Poetry Forum

Full Version: something i posted somewhere else -- on meaning
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
(a) there is no muse, that's just plain bollocks and anyone who says differently is a silly person who may or may not be sunburnt. Or a bible salesman with a limp. Whether my brain is a gift from God or some other cosmic wish-granting fairy is neither here nor there -- what my brain filters, registers and sends forth to spew out the ends of my fingers is entirely my own internal process and I'm giving no credit whatsoever to anyone who can't make themselves visible.

(b) without the filter of the human mind, there is no such thing as truth -- it is a concept invented by humans, as animals don't need to ponder whether or not they deserve to be eaten. It is entirely possible for two contradictory truths to exist simultaneously without the universe imploding or without the observer turning into a small hamster called Geoffrey.

© I read and then promptly forgot where I read -- but I think it was Ray who wrote something to the effect that everything has layers and it's a poet's job to minimise those layers. I would agree, but for one small change: it is a poet's job to direct the reader to at least two of the most obvious layers, but leave room for further exploration should the reader feel like wandering off into nuance and subtext on his/her own, on the understanding that he/she does so without a guide and becoming lost is a very real possibility with no guarantee of personal safety.

(d) being obscure for obscurity's sake is the sign of a lazy, perhaps excessively arrogant writer -- but by the same token, assuming that because a poem's meaning is not obvious on first reading, or indeed assuming that a poem only has one single meaning and can have no other, may well be the sign of a lazy reader, or one unused to the subtleties and nuances inherent in poetry as a medium. On the internet we generally have the luxury of being able to ask the writer questions about the text directly and I feel that although that is a valuable learning tool, it can also have the effect of lessening one's ability to reason things out for oneself.
I am as a rule anti-layer, anti-'planes' and anti-anything of the sort, for the simple reason, that I consider poetry to be a means of communication. It is axiomatic (many things seem to be lately) that since my experience and language differ from anyone else's, they will not understand exactly as I have intended. In other words, layers are inevitable, and there is no sense in adding more. Nasty Aleisher Crowley said something to the effect that unless a person's words hit an exact spot in another person's mind, then s/he would not be understood, or misunderstood.

Then there is the real mystery of Leanne's layer, above. Why did she copyright para 3? Wink
(01-07-2012, 08:32 AM)abu nuwas Wrote: [ -> ]Then there is the real mystery of Leanne's layer, above. Why did she copyright para 3? Wink
Because I'm deeply mysterious... and can't work out how to turn off the auto-correct :p

You're right in that there's no real need to "add" layers to anything, which could be seen as just over-complicating in order to seem rather more clever than is true, because those layers already exist in the language itself. It is incumbent upon all poets, in my opinion, to use the language to its full potential -- the old "still waters run deep" adage is very true in poetry. Overly busy, overly modified and complicated language will often leave the reader taking too much time to decipher, not enough time to appreciate.
Shrek reckons that onions have layers!
i tried to follow the thread and failed miserably.
the universal truth thing. i doubt artist or poets create it but the reader viewer i think often sees "A" universal truth.
a good writer artist has the ability to creat a path which the reader viewer is guided down. an artist can make us look into a picture in a certain way using certain tools of his craft, i think a good writer can do the same.

as for what leanne says about the muse. i often smiled when i heard the phrase "the muse has left me" the muse was something i never encountered. i wrote or i didn't. i never really found it hard to write. i just found finding the time to write hard to find.

who do the poet/artist create for?
Leanne -- I think we almost nearly semi-agree, until the next time this comes up.

Billy ---For thread-following, join the club!

I think you two are being unfair on Muses. Would you be happier to give them a more modern title--poem-workers,e.g.?

You may not have one, but I definitely do. Unfortunately, she does not swan around in the traditional half-open, diaphanous robes, and fine cap, which the other sisters have--apparently Terpsichore is a real pain, but quite something when she trips the light fantastic measure. My one, who seems unsure even of her own name, had to get re-kitted after falling in a sack of butt--no, that can't be right....anyway, by then, what with the very high demand from nymphs, oracles and folk of that class, the Stores were clean out of diaphanous, so she drags herself through the grime in some disgusting denims (which plainly have never smelt France), mostly drunk, obnoxious, with fingers bright yellow from the fags she chain-smokes, and, candidly, a bit on the nose. Does she do her job of inspiring me? My arse! Nothing personal, Leanne....... Big Grin
.
Leanne said: "and can't work out how to turn off the auto-correct"

auto-correct


The begetter of universal truth.


Leanne reverse continued: "Because I'm deeply mysterious..."

This, of course, is axiomatic.


Leanne spake thus: "but I think it was Ray who wrote something to the effect
that everything has layers and it's a poet's job to minimize those layers.

Just to clarify: I said minimizing the number of layers was difficult; not
that it should be some sort of goal. Layers are the penultimate tool for
punditry which is way harder than poetry. The ultimate tool is, of course,
enjambment. The penultimate goal of poetry is to shirk labour, the ultimate
goal is to transcend it.


Leanne filled the universe with: "... without the observer turning into a
small hamster called Geoffrey."

42 -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Lyrzu30JSM


abu nuwas said: "You're a queer cove, tho' "

Had to look up the term "queer cove"; but after said enlightenment
I find myself flattered. While I can never truly attain said status
(he, ever humble), I spend much of each day on this earth in the attempt.


Billy said: "i tried to follow the thread and failed miserably."

I tried to fail and ended up miserably following this thread.

Bukowski's "The History Of One Tough Motherfucker" is the most relevant
comment on universal truthiness here ("here" having multiple layers,
of course).



The muse is dead, long live the muse!


This stream started out too deep for me, but I'm glad I struggled on through. At times I only breathed occasionally via my nose, which protruded from the water. My guts and determination paid dividends because either I grew taller, or the water receded a bit as I finally saw the light.

Despite my denial, I reckon I do sometimes use more than one layer as I write.

Mods please excuse the next bit (ps - Goodbye for a while. Tomorrow I fly to Malta for two months. I hope to keep contact from there, but who knows whether I will pick up any hot-spots or not)
All of Malta is a hot spot!

Have fun.
--------------------------------------------------
On topic

Evidently if we keep assigning different meanings to the word "layers", and respond to comments without defining that, we shall not get very far.

I don't disagree with Leanne's assessment at the top of the page, if the layers she is referring to is as Ray said, I think, that layers are the noise in any communication. If it is layers as is usually talked about in relation to poetry, such as Blake's fourfold vision, I would have to disagree.

As regards the Muse. I refer to that part of my brain (wherever or whatever it is, that sends through poems, that are sometimes already complete, and that my conscious mind had nothing to do with creating). As is the case with poets, I project human characteristics onto a non human thing, According to Coleridge he dreamed the total poem of Kublai Khan. I think I could as easily say that the muse spoke to him, or a poem came full formed from his unconscious mind. Neither term is exact in what it describe, and I suspect both are of equal accuracy, which is to say, not at all. As I worked over twenty years as a counselor, I have come to have little respect for such catchall terms as the unconscious, so I use the term Muse. As the term usually has a female connotation, I can see women would not like the term, and consider it sexist. That is not the way of it for me, but do with it as you will.



Dale
(01-08-2012, 02:45 AM)Erthona Wrote: [ -> ]All of Malta is a hot spot!

Have fun.
--------------------------------------------------
On topic

Evidently if we keep assigning different meanings to the word "layers", and respond to comments without defining that, we shall not get very far.

I don't disagree with Leanne's assessment at the top of the page, if the layers she is referring to is as Ray said, I think, that layers are the noise in any communication. If it is layers as is usually talked about in relation to poetry, such as Blake's fourfold vision, I would have to disagree.

As regards the Muse. I refer to that part of my brain (wherever or whatever it is, that sends through poems, that are sometimes already complete, and that my conscious mind had nothing to do with creating). As is the case with poets, I project human characteristics onto a non human thing, According to Coleridge he dreamed the total poem of Kublai Khan. I think I could as easily say that the muse spoke to him, or a poem came full formed from his unconscious mind. Neither term is exact in what it describe, and I suspect both are of equal accuracy, which is to say, not at all. As I worked over twenty years as a counselor, I have come to have little respect for such catchall terms as the unconscious, so I use the term Muse. As the term usually has a female connotation, I can see women would not like the term, and consider it sexist. That is not the way of it for me, but do with it as you will.



Dale

But...Sappho seems to have been on pretty good, even intimate, terms, with hers.....
poetry is an onion that often makes me weep for various reasons.
i think the layering is often done subconsciously by the poet and consciously
by the reader.. i shall do a few sewer posts and the try my hand at leanne's sestina. if i can find someones muse Smile

enjoy malta grannyjill Smile
From Roland Barthes "The Death of the Author":
Quote:Thus is revealed the total existence of writing: a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author. The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost; a text's unity lies not in its origin but in its destination.

You can read the full text here
(01-09-2012, 10:21 AM)Leanne Wrote: [ -> ]From Roland Barthes "The Death of the Author":
Quote:Thus is revealed the total existence of writing: a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author. The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost; a text's unity lies not in its origin but in its destination.

You can read the full text here

Leanne, I have read a great chunk of M. Barthes' assertions. Badly translated they may be, but not so much so as to disguise the most arrogant irrationality imaginable. Author - bad, scriptor -good. Capitalism? What does that have to do with the price of peas? And-- I am a reader, not a f....space. Not for me, but thanks for the link, just the same...
Personally, I think any author claiming to be the originator of any thought is the arrogant one, and an author's claim that his/her intent is the only possible interpretation of the text therefore anyone else is wrong or irrelevant is beyond arrogance and right up into megalomania. But these are philosophical differences, and that's probably the reason I feel uncomfortable whoring my own writing in commercial ventures, therefore I am doomed by principles to a life of poverty and instant noodles Smile
(01-09-2012, 11:23 AM)Leanne Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I think any author claiming to be the originator of any thought is the arrogant one, and an author's claim that his/her intent is the only possible interpretation of the text therefore anyone else is wrong or irrelevant is beyond arrogance and right up into megalomania. But these are philosophical differences, and that's probably the reason I feel uncomfortable whoring my own writing in commercial ventures, therefore I am doomed by principles to a life of poverty and instant noodles Smile

You said author!! Ha! Maybe as a scriptor you could get a better quality of instant noodle...... Wink
It's not a matter of degrees of quality... there are instant noodles and there is real food Smile

I'm totally with Barth and Leanne on this one. (Not that it matters
more than the cost of a pack of those extremely-high-sodium noodles.)

Here's a quote I've always (well, at least several reincarnations worth) loved:

"A poem is written first in its writer's language. When
you read it, you are translating it into your own
language. Which act requires more skill and creativity,
depends on the individual writer or reader."
- Rachael Keller


And, oh hell, here are two more just for the craic: <- have added the 'the', thanks Leanne
(Leanne: Did I use 'craic' correctly? Must learn how!)


"The perception that wisdom increases with age is a by-product
of the high correlation between cynicism and reality."
- Paul Heinrich

"Don't get me wrong, I'm very serious about writing poetry.
It's the product I find amusing."
- Anton Marsh



I think properly it's just for the craic Smile

Love the quotes, especially the Rachael Keller one.
Hi Leanne, could craic be defined as a sort of happy atmosphere then? Smile
could be... or we'd probably say "just for the hell of it" Smile

Last off-topic point, I promise -- Jimeoin made a movie called "The Craic", you should give it a watch Jiminy.
Pages: 1 2 3 4