetry Andrew..
>
> The discussion post-dated my revision; & the revision was a
> few words sent almost immediately. I try to mentally simulate the
> experience of sending the poem before I send it; but now and then I
> get it wrong.
>
> anyway... as I say it may not be a good poem. There may be a
> lot of new stuff along those lines. I am up to about 10 pieces and
> find it difficult to judge it. I don't think it's much different in
> perception / vision to my latest, wrack, or even _wire sculptures_
>
> best
>
>
>
> L
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Poetryetc: poetry and poetics"
> To:
> Cc:
> Sent:Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:54:03 +1100
> Subject:Re: couple sitting (revised)
>
> Thank you for the reply. I value much of the reply as a prose poem
-
> leaning toward a LANGUAGE text, altho I'd guess you'd hate that
> comparison.
> But I always believe poets should break down fences, even their
own,
> and wander in other fields. Lashings of ellipsis and speaking to a
> reader 'off (stage)' would create a text with intrigue and tension.
I
> am tempted to attack it as such myself, but that is a rude way to
> reply poet to poet. I can only say I'd love you to do it.
>
> Again, thanks for the reply. I must admit I'd missed the earlier
> discussion because when I saw you had revised it, I went straight
to
> the revised edition. Hence missed the discussion. Mea culpa.
>
> Bloody hot here today - 39 Celsius. I don't mind heat so much, but
it
> was also humid - that gets me down.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 29 November 2012 22:38, Lawrence Upton wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hi Andrew
> >
> > Well, neither. &, you know, it isn't a cross word puzzle. neither
> > maybe.
> >
> > I suppose couple sitting could be cows. It would be quite >
> interesting > to try that, though I am going to have to internalise
> that somehow and > then forget it before I can use it. Cows
together
> can be very > affectionate, social you may well know this better
> than I, the > last cows that I know went from here around 10 years
> ago and the > fields are storaplebs and I wonder sometimes if my
> fellow > electorate would drink so much milk if they saw cows
licking
> the muck > off each other!
> >
> > I was thinking of human beings. one title rejected was couple on
a
> > sofa; that they take on bovine characteristics should not be
taken
> > or was not intended to mean that they are both female > > they
> could be; I have no problem with that; but I was thinking of a >
man
> and a woman.. structure of my brain I suppose. bulls low. not >
sure
> if that word is used. one sees cows more often.
> >
> > I recall one night, well I have heard it several times, a single
>
> cow > coming to the edge of a small height and not seeing the rest
of
> her > herd; so she bellowed for them and it was an extraordinary
> sound that > I classified as primitive we were well away from brick
> buildings > and sterilising machine etc. that was a sound I might
> have heard
> 10000
> > years ago if I could afford the tax on my time machine. It was
not
> > just an average moo > > so it's a... whatever the word is...
> bovine noise. maybe a limited > vocabulary do you fancy it? get
> out of the way try eating > this stuff who you looking at?
> >
> > about covers their needs I think
> >
> > I call it lowing. I shall check, maybe ask next time I am on my >
> favourite farm: it'll confirm my oddness for them!
> >
> > it doesnt take long to reach stasis as a couple if both are so >
> inclined. I *think old age was introduced by Doug. There's no
mention
> > of age within the poem. (The sick person my friend lives with is
not
> > that old. The person I cared for a little was older than I by 25
>
> years; but she was a bit of a riot when she wasn't being ill. I
didn't
> > think of her as old.
> >
> > I explained the context to dispute the Swiftian charge. (That >
> seemed > the simplest way although close reading with a better
> knowledge of > Swift's verse than I have might support Doug; but I
> would be > surprised.
> >
> > I have in my memory the story told by a friend of a stay in >
> hospital > mid century when for some reason there was in him
somehow
> an open > wound maybe dressings were being changed but it sounds
> rather odd.
> > Nevertheless, he tells this story of wondering what the dreadful
> smell > was, who the smelly bastard was, and realising it was him,
> from within > him. In fact writing that down I see how preposterous
> it may sound so > take it as a parable. I haven't seen this man
since
> the early 70s so > have no way of clarifying. Doesn't matter.
Youths
> too can be smelly, > make faeces etc. Age emphasises it.
> >
> > A human couple, a bit static.
> >
> > Damp gets everywhere. I am interested in it because in mining
terms
> > damp can mean explosive gas. This is not made anything of in the
> poem.
> > It's just damp. Everything's damp just now. Well, it is here.
> Season
> > of mist and mellow damp.
> >
> > There could well be explosive farts to come. I haven't written
any
> > yet though. Just the whispering. I am also interested in more
than
> > that kind of explosion an environment that is dangerous, that can
> > transform > > Best I can do really. I am not good at knowing what
> I am talking > about in poems > > It's a pattern of words, a kind
> of sculpture, a verbal installation > > Maybe it's not very good >
> > on we go > > L > > ----- Original Message ----- > From:
> "Poetryetc: poetry and poetics"
> > To:
> > Cc:
> > Sent:Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:11:19 +1100 > Subject:Re: couple sitting
> (revised) > > Are these bags of cow manure, still damp? Or is it in
> vernacular, > 'two > (old) bags' being ladies of many years? full
of
> 'shit'? I can't > puzzle it > out, Lawrence - sorry.
> >
> > Andrew
> > On 28 November 2012 22:59, Patrick McManus wrote:
> >
> > > L Ah that lowing
> > > P
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics >
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > > Behalf Of Lawrence Upton >
> > Sent: 28 November 2012 11:13 > > To: [log in to unmask] > >
> Subject: couple sitting (revised) > > > > > > > > ?
> > >
> > > two bags, proud with shit,
> > >
> > > left near to each other,
> > >
> > > holding themselves in;
> > >
> > > neither says much, though
> > >
> > > they speak, both; lowly,
> > >
> > > silence imposing damp
> > >
> > > within each self,
> > >
> > > whispering; releasing them
> > >
> > > from meaning to mean,signifying
> > >
> > > their tightness; lowing
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Andrew
> > http://hispirits.blogspot.com/
> > 'Undercover of Lightness'
> > http://walleahpress.com.au/recent-publications.html
> > 'Shikibu Shuffle'
> >
> >
>
>
http://abovegroundpressblogspot.com.au/2012/03/new-from-aboveground-pr
> ess-shikibu.html
> >
> >
>
> --
> Andrew
> http://hispirits.blogspot.com/
> 'Undercover of Lightness'
> http://walleahpress.com.au/recent-publications.html
> 'Shikibu Shuffle'
>
>
http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/new-from-aboveground-p
> ress-shikibuhtml
>
>
--
Andrew
http://hispirits.blogspot.com/
'Undercover of Lightness'
http://walleahpress.com.au/recent-publications.html
'Shikibu Shuffle'
http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/new-from-aboveground-press-shikibu.html
|