07-30-2012, 01:08 PM
Thanks for your thoughts, guys. I found some of your comments very useful.
Though I don't want to privilege my intentions over your readings, the poem can be interpreted as a (regrettably) sarcastic and bitchy criticism of an archetypal neo-formalist ideologue, though it includes a certain amount of the usual pomo undermining of itself, particularly in the second and third strophes. It ends in a deflated shrug, which Philatone correctly identifies as being intended to seem abrupt and unpleasant. I was going for the feeling of a person walking away mid-argument after suddenly becoming overwhelmed by the pointless and unproductive nature of the discourse, particularly struck by the other party's inability to even understand how he was being criticised.
billy: You're certainly not at "fault" in any way. I regularly write (worse! share!) poems that have no particular desire to communicate meaning unambiguously. Sometimes even poetry that has no specific interest in communicating semiotically at all. I know this annoys some people, but I think that's to do with them having a pretty narrow idea of what poetry is. My own conception of poetry would be inclusive of genres such as asemic writing, for example, where there doesn't have to be any intended semantic content. I found your take on the media report commentary in the second stanza valuable.
philatone:
--"Interchum" is a neologism meaning "someone you're friendly with on the Internet only". It's intended in this context to be somewhat diminutive and trivialising, in the way that someone who dislikes you might call you "mate" or "buddy".
--There's no reason consciously intended by me re: the first item in the list getting two lines.
--I appreciate what you're saying about the second stanza feeling tangential and a bit of an abrupt "pull". Its purpose is to try to illustrate how far apart the two actors' (the artist and his critic/the speaker's) perspectives are . While the artist is absolutely certain of his beliefs and their rectitude, his critic is sceptical to the point of near-solipsism. I may try to find a smoother way of doing this.
--The hat is a top hat. There's enough detail in the sentence to make this able to be determined. The critic uses it here by way of self-mockery, as a symbol of his own elitism/dandyism.
--"The game" is the critic's role criticising the artist and his art, or art and artists more generally.
abu nuwas: The title has been nicked from you how? You would have liked it to have had a title, or you've used a similar title in the past?
Thanks again for the feedback. I'll be making some changes.
-pk
Though I don't want to privilege my intentions over your readings, the poem can be interpreted as a (regrettably) sarcastic and bitchy criticism of an archetypal neo-formalist ideologue, though it includes a certain amount of the usual pomo undermining of itself, particularly in the second and third strophes. It ends in a deflated shrug, which Philatone correctly identifies as being intended to seem abrupt and unpleasant. I was going for the feeling of a person walking away mid-argument after suddenly becoming overwhelmed by the pointless and unproductive nature of the discourse, particularly struck by the other party's inability to even understand how he was being criticised.
billy: You're certainly not at "fault" in any way. I regularly write (worse! share!) poems that have no particular desire to communicate meaning unambiguously. Sometimes even poetry that has no specific interest in communicating semiotically at all. I know this annoys some people, but I think that's to do with them having a pretty narrow idea of what poetry is. My own conception of poetry would be inclusive of genres such as asemic writing, for example, where there doesn't have to be any intended semantic content. I found your take on the media report commentary in the second stanza valuable.
philatone:
--"Interchum" is a neologism meaning "someone you're friendly with on the Internet only". It's intended in this context to be somewhat diminutive and trivialising, in the way that someone who dislikes you might call you "mate" or "buddy".
--There's no reason consciously intended by me re: the first item in the list getting two lines.
--I appreciate what you're saying about the second stanza feeling tangential and a bit of an abrupt "pull". Its purpose is to try to illustrate how far apart the two actors' (the artist and his critic/the speaker's) perspectives are . While the artist is absolutely certain of his beliefs and their rectitude, his critic is sceptical to the point of near-solipsism. I may try to find a smoother way of doing this.
--The hat is a top hat. There's enough detail in the sentence to make this able to be determined. The critic uses it here by way of self-mockery, as a symbol of his own elitism/dandyism.
--"The game" is the critic's role criticising the artist and his art, or art and artists more generally.
abu nuwas: The title has been nicked from you how? You would have liked it to have had a title, or you've used a similar title in the past?
Thanks again for the feedback. I'll be making some changes.
-pk