what makes good poetry? [discussion filled with lurve]

[0-DCB]

Aphrodite f l y t r a p

Also ! Happy birthday to me !

I'm 22 now.

Older than I ever thought I'd get.

Happy birthday!

[Restraining Order Blues]

I understand that we've switched tacks here, but I'd like to get into this a little, if that's cool:

Quote:

What do you actually mean by "meaning?" Because the patterns of sounds throughout a poem is a source of meaning, creating relationships and connections throughout a poem orthogonal to morphemes and syntax. Sound produces meaning while it is used by writers to create meaning. Also puns based in sound, or onomatopoeia.

And why value meaning over other things? What is it about meaning that makes it so important?

I realize that I may have been talking about "meaning" like it's not a huge, exploded, postmodern ******** of problematization, but I feel okay with saying that there's nothing that can really be communicated through the repetition of consonant or vowel sounds, specifically. Consonance, assonance; as far as I'm concerned, they're pretty much ONLY a shellac, nice, when not dealt with heavy-handedly, but inessential to any poem.

Quote:

Sound produces meaning while it is used by writers to create meaning.

This seems like a tautology to me. Maybe elaborate?

Quote:

And why value meaning over other things? What is it about meaning that makes it so important?

Because words mean. That is their only purpose, as far as I know, and without getting too essentialist. We write to convey. To communicate. It's not that one can consider meaning "more important than everything else," it's that "everything else" already presupposes meaning. A writer chooses to enlist the specific sound devices of consonance and assonance because he or she believes that they will aid in conveying the meaning of whatever it is they're writing toward. And maybe they do. But I, personally, wouldn't bet on it.

Am I saying that meaning is objective? No. Do I think there's never any way in hell that consonance and assonance can ever contribute to anything other than the "feel" of a poem; that they can never mean in and of themselves? Of course not. But I can't say I've ever seen it happen.

[rumirumirumirumi]

Quote:

I understand that we've switched tacks here, but I'd like to get into this a little, if that's cool:

I'm glad you did smile

Quote:

I realize that I may have been talking about "meaning" like it's not a huge, exploded, postmodern ******** of problematization, but I feel okay with saying that there's nothing that can really be communicated through the repetition of consonant or vowel sounds, specifically. Consonance, assonance; as far as I'm concerned, they're pretty much ONLY a shellac, nice, when not dealt with heavy-handedly, but inessential to any poem.

I think you could benefit from thinking about meaning like it's "a huge, exploded, postmodern ******** of problematization" because the argument here seems to be that you have a very specific idea about meaning which you're treating as obvious and universal but (being a source of contention) is not obvious or universal.

I'm in agreement with you part of the way: I don't think a vowel sound or consonant cluster across the lexicon is going to have a specific semantic content. The "o" in "blow" and "low" or the "irr" in "irrational" and "irrigation" don't have a semantic meaning by themselves (unless it's the apostrophic "Oh" or the anatomical "ear" ). But using the same sound for words in a single piece intended to be read critically can create a set of patterns and associations that aren't derived from the semantic content of their words but from the sounds themselves. Rhyme is a particularly powerful way these patterns and associations can be formed, which is why (1) it's been used in a myriad profound ways and (2) the poor application of rhyme in a poem can be so jarring and grating. The semantics and syntax at play in a rhyming poem are certainly important, but it's the interplay between rhyme, semantics and syntax that make rhyming poems unique and worthwhile.

Quote:

This seems like a tautology to me. Maybe elaborate?

That's probably a miscommunication on my part. I wasn't saying that sound means things when writers use sound to mean. I was putting the two in parallel: sound can create meaning on its own, and a writer can also use sound to make meaning. Associations abound with sound whether the poet crafts the poem to have those associations or not, but the poet can also specifically craft the sound of poems for particular effects.

Quote:

Because words mean. That is their only purpose, as far as I know, and without getting too essentialist. We write to convey. To communicate. It's not that one can consider meaning "more important than everything else," it's that "everything else" already presupposes meaning. A writer chooses to enlist the specific sound devices of consonance and assonance because he or she believes that they will aid in conveying the meaning of whatever it is they're writing toward. And maybe they do. But I, personally, wouldn't bet on it.

That's not all language does, especially the specially charged language of poetry. There are different examples in ritual where the specific semantic content of the words are secondary to other effects like the dissemination of rhythm in a group or the organization of group activity. There are also examples in different poetic practices of semantic satiation where the repetition of a word drains it of its semantic content to a listener.

There is also an entire category of poetics (sound poetry) that either distorts the morphology of words or eschews morphology altogether in order for the sound to be the primary aesthetic object. There are also examples with non-sense poems where the pleasure of the experience isn't in arriving at the poem's meaning but experiencing the interplay between sound and syntax.

The fact that for you poems can only ever mean things, and that meaning may only ever come from words abstracted away from their sound, makes it all the more pressing that you examine what you consider "meaning" to be. Otherwise it's just as much of a cipher as "feelings."

Quote:

Am I saying that meaning is objective? No. Do I think there's never any way in hell that consonance and assonance can ever contribute to anything other than the "feel" of a poem; that they can never mean in and of themselves? Of course not. But I can't say I've ever seen it happen.

Well, either you haven't read a poem that has ever used sound in a meaningful way (which I think is doubtful) or you've come to poetry with a particular subjectivity and understanding of what is valuable in poetry that excludes sound as meaningful (something we already know is true). What's subjective here isn't just the meaning of a poem but what can be meaningful in a poem. Also, what makes you so dismissive of "feel?" I like how poems feel and I find it odd that others wouldn't, so I'm mostly just curious.

[0-DCB]

In regards to language itself: {unrelated to poetry and kind of long-winded...sorry}

Language is meant to communicate and identify. The meaning of words is based on their contextual surroundings. Meanings change over time. Myriad, which originally meant 10k now means a countless amount. It is morphemes that help to identify certain languages. Greek, for instance, is identifiable by its aspirated stops, /ph/, /th/, and /kh/.

Germanic languages are identifiable by Grimm's Law. {Respectively, Proto-Indo-European /p/, /t/, and /k/ become /f/, /th/, and /[k]h/. Also, voiced stops [b, d, g] become voiceless. Voiced aspirated stops become de-aspirated. This occurs in Proto-Germanic, but it affects all Germanic languages, including English.} Verner's Law also comes into affect when dealing with stresses. In Verner's law, if the voiceless stop immediately precedes an accented syllable, that stop will become voiced. It also explains rhotacism {i.e., s -> r}. [By the way, was/were is an example of that.]

A language identifies a people and their geography. Words are borrowed into a language whenever it can't express the meaning in its own. {There's one weird exception to this that I know. Hand ultimately is of unknown origin -- even though...you know...they had hands.} Words can also directly affect perception and activity. In one experiment, subjects were asked to make cohesive sentences out of random words. Some subjects were primed with "old-sounding" words {wrinkled, aging, retired, etc.}. They then had to walk across the hall and answer some questions. Subjects who were primed with "old" words walked slower than those who were not.

Language itself does not exist in a vacuum. Words don't just mean. They directly affect brain activity. Words do mean, but as rumi pointed out, they do so much more.

[passy came back]

0-DCB

In regards to language itself: {unrelated to poetry and kind of long-winded...sorry}

Language is meant to communicate and identify. The meaning of words is based on their contextual surroundings. Meanings change over time. Myriad, which originally meant 10k now means a countless amount. It is morphemes that help to identify certain languages. Greek, for instance, is identifiable by its aspirated stops, /ph/, /th/, and /kh/.

Germanic languages are identifiable by Grimm's Law. {Respectively, Proto-Indo-European /p/, /t/, and /k/ become /f/, /th/, and /[k]h/. Also, voiced stops [b, d, g] become voiceless. Voiced aspirated stops become de-aspirated. This occurs in Proto-Germanic, but it affects all Germanic languages, including English.} Verner's Law also comes into affect when dealing with stresses. In Verner's law, if the voiceless stop immediately precedes an accented syllable, that stop will become voiced. It also explains rhotacism {i.e., s -> r}. [By the way, was/were is an example of that.]

A language identifies a people and there geography. Words are borrowed into a language whenever it can't express the meaning in its own. {There's one weird exception to this that I know. Hand ultimately is of unknown origin -- even though...you know...they had hands.} Words can also directly affect perception and activity. In one experiment, subjects were asked to make cohesive sentences out of random words. Some subjects were primed with "old-sounding" words {wrinkled, aging, retired, etc.}. They then had to walk across the hall and answer some questions. Subjects who were primed with "old" words walked slower than those who were not.

Language itself does not exist in a vacuum. Words don't just mean. They directly affect brain activity. Words do mean, but as rumi pointed out, they do so much more.

good god that was sexy

[Aphrodite f l y t r a p]

0-DCB

Aphrodite f l y t r a p

Also ! Happy birthday to me !

I'm 22 now.

Older than I ever thought I'd get.

Happy birthday!

Thanks! heart

[Aphrodite f l y t r a p]

I have been on a WATSKY kick recently. And sometimes this guy is a real 21st century Ginsberg.

[Power Armor Felix]

Wounded Huntress

Power Armor Felix

Ah, so this would be the museum for me to break into? I must thank my associate with the imaginary scarf and sunglasses *waves to no one in particular*

*Nods in your direction* Your associate replies "Y.A.V.W." in Morse code, surely translating to "You Are Very Welcome", unless, by any chance, your associate was part Yeti, in which case the meaning was most definitely lost in translation. *Lowers sunglasses slightly to reveal a menacing thug-squint, then returns the shades to anatomical position, making sure to keep my pouch of freeze-dried cats close at hand in case spontaneous caloric intake is necessary, and activating the Hollywood fire-backdrop from which I can walk out of in hopes of acheiving the Badass Level 999 Gaia Achievment, should a thing of such high obnoxiousness levels exist amidst the Twilight Vampire Award and First Avatar Sex Change Achievment, because I am in dire need of feeling accomplished at this chrysalis stage of my teenage development.*

ninja

*Raises eyebrow* I see you have raided the laboratory pantry and brought enough supplies to lay seige to every amusement park in the Balkans. *Graciously accepts a chocolate snack made from the coated bodily-frame of a former cat* Very good. I would expect no less, for over-preparation is 10/9ths of success. In any case, where are my manners?

Friends, this is WH or Aya, my genetically-enhanced and naturally discovered assassin disciple. I ask that you would treat her with the same cerebral respect (or disrespect) as you would myself; furthermore be aware that her forearms are equipped with spearmint flossing kits which double as garrotes. May the slayings continue (btw, only 16,704 foes remain until you earn your aquamarine identification badge and decoder! It's got this really nifty color change effect too, but only if exposed to goldfish-bowl water in the presence of a Syrian president).

[Power Armor Felix]

Wounded Huntress

Aphrodite f l y t r a p

To me, and as a sort of echo of what's being discussed, poetry thrives on context. Part of the reason we may not appreciate Chinese court poems or even Pablo Neruda as much as their contemporaries is that we lack the context in which these poems were written. Language provides one of the biggest contextual barriers. Not that all translations are bad, but I feel it's hard to get the same feeling out. The time period, common language style and, most especially, intended audience of the poem are important pieces of the poem's context and shouldn't be ignored.

While a poem may be a moment allowed to stand on it's own, it's not quite standing without the support of its context, I think.

I entirely agree with you on this matter. I myself happen to be a fan of Arabic poetry, and it has shocked me how hideously chapped-lipped a poem can become once it is transferred from one channel of human speech to another.

What I've also discovered is that oftentimes we become exposed to certain foreign-languaged poets simply because they came to us. They come to us and blabber things that we don't understand, so we invest time into translating it because its simply obnoxious to hear somebody yammering so close without getting a word out of it. Some of the biggest Arab "OGs" that made it to the West and actually managed to carve out a cultural lacuna in which to deposit their butts, *only* became such "big deals" as a result of their immigration.

These people, who are now widely celebrated as magnificent and exotic poets of lost and distant worlds (i.e. Gibran Khalil Gibran) may not have even been that pedestal-worthy in the eyes of their original Arab communities. In Arab Lit classes they do teach you about Gibran, but he is hardly a spotlight in comparison to, say, Almutanabi or Farazdaq, whose poetry was so culture-bound and sophisticated that their translations are either heinous or entirely nonexistent.

I like to think of it as, say, some newbie emo poet on the forum teaching his poetry to preschoolers. To such small-package individuals who have not experienced anything else with which to compare and contrast, the rain/brain/insane end-rhyme must appear almost godly.

I simply wonder if half the work we applaud is simply magnificent to us because what is better is cast under a shadow. We'll only ever know what we bother translating, and I'll have you know that when it comes to Arabic verse, our libraries have hardly got a thing.

Perhaps this was an off-topic tangent, and if so, then forgive me, but I just thought I should bring it up. *Throws moose bones into the air, to signal the conclusion of a hopelessly pointless ramble*

Aya, do you know of any good translations of Arabian poetry which maintain the spirit of the original work? I know one of the most glaring aspects of translations happens to be rhyme; it's terrible when there's no equivalent word to be had and the couplet ends up as free verse. Another barrier that comes up with language I've noticed is trying to understand the foreign psychology, like the Japanese Engrish of "Take responsibility!" which comes up so often. In that case, it's not just about having the right words--but trying to understand concepts like "group shame" which don't quite exist in the individual-centric Western mindset. After all these years, I still don't completely understand the concept-- though obviously it's a big deal to those living in the culture.

[Power Armor Felix]

rumirumirumirumi

I'm in agreement with you part of the way: I don't think a vowel sound or consonant cluster across the lexicon is going to have a specific semantic content. The "o" in "blow" and "low" or the "irr" in "irrational" and "irrigation" don't have a semantic meaning by themselves (unless it's the apostrophic "Oh" or the anatomical "ear" ). But using the same sound for words in a single piece intended to be read critically can create a set of patterns and associations that aren't derived from the semantic content of their words but from the sounds themselves. Rhyme is a particularly powerful way these patterns and associations can be formed, which is why (1) it's been used in a myriad profound ways and (2) the poor application of rhyme in a poem can be so jarring and grating. The semantics and syntax at play in a rhyming poem are certainly important, but it's the interplay between rhyme, semantics and syntax that make rhyming poems unique and worthwhile.

Sound creates an effect that is not easy to quantify, though one can certainly detect a drop in artistic quality when it is missing. Just as I'm sure it's possible to paint a sunset without red or blue highlights on the clouds, but what such a portrayal lacks is a harmonizing element; the extra oomph which leads to resonation and elevation. I imagine it goes back to the simple synonym test of poetry, where the replacement of a single word will radically disrupt the effect. Often poets are put to the task of seeking the exact word, and not always to unveil a specific denotation. Rather the feel of the thing will impact the ultimate package delivery of meaning.

Perhaps I can sense this a bit more being a "bad" reader myself. Sure, I believe the author to be a guide but ultimately there is some leeway in what anyone gleans from a piece of written work. Sometimes there's more to be gained by not communicating in a well-behaved way; instead it can be an organic or intuitive exchange.

[Aphrodite f l y t r a p]

Felix!

[Power Armor Felix]

Aphrodite f l y t r a p

Felix!

Fascinations! I wonder if this means that my namesake will no longer be open-source? *Evolves appearance slightly*

[Power Armor Felix]

Restraining Order Blues

So I spend my time with a poem’s content—with what presumably moved a writer to write in the first place. Observation, metaphor, economics of language—these are the bases of poetry. Everything that poetry is or does rests on these three things. Obviously not everyone will agree with that sentiment, as you’ll see later. But in order to exemplify how I go about discussing a work with its author, take this poem by “Drossic.”:

Quote:

Cold dark night
by Drossic

Under a noisy bridge I huddled.
No family to love, no home to cuddle.
My thoughts were tenebrous and full of despair.

My mind saw no significance of life sitting there.
All it suffered was self-hatred and strife.
On that a cold dark night, a night of fear, a night of fright.

My friend was a bottle of wine to drink.
It gave me the illusion of warmth; I no longer had to think.
I no longer felt squalid; I no longer smelt my stink.

Oh what a cold dark night, a night of fear, a night of fright.
Suddenly, amidst the mental pain; through the fog of manic fear.
I felt the presence of God; it was so peaceful, so near.

I got to my knees, reached my hands to the sky.
I yelled in utter despair “please Lord don’t let me die”.
Suddenly, Life came to my soul again.

I no longer had to carry alone this burden called sin.
It was a cold dark night, gone was the fear, gone was the fright.

My response

Quote:

I'm gonna be completely honest with you--I think this draft of the poem fails, and I think the reason is because you've told me everything and shown me nothing. I don't know how long you have to have been writing before someone shows up at your front door to deliver the old gem "show, don't tell," but I don't think it's very long. You've probably heard it before.

I had to stop myself for a minute and check that this wasn't a Mad TV skit with such openers as "Your rough draft is a failure." mrgreen Something you could mention when bringing up the "Show vs. Tell" paradigm is that Telling does have a role for expediting a scene or relating abstract concepts. Without some Tell, the poem ends up as a perfumed sequence of sensory images that may not get any meaningful point across.

Quote:

My friend was a bottle of wine to drink.
It gave me the illusion of warmth; I no longer had to think.
I no longer felt squalid; I no longer smelt my stink.

In this section I wouldn't find fault in the author's process of introspection, opting to tell them that they should represent the caress of the bottle's cold glass instead. Rather it is the quality of the examination which is at fault; the consequences of alcohol use are too familiar because they do not dig deeply enough. For instance, the author did not build up exactly how squalid they were in order to provide an effective contrast of what it's like to turn inward and have one's senses removed. I reckon what they needed was a Show, and then Tell. ninja

[passy came back]

my dog is finally starting to realize that the cat is gone forever and i think he's beginning to freak out. i'm hoping that my little poems for them aren't stupid or cliched, so help plz?

[passy came back]

some bump