EPTAt the moment you're like the teenager who says "I hate Shakespeare!" because they had to study it in school and it took more than 10 minutes. If you want a bite sized commercial of hollow and immediate meaning, then I suppose T. S. Eliot is not for you.
Poetry Blog - Page 2
| Blogs > Imperium11 |
|
Chef
10810 Posts
At the moment you're like the teenager who says "I hate Shakespeare!" because they had to study it in school and it took more than 10 minutes. If you want a bite sized commercial of hollow and immediate meaning, then I suppose T. S. Eliot is not for you. | ||
|
Mothra
United States1448 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 238668
344 Posts
I feel that you have ability. One of the hardest things about writing a poem is controlling your level of investment in the piece, and i mean both emotionally and rationally. Too much investment and the poem is bound to end up contorted and jumbled, a series of discrete images or thoughts that appeal only to the fancy or whim of the writer; to anyone else they may appear garbled and without proper form. T.S Eliot (his name has appeared here already) believed that ultimate dissolution of personality (and this means emotional investment) was necessary for any real poet. Only then would he acquire consciousness of the 'poetic tradition' and thus his role, as a curiously actively passive agent, of furthering and honing this tradition. So, part of me believes that the very aspects of cathartic poetry (or poetry with a high level of emotional investment) preclude most legitimate criticism of it. Rather I would have cause only to comment on your technique, rhythm, meter, etc. But, another part of me (i am easily disassembled) thinks that this is rubbish, that poems to not exist merely to further the cause of poetry or any other art or 'tradition'. Instead, i feel that poetry is a medium which allows and affords the most sophisticated and nuanced communication that we humans are capable of, that is, a communication of emotion, of feeling. Most 'writers' are at least vaguely aware of their audience, but to people who simply write, the audience is largely inconsequential. What i'm trying to say, in vain it seems, is that you need to decide what it is that you want criticised. Your work being self-described as 'cathartic', i feel it is necessary to critique only the expression of your emotion, and not the emotion itself. But this is difficult, for you are, of course, also emotionally invested in the way in which you express this very emotion! Anyway, this will likely serve to confuse more than to illuminate, and i apologise in advance for that. If the least i can do is to offer some cheap platitude by way of encouragement, so be it. In the words of Tennyson, be content to 'strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.' | ||
|
Imperium11
United States279 Posts
On December 16 2011 05:21 ohsea.toc wrote: What i'm trying to say, in vain it seems Not at all, in fact. I appreciate your words greatly, and am truly honored to have been the recipient of your first post. I am glad that anything I create can increase the membership and inclusiveness of TL! I think it is a good point, made by you and several others as well, that poetry is both a literary art and an expression of emotion. The two goals of poetry do not always aid and abet each other, and indeed each sometimes works contrary to the other's purpose. It is the role of the poet to determine which takes precedence, and to what degree. It is necessary to determine "how much emotion am I willing to sacrifice to improve my work? how much inadequacy in my poetry am I willing to accept in the name of conveying my true feelings?" I suppose there will always be a compromise, and it a personal decision to decide where in the spectrum you wish your work to fall. On another note, you seem knowledgeable about this topic, and my recent poetical experimentations have prompted enough of an interest in me to wish to explore further, so any stylistic advice you may have would be greatly appreciated, on top of the valuable general advice you have already given! | ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
read up, OP gl hf | ||
|
jeeeeohn
United States1343 Posts
On December 16 2011 04:29 Boonbag wrote: art isn't a fucking hot dog, you don't eat it Bite me, you know damn well what I meant. Pretend the bold is an allusion. On December 16 2011 05:21 ohsea.toc wrote: Hello all, this is my post on TL.net and i am pleased it is in response to a particular love of mine. Firstly, Imperium11, i admire your courage in posting this work of yours; although you have a certain anonymity here, it is natural that the criticisms of others will perpetuate your own dissatisfaction with your writing. Regardless, in many ways this can be a good thing. I feel that you have ability. One of the hardest things about writing a poem is controlling your level of investment in the piece, and i mean both emotionally and rationally. Too much investment and the poem is bound to end up contorted and jumbled, a series of discrete images or thoughts that appeal only to the fancy or whim of the writer; to anyone else they may appear garbled and without proper form. T.S Eliot (his name has appeared here already) believed that ultimate dissolution of personality (and this means emotional investment) was necessary for any real poet. Only then would he acquire consciousness of the 'poetic tradition' and thus his role, as a curiously actively passive agent, of furthering and honing this tradition. So, part of me believes that the very aspects of cathartic poetry (or poetry with a high level of emotional investment) preclude most legitimate criticism of it. Rather I would have cause only to comment on your technique, rhythm, meter, etc. But, another part of me (i am easily disassembled) thinks that this is rubbish, that poems to not exist merely to further the cause of poetry or any other art or 'tradition'. Instead, i feel that poetry is a medium which allows and affords the most sophisticated and nuanced communication that we humans are capable of, that is, a communication of emotion, of feeling. Most 'writers' are at least vaguely aware of their audience, but to people who simply write, the audience is largely inconsequential. What i'm trying to say, in vain it seems, is that you need to decide what it is that you want criticised. Your work being self-described as 'cathartic', i feel it is necessary to critique only the expression of your emotion, and not the emotion itself. But this is difficult, for you are, of course, also emotionally invested in the way in which you express this very emotion! Anyway, this will likely serve to confuse more than to illuminate, and i apologise in advance for that. If the least i can do is to offer some cheap platitude by way of encouragement, so be it. In the words of Tennyson, be content to 'strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.' Example of a good post. Welcome to TeamLiquid! On December 16 2011 04:52 Chef wrote: At the moment you're like the teenager who says "I hate Shakespeare!" because they had to study it in school and it took more than 10 minutes. If you want a bite sized commercial of hollow and immediate meaning, then I suppose T. S. Eliot is not for you. Forget him. As soon as I read his first post I knew he was either trolling or completely serious: either way it's not worth the effort. | ||
SirJolt
the Dagon Knight4014 Posts
I guess this is just a, "Keep going, never stop practicing, always be writing and always be reading," post. Enjoy what you do  Today I wrote a sort of a blank verse poem on the mundane portion of my winter mornings + Show Spoiler + Firelight: Mornings begin with a walk in the woods, a winding search for windfall boughs, brought to earth by gales and with portions already submitting to damp and rot. Their extremities are all dried leaves and tinder, first-class kindling. Larger limbs snapped off are still too close to life to easily light, so they’re left behind, the bough slowly sinking into the sodden soil. There is a simple pleasure in the snapping of sticks to better fit the fireplace, the placement of one long strut across the grate to prop the others and the winding of twigs between the wetter wood in an effort to encourage the flame. The petrol-smell of the firelighters fills the room as thin fingers of black smoke are pulled across the cool air to the chimney. It’s not a particularly difficult task; I manage to fail a few times a year, but the failures facilitate a feeling of minor victory at the sight of the flickering flame. So I sit by the fireside, the light of early winter already waning, waiting for the blaze to justify a second load of coal. The room isn’t warm yet, but it soon will be. | ||
|
Imperium11
United States279 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 238668
344 Posts
There were no sparks But there is flame It is not smoke For there is pain Read this stanza aloud. Try to identify which words and syllables receive stress or emphasis as you are reading. A sound poetic meter should, like a piece of music, have both solid rhythm and melodic variation. To my ear, this stanza sounds a little like the clipped tick of a metronome: the words demand uniform stress. Mix up things a little. Experiment with longer words (this is not a call for verbosity) and longer lines. Reading your work aloud is a great way of identifying any rhythmical shortcomings. It is also a method of distancing yourself from your work. There were no sparks But there is flame It burns hot And it burns cold If you try You will fail Do not fuel it Do not fight it Be wary of these dichotomies. The art of juxtaposition is complex, and the presentation of one image should only very rarely necessitate the presentation of its opposite. Usually it is indicative of laziness. It is odd how the mind leaps immediately to the thought which should be furthest away, but perhaps it is this opposition which forges the bond. Curiously enough, the Interesting Number Paradox comes to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox. At any rate, look more to explore a single idea or thought. By presenting its opposite so immediately you exhaust it, and then you are labouring under the burden of this now tired image; or it is forgotten and thus of equally little worth. | ||
| ||
