Askew

[Leanne]

Revision 10/01/12

Sometimes I tilt my head to the side
and cross-eyed, try to imagine your view
through that close woven canvas you wear
as your grey-shadowed sleeve

I can’t find the itch that straddles my back,
though I seek it in your blank stare
and scratch with the barbs that ride
upon your tepid breath

I know the blood has been freed from my skin
by the footprints you leave with my shoes
as you waltz carefree into the cave
to drink from the Lethe once more

I stand before the mirror and you
try to suture my skin to my bloodied clothes,
not realising that it is not wholeness I desire,
but fragmented honesty

Sometimes I wonder if I’d be happier like this,
with my eyes pleasantly scaled and dark
and no questing blades to score my flesh
with lines not parallel like yours

but I don’t think I can breathe
underground



Original version

Sometimes I tilt my head to the side
and cross-eyed, try to imagine your view
through that close woven canvas you wear
as your gray-shadowed sleeve

I can’t find the itch that straddles my back,
though I seek it with your blank stare
and scratch with the fangs that ride
upon your tepid breath

I know the blood has been freed from my skin
by the footprints you leave with my shoes
as you waltz carefree into the cave
to drink from the Lethe once more

I stand before the mirror and you, knives sheathed,
try to suture my skin to my bloodied clothes,
not realising that it is not wholeness I desire,
but fragmented honesty

Sometimes I wonder if I’d be happier like this,
with my eyes pleasantly scaled and dark
and no questing blades to score my flesh
with lines not parallel like yours

but I don’t think I can breathe
underground

[Aish]

Beautiful, fitful, uncomfortable.

I think I should read this a few more times, but I couldn't contain myself I was so overjoyed with your layers and animus tugging. I am still struck by the mythological constructs of Hypnos and reincarnation, Thanatos and Somnus, shroud of literal and figurative construct, all woven in with what smacks of a bruised psyche and internal personality conflicts. Beauty so often breeds pain, and you are quite masterful when it comes to layering your pieces with fragments of universal truths/the human condition and mythos.

I shall return, promise.

[Leanne]

It's funny where our brains lead us. I remember the conversation that sparked this -- it was with a young, very promising poet who was lamenting that people always demanded she explain everything to them and she felt that defeated the purpose of writing it in a poem. She asked me (as if I would know) why people need to have things laid out for them in perfect order and why they feel they should then offer life advice based on what they think they're seeing in a poem. She (and I) felt that these attempts to "fix" us were doing immense damage to our poetry, while the fixers walked away oblivious because they'd never really felt the poetry.

[Philatone]

hello leanne! wanted to share what I saw, though I admit to be missing much

Sometimes I tilt my head to the side
and cross-eyed, try to imagine your view ..at the moment, I'm not sure who the speaker is referring to. have to dig up some mythology. through that close woven canvas you wear
as your gray-shadowed sleeve ..."gray-shadowed" I found really interesting. I think it's easy to glide over without much thought, but it is so specific

I can’t find the itch that straddles my back, ...great word choice in "straddles" and even "itch". I think "itch" offers a lot of possibilities
though I seek it with your blank stare
and scratch with the fangs that ride
upon your tepid breath ...great last 2 lines

I know the blood has been freed from my skin
by the footprints you leave with my shoes
as you waltz carefree into the cave ...not sure if you need the "carefree"; I think it's possible to show that through the verb
to drink from the Lethe once more

I stand before the mirror and you, knives sheathed, ...did get a little confused for a moment from the structure; who has the knives? I'm pretty sure it's the "you"...
try to suture my skin to my bloodied clothes,
not realising that it is not wholeness I desire,
but fragmented honesty ..i'm taking this to be a critique of this person's "suturing"; great play on what's happening here

Sometimes I wonder if I’d be happier like this,
with my eyes pleasantly scaled and dark
and no questing blades to score my flesh
with lines not parallel like yours

but I don’t think I can breathe
underground
...liked the close

i'm going to need more readings before I can offer anything deeper, but did want to share what I had at the moment

[Erthona]

"stand before the mirror and you, knives sheathed,
try to suture my skin to my bloodied clothes,
not realising that it is not wholeness I desire,
but fragmented honesty"

This stanza is very good. It kind of reminds me of some Sufi writings...that were not Rumi It has been awhile since I had anyone try and fix me, or worse yet, try and defend me. Ugh! It feels like being slimed. It is amazing that even people who claim to be poets think that everything one writes is in first person personal.

I used to struggle with the explanation, but even more so with the "Where does your inspiration come from?" questions. "OH I get mine at Walmart in the housewares section, if I go on Monday they are usually running a half off sale. Sweet!" Actually, it would have once been asking me where does breath come from.
The problem that art, being inspired is also irrational, or mad as they use to call it, and explanations are rational. So there is always this sort of serve one master kind of dichotomy, and when I was younger it was difficult to transition from one to the other and so I would feel a lot of irritation and indignation when they asked such stuff. Then later on, if sometimes I did answer, I felt like I had been used in some shameful way. Lately, I think I have started to settle into the solution for it, but poetry is such a personal process, especially in the beginning, it is difficult, if not impossible to find a balance I think.

Not that it wasn't a nice image, but for me a confusing image:

"try to imagine your view
through that close woven canvas you wear
as your gray-shadowed sleeve"

I just kept seeing a burqa in this description and it tended to color the rest of the poem.

It is good that you gave a little heads up on this, cause I don't think I would have ever gotten there, as that first stanza skewed me the wrong way!

Dale

[grannyjill]

It's funny where our brains lead us. I remember the conversation that sparked this -- it was with a young, very promising poet who was lamenting that people always demanded she explain everything to them and she felt that defeated the purpose of writing it in a poem. She asked me (as if I would know) why people need to have things laid out for them in perfect order and why they feel they should then offer life advice based on what they think they're seeing in a poem. She (and I) felt that these attempts to "fix" us were doing immense damage to our poetry, while the fixers walked away oblivious because they'd never really felt the poetry.

I am very interested in why a poet would not wish to clarify something in a poem. If the purpose of the poem is to convey something to a reader and they,through the magic of the internet, are able to ask about what isn't clear, wouldn't that be valuable to the writer?....to enable them to know that their message has not got through.
As to giving life advice - who does that? I can only remember one person ever feeling compelled to do this about something I had written. (I got a telling off about my behaviour!) Is it an age thing?

[Erthona]

"As to giving life advice - who does that?" (an answer to this is still germane to the poem, as a point of clarification and understanding, n'est-ce pas?)

Oh, on some of the other poetry sites there are all kinds of caretakers. People read what is written as being autobiographical and current, and express concern if something in the poem implies that the person is in some sort of danger, is experiencing difficult times, is close to dying, or killing themselves. It is also not uncommon because many non-poets use these poetry sites as kind of a public confessional to illicit responses of pity (what they call support). Kind of like when someone says, "you are not being very supportive", when what they really mean is, "your not telling me what I want to hear.") The bottom line, besides that unpleasant feeling that one gets from voyeurs under the guise of helping and concern, is a whole lot of drama, and very little poetry.
Although I chaff somewhat at the restriction put on some of the forums on this web site, it is far preferable than the total non-focus on poetry, and complete focus on game playing and drama that occurs on other sites, especially the larger ones.

"I am very interested in why a poet would not wish to clarify something in a poem."
There is a difference between clarifying a point, and giving the meaning of the poem, or detail the mental and psychological mechanisms that were operative while the poem was being created. Although one has to be complicit in making oneself that vulnerable, just the fact that they are trying to probe in such an intimate part of your life feels like a violation. To me it feels like they are trying to get to the muse within and suck it out. It is probably not that, but it often feels that way. Any poet knows, to some degree, even if it is unconscious, about the function of inspiration in creating something. Such questions related to inspiration feel violating, probably for two reasons: although poets may handle and use inspiration, they do not understand it (nor wish to jeopardize it by talking about it), nor have a rational way to describe it, and inspiration is often tied to very personal and intimate parts of ourselves we do not wish to reveal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If those answers vary to far from the topic I apologize. I suspect they might be, although they seem germane to me, they are less about function and mechanism, and more about the meaning or an explanation of the poem, and thus it becomes a matter of being an apologist, rather than that of a critic.

Should someone wish to clarify that distinction further, I would welcome it.

Dale

[grannyjill]

Aha, I see what you are saying. I think it all relates to the kind of poems that people write. I rarely write about personal aspects of my life, especially not traumatic or dramatic stuff. I don't write poetry as therapy, I write because I love language. Even if I do write about stuff like cancer, or abortion etc. it is still kind of matter of fact...because that is how I am. Upbringing, I suppose - British stiff upper lip, keeping yourself to yourself, soldiering on...all that kind of thing. I have no desire to bare my soul to the world.....which explains why no-one feels the need to give me advice.
I also don't naturally write poetry which consists of layers (I would like to be able to do so but I've got a lot of learning to do first) so again, I don't get asked what my poem means. So, my experiences have been different to those who do do so. (I like that - who do do so!)
Good topic - very enlightening to me.

[popeye]

Sometimes I tilt my head to the side
and cross-eyed, try to imagine your view
through that close woven canvas you wear
as your gray-shadowed sleeve

I can’t find the itch that straddles my back,
though I seek it with your blank stare
and scratch with the fangs that ride
upon your tepid breath

I know the blood has been freed from my skin
by the footprints you leave with my shoes
as you waltz carefree into the cave
to drink from the Lethe once more

I stand before the mirror and you, knives sheathed,
try to suture my skin to my bloodied clothes,
not realising that it is not wholeness I desire,
but fragmented honesty

Sometimes I wonder if I’d be happier like this,
with my eyes pleasantly scaled and dark
and no questing blades to score my flesh
with lines not parallel like yours

but I don’t think I can breathe
underground

I've much enjoyed this Leanne, like a painting unexplained I keep coming back to it and find new meanings, critique is way out of my reach, suffice to say like the visual artist the poet need offer no explanation, and keeping Billy Collins in mind, confessions and torture are a no, no, though how to critique without one appears very difficult to me. Cheers and thanks for the read!

PS I feel that the demon lies in the poetry itself, perhaps finding glimmers of light that lead to a fuller understanding of the muse which seems to just stay out of reach.'that close woven canvas you wear as your gray-shadowed sleeve' might refer to the printed page.

---

"As to giving life advice - who does that?" (an answer to this is still germane to the poem, as a point of clarification and understanding, n'est-ce pas?)

Oh, on some of the other poetry sites there are all kinds of caretakers. People read what is written as being autobiographical and current, and express concern if something in the poem implies that the person is in some sort of danger, is experiencing difficult times, is close to dying, or killing themselves. It is also not uncommon because many non-poets use these poetry sites as kind of a public confessional to illicit responses of pity (what they call support). Kind of like when someone says, "you are not being very supportive", when what they really mean is, "your not telling me what I want to hear.") The bottom line, besides that unpleasant feeling that one gets from voyeurs under the guise of helping and concern, is a whole lot of drama, and very little poetry.
Although I chaff somewhat at the restriction put on some of the forums on this web site, it is far preferable than the total non-focus on poetry, and complete focus on game playing and drama that occurs on other sites, especially the larger ones.

"I am very interested in why a poet would not wish to clarify something in a poem."
There is a difference between clarifying a point, and giving the meaning of the poem, or detail the mental and psychological mechanisms that were operative while the poem was being created. Although one has to be complicit in making oneself that vulnerable, just the fact that they are trying to probe in such an intimate part of your life feels like a violation. To me it feels like they are trying to get to the muse within and suck it out. It is probably not that, but it often feels that way. Any poet knows, to some degree, even if it is unconscious, about the function of inspiration in creating something. Such questions related to inspiration feel violating, probably for two reasons: although poets may handle and use inspiration, they do not understand it (nor wish to jeopardize it by talking about it), nor have a rational way to describe it, and inspiration is often tied to very personal and intimate parts of ourselves we do not wish to reveal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If those answers vary to far from the topic I apologize. I suspect they might be, although they seem germane to me, they are less about function and mechanism, and more about the meaning or an explanation of the poem, and thus it becomes a matter of being an apologist, rather than that of a critic.

Should someone wish to clarify that distinction further, I would welcome it.

Dale

Thanks for the offer Dale and I tried to do that in my comment to Leanne, I would appreciate any comment or advice you may have on that, cheers

[Erthona]

Actually I meant: clarify where the line is in terms of what is OK to post in this section and what is not (what has thus far been expressed as staying on topic). I suspect that speaking as an apologist is crossing that line because it has moved away from straight critique.

The difference: A critique deals with how well and to what impact the meaning is expressed in a poem, not what the meaning is, or it's value, either relative or absolute. It is the difference between
1. Does a poem achieve it's goal? (Critic)
2. Is that goal good/valid? (Apologist/moralist)

[Leanne]

If trying to get to the meaning of symbols and so forth in a poem helps you to better critique it, then discussions like this are on topic. Moderators don't have any desire to appear arbitrary. The difference is, perhaps, in the tone of such discussions -- for example, nobody here has said "this poem has no meaning" or anything to that effect.

There is a thread in Poetry Discussion, however, that I will resurrect to further discuss the clarity/meaning issues. Meanwhile, I'm grateful for all the comments here and will reply as soon as I'm back from holiday, which will be next weekend. Enjoy 2012!

[Erthona]

"for example, nobody here has said "this poem has no meaning" or anything to that effect."

Ironically, because the word "meaning" has two distinct definitions, it often becomes ambiguous in it's usage. That distinction is really at the heart of the problem. Depending on which way you meant the above quote, the following has validity or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When GrannyJill asked.

"As to giving life advice - who does that?"

What she is doing is calling into question the premiss upon which your poem is founded, and thus it's worth/value (meaning). Thus she is very much questioning if the poem has meaning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two types of meaning. One is simply what the poem means, in does it have something intelligible to say? The response to such a question of "meaning" is I understand, or I don't understand. In other words, do I understand the message. This goes to our concept about if there is a message there at all, or is just gibberish.
The second type of meaning relates to it's value, or worth. It is what I call philosophical meaning, as it is used in the title of a book by Victor Frankl's, "Man's search for Meaning". The response to such a question is I agree, or I disagree.

The first type of meaning, the type which denotes understanding is very much in the realm of the critic, the second type of meaning, the type that denotes value/worth, is in the realm of the apologist.
I believe it is an important distinction, one that was blurred in the last century do to such school's of literary criticism as Marxism, Darwinism, Feminism, and other's of the same type. I believe that confusion in terms of poetical criticism is still operative today. These schools had a ready made ideology they brought to the table against which to measure the poem, and discover if it matched those expectations. So they determined if the poem was good or bad in relation to the ideology specific ethics they brought to the table. To me this is the area of the apologist, and I use that term quite intentionally, as I believe the response to these ideologies was similar if not the same as how people respond to religion. I do not believe such approaches are within the purview of the critic. I think the critic's job is, to determine whether or not the poem does what it is intended to do, in terms of what it is suppose to convey, and to what degree it does this. Thus the critic speaks to the idea, "Is the meaning clear?" Not, "is what the poem saying good or bad?". Just as when we use the phrase "This means something to me." to say that it has value. We say, "It may not mean anything to you, but it does to me." Meaning, it may not have value to you, but it does to me.
A critic would say Hitler was a very good speaker, in that he was very effective in motivating people to do as he wished. An apologist would say he was a very bad speaker because he manipulated people into going along with the atrocities that the Nazis inflicted upon the world.

This is the difference between the critic and the apologist, and that is the distinction I was trying to make in my question. When I defended your poem against GrannyJill's accusation that your premiss was not supported by reality, I was unclear which area that fell within. If it falls within the arena of the apologist, then it is inappropriate to discuss it on this thread, if it is in the arena of the critic it is perfectly appropriate to discuss it here.
I belabor this point because it seems many of the questionable replies in this forum fall into this grey area, and it seems there is a lot of confusion related to this. Aside from that, I think it is a major philosophical problem in poetic criticism that must be continually dealt with. If we are going to allow as valid the point of view of the apologist, then we open the door to the full gamut of reader response, and must acknowledge that any response, no matter how personal or tangential is appropriate to the discussion, if for no other reason than we have thrown away any objective measuring stick by which to say it should not be allowed.

Dale

[rayheinrich]

Finally! A nice, straight-forward poem from you.
(I liketh it muy muchly.)

I'm stealing the concept of "fragmented honesty" for myself.
(An imaginative Frankenstein/Prometheus et. al. ref.)

If I were intrinsically evil, I'd change the snake metaphors to bat
and throw in some "Twilight" references...

Since I like to read it as an internal discussion, I think a bit of
ambiguity as to 'person' is called for.

Not many quibbles:
   While it should really be "close-woven", I can just see
   having "cross-eyed", "close-woven", and "gray-shadowed"
   one after the other, so I understand.

   I would prefer a bit more anatomical accuracy, but, this being
   poetry and all...

   "Lethe": well, don't get me started. While I personally dislike
   anyone younger than 120 resorting to Greek allusionism, I am
   willing to put up with it as long as they forgive my unremitting
   drug metaphorizationizing.

---------------

grannyjill said: "I am very interested in why a poet would not wish to clarify something in a poem."

There are lots of reasons. One of my favs is that it's a good way to
invite readers into your poem by letting them shape parts of the poem
to suite themselves.


grannyjill said: "I also don't naturally write poetry which consists of layers"

Actually, it's impossible to write poetry that doesn't have layers as no
method of communication is accurate enough not to produce them.

[grannyjill]

I would wish for clarification of parts of a poem which are gibberish to me....not clarification of what a poem 'means'.....that is for me to ponder on.

Mark used the word 'median' in one of his poems. - I had only known this word in is relation to 'average, mean etc.' but this didn't help my understanding of his verse. So, I looked it up in my dictionary - it went on at some length about about all kinds of medians - but, nowhere did it say it was a traffic island in the middle of the road! I needed that information from the horse's mouth.

My reference to 'layers' follows from me reading a Don Paterson's poem 'Imperial' - and being bowled over by the last two lines....

the night we lay down on the flag of surrender
and woke on the flag of Japan

and realising after several reads that the flag of Japan is a white sheet with a red circle in the middle - the aftermath of the girl's loss of virginity and not just 'the flag of Japan'...doh, I am slow!

[Erthona]

On dictionary.com it is listed as definition number 6. However it only list it as "median strip" with no definition. You have to click on it to get the definition. It is also a fairly new usage,starting around 1940, which was around the same time that the divided road came into existence. I think it may be an American thing, still it is a common usage here. When I am reading someone who is British, I am aware they may use words and phrases with which I am unfamiliar, or in different ways than I have known them to be used.

"I would wish for clarification of parts of a poem which are gibberish to me....not clarification of what a poem 'means'.....that is for me to ponder on."

One of the reason I harp on clarity, and about not introducing unnecessary ambiguity, is we do not have instant feedback as we do in verbal speech. In the real world, all the reader has is the text. He does not have the option to ask for clarification. That is who we should have in mind when we write, It is very dangerous to fall into the trap of writing for the people on the web site.

[rayheinrich]

Erthona said:
"I believe it is an important distinction, one that was blurred in the last century do to such school's of literary criticism as Marxism, Darwinism, Feminism, and other's of the same type. I believe that confusion in terms of poetical criticism is still operative today. These schools had a ready made ideology they brought to the table against which to measure the poem, and discover if it matched those expectations. So they determined if the poem was good or bad in relation to the ideology specific ethics they brought to the table."

It seems as if you've brought your own ideological ethics to the table.

Criticizing art's effect on society is as valid as any of the other aesthetics.

P.S. And using the term "apologist": Here we go ad homineming down the river again.

[Erthona]

That's on the other thread Ray. Except for you adding

"P.S. And using the term "apologist": Here we go ad homineming down the river again."

It is not in the least ad hoc. I very clearly defined why I used it and how it was germane.

Evidently you didn't read what I wrote, and are just throwing things up to see if you can provoke me. If you want to discuss the topic I am happy to do so, but anything else I really don't have time for.

Dale

[Leanne]

[font=Courier New][size=1]

If I were intrinsically evil, I'd change the snake metaphors to bat
and throw in some "Twilight" references...

I think you're intrinsically evil just for mentioning "Twilight" :p

Since I like to read it as an internal discussion, I think a bit of
ambiguity as to 'person' is called for.

It wasn't originally intended as an internal discussion, but there's no reason it can't be seen as such. In fact, most "poets" (bloody hell I hate that term these days, given the kinds of people who apply it to themselves) seem to have difficulty (at least initially) reconciling their writing with their everyday lives.

Not many quibbles:
   While it should really be "close-woven", I can just see
   having "cross-eyed", "close-woven", and "gray-shadowed"
   one after the other, so I understand.

I wouldn't mind getting rid of "close woven" entirely, but the idea itself is important (to me) -- it may be one of those babies that needs killing though. I originally intended "tightknit", as these types tend to move in single-brain-cell thought impulse mobs.

   I would prefer a bit more anatomical accuracy, but, this being
   poetry and all...

I could try "2mm left of L2" if you like

   "Lethe": well, don't get me started. While I personally dislike
   anyone younger than 120 resorting to Greek allusionism, I am
   willing to put up with it as long as they forgive my unremitting
   drug metaphorizationizing.

Anything for you. Actually, I use Greek allusions all the time and am unapologetic about it -- they say exactly what I want to say without me having to think of anything original for myself...

[Leanne]

When GrannyJill asked.

"As to giving life advice - who does that?"

What she is doing is calling into question the premiss upon which your poem is founded, and thus it's worth/value (meaning). Thus she is very much questioning if the poem has meaning.

Dale, thanks for your support. You and I have been around for long enough to know that these types of folk not only exist, they are an epidemic You'll see now, though, why I'm usually hesitant to explain much about a poem directly -- any further comments tend to be directed more at the explanation than the poem, which closes the reader off to any other possibilities.

Once, rather incensed by this trend (in my younger, less diplomatic days!) I deliberately posted a poem addressing a similar topic to this one, with the appended explanation:

"This poem is about the plight of the homosexual wildebeest in a world dominated by leather-clad gnu"

Naturally, there followed several lovely comments about my bravery in speaking out about my oppression

[rayheinrich]

.
Leanne said: "... in my younger, less diplomatic days! ..."

On one of my less diplomatic days (all except for Tuesday)
I wrote "< this is literature for chrissake >". I've posted
it over in the "fun" section to preserve the topicalitinessnous
of this thread.

P.S. I hereby grant you dispensation from my personal dislike
of anyone younger than 120 resorting to Greek allusionism.
The reason for this is that, unlike almost everyone else
below 120 on the planet, you do it quite well. (This coming
from someone whose bedtime stories [read to me by my father]
frequently came from a venerable old copy of "Bulfinch's
Mythology".