09-09-2013, 11:20 PM
Thank you, all, for your feedback. It's really most useful.
Bill, I thought I'd address some of your comments here. I left out some of your thoughts which I found rather difficult to decipher. One of my thoughts is that you should perhaps be more flexible with some of your convictions. But thank you for taking the time to consider my poem and offering your feedback.
Apologies if this moves into the territory of discussion rather than being a quick response to a critique!
I am sorry but I must completely disagree here. How simple poetry would be if it either had to make perfect literal sense or was stream of consciousness or psychedelia! No, no, no - poetic language is NOT black and white (or white and red): when we use metaphor we don't mean it to make literal sense (indeed, it is most important that it does - we need to stretch our minds to embrace this new image), but the metaphorically rich language of Keats or Wordsworth could not really be described as stream of consciousness or psychedelia; when poetry apostrophises inanimate objects the reader is not often under the impression that they are entering some drug trance. No - there is no either/or between literal sense and what you term 'stream of consciousness', but would perhaps be better described as a more abstracted style (indeed, a stream of consciousness can make perfect literal sense) - not in my poetry, and, I think you'll find, not in Milton, Spenser, Shakespeare etc. Perhaps read my lines again once you can entertain the possibility of a grey-scale? Until then I'm afraid we're just going to disagree.
I left point 2 because I could not make head nor tail of it. If you'd like a response, would you rephrase it a little more intelligibly?
I don't think the poet has to explain every bit of symbolism. And even if I did explain what I think is symbolic, I can't force the reader to find the same symbolism that I do.
To your first two questions I'd say 'ask a silly question and you'll get a silly answer'.
I'll briefly explain the rottweiler though. Rottweilers in Britain have a reputation of savagery and bloodthirstiness, but they are not exotic, they are commonplace. And I find that the dangers which we grow accustomed to, which we don't bat an eyelid at on the street, are truly terrifying.
Ah, you have seen a photo! Perhaps I should have posted a photo of someone's mangled body at the base of Beachy Head? Indeed, why do we need words at all? We have photos now! Seriously, Bill, did you think before you wrote this? If you did, think a bit harder - I don't find my single use of the word 'white' redundant (indeed, if you're set on looking for symbolism, consider all that cultural symbolism nestled in the contrast between white and red).
Though I have edited this out, I suggest you might broaden your notion of 'elegy'. No, this is not written in elegiacs. No, it is not celebrating the life and mourning the passing of a great figure. But I would have thought that the words 'ignoble strife' would suggest what sort of tradition I see this poem in. Lines from Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard:
Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife,
Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray;
Along the cool sequester'd vale of life
They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.
Gray's elegy mourns the uncelebrated, the forgotten - I guess you'd also comment underneath Gray's manuscript 'is this really an elegy?' In the strictest sense it isn't, but it is a profound meditation on loss, memory and death (all of which are central to my poem, though I would never suggest it to be in the same league!!). So, in a sense the elegy always was there - you just seemed to miss it.
Judas is not central to the actual text, yes - this is completely deliberate of course (when you look at the gospels, don't you find that Judas is in a funny way both central and peripheral?). And, of course, what we associate with Judas is betrayal and suicide. I really don't think Sylvia Plath has quite the same associations.
Bill, I thought I'd address some of your comments here. I left out some of your thoughts which I found rather difficult to decipher. One of my thoughts is that you should perhaps be more flexible with some of your convictions. But thank you for taking the time to consider my poem and offering your feedback.
Apologies if this moves into the territory of discussion rather than being a quick response to a critique!
Quote:1. The literal still needs to makes sense unless you opting for stream of consciousness/psychedelia, I get no impression that this is trying to be psychedelic. Setting white among chalk...
I am sorry but I must completely disagree here. How simple poetry would be if it either had to make perfect literal sense or was stream of consciousness or psychedelia! No, no, no - poetic language is NOT black and white (or white and red): when we use metaphor we don't mean it to make literal sense (indeed, it is most important that it does - we need to stretch our minds to embrace this new image), but the metaphorically rich language of Keats or Wordsworth could not really be described as stream of consciousness or psychedelia; when poetry apostrophises inanimate objects the reader is not often under the impression that they are entering some drug trance. No - there is no either/or between literal sense and what you term 'stream of consciousness', but would perhaps be better described as a more abstracted style (indeed, a stream of consciousness can make perfect literal sense) - not in my poetry, and, I think you'll find, not in Milton, Spenser, Shakespeare etc. Perhaps read my lines again once you can entertain the possibility of a grey-scale? Until then I'm afraid we're just going to disagree.
I left point 2 because I could not make head nor tail of it. If you'd like a response, would you rephrase it a little more intelligibly?
Quote:3. What do the cliffs mean? What does the wind mean? If you want to start playing around with symbols, you need start figuring if something is important. If it's important, you better know since you're the one who has to edit the piece. Of course, some things are incidental. So why the rottweiler? What is its symbolism?
I don't think the poet has to explain every bit of symbolism. And even if I did explain what I think is symbolic, I can't force the reader to find the same symbolism that I do.
To your first two questions I'd say 'ask a silly question and you'll get a silly answer'.
I'll briefly explain the rottweiler though. Rottweilers in Britain have a reputation of savagery and bloodthirstiness, but they are not exotic, they are commonplace. And I find that the dangers which we grow accustomed to, which we don't bat an eyelid at on the street, are truly terrifying.Quote:4. The cliffs are white. I haven't been to Beachy Head, but I have seen the photo. You could argue that the cliff is one giant white space, so in this sense, the poem has already established the white space and you no need to use the word "white".
Ah, you have seen a photo! Perhaps I should have posted a photo of someone's mangled body at the base of Beachy Head? Indeed, why do we need words at all? We have photos now! Seriously, Bill, did you think before you wrote this? If you did, think a bit harder - I don't find my single use of the word 'white' redundant (indeed, if you're set on looking for symbolism, consider all that cultural symbolism nestled in the contrast between white and red).
Quote:Actually some of the earlier lines which you pulled in the edit, point more towards the "white space":
An elegy for you, O friend:
Since the elegy really wasn't in the poem, you have to look elsewhere.
And no trace - no trace -
of life's ignoble strife.
If you want talk about the poem putting out a neon sign, these lines are. There was no trace of life's strife in the poem. Where is it? Of course, it's in the white space. By editing the lines out, you've actually made it harder for the reader to realize the white space you're talking about.
Though I have edited this out, I suggest you might broaden your notion of 'elegy'. No, this is not written in elegiacs. No, it is not celebrating the life and mourning the passing of a great figure. But I would have thought that the words 'ignoble strife' would suggest what sort of tradition I see this poem in. Lines from Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard:
Far from the madding crowd's ignoble strife,
Their sober wishes never learn'd to stray;
Along the cool sequester'd vale of life
They kept the noiseless tenor of their way.
Gray's elegy mourns the uncelebrated, the forgotten - I guess you'd also comment underneath Gray's manuscript 'is this really an elegy?' In the strictest sense it isn't, but it is a profound meditation on loss, memory and death (all of which are central to my poem, though I would never suggest it to be in the same league!!). So, in a sense the elegy always was there - you just seemed to miss it.
Quote:5. Still there is some need for the poem to fill in a space. I wonder if we titled this "Sylvia Plath at Beachy Head" would this change much. Of course, the white space changes, but does the poem's interaction with the white space change much?
In past circles I've been in, we might label this "namedropping". If we can't deliver, mention some heavyweight and have the heavyweight's white space (allusions and connotations) do all the work. But at the point, is the poem holding enough of ITS weight?
As for this last point, I'm not sure. Maybe the poem is, maybe it isn't, but it should be something that you are considering. My reaction of "Betrayal is a bit in the offering here for the reader, because Judas is not central to this piece" would lead to believe that the poem is close. But I'm not sure if enough of Judas is actually IN the poem.
Judas is not central to the actual text, yes - this is completely deliberate of course (when you look at the gospels, don't you find that Judas is in a funny way both central and peripheral?). And, of course, what we associate with Judas is betrayal and suicide. I really don't think Sylvia Plath has quite the same associations.