11-17-2014, 03:59 AM
It's def in the wrong forum! Sorry! It should be in misc! All apologies.
And as to the "enlightening the wretched fools," that's not my opinion of the folks here at all. I love you guys, and apologize if I'm seeming like I'm lording mystery over anyone.
In any case, here's my analysis, for anyone who's curious what I was going for:
I know this is poor form, but this poem is almost certainly the best thing I will ever write. Problem is, to see why, you have to walk stepwise through a very difficult analysis that, on its face, the poem doesn't appear to justify. So, against the normal practices, I'm going to provide the analysis, myself . . . It feels weird to me, too, but I think you'll end up liking it . . . I hope . . . (I just sacrificed a small animal to pacify the gods of leanne, billy, milo, et al.'s rolling eyeballs. Aweemaway, lions
)
The analysis of this poem comprises five passes.
The first pass was exceptionally well-stated by mercedes, above, as a dig against self-referential poetry. The poem appears at first to be merely irritating. It seems to be a written version of "made you look." As a poem, it references cynicism, hucksterism, negativity, trickery, and vacuousness.
It is a self-referential poem referencing nothing. And that's true for 999,999 of 1,000,000 hypothetical readers. It's a self-referential poem.
To discover the second-pass requires quite an epiphany. It requires the analyst to realize that for that 1-in-1,000,000 reader, it will not be a self-referential poem. Because for that one hypothetical (or actual--the analysis holds either way) reader, a bug will land on the white space just as the reader is reading.
And that changes everything.
That one reader will have an experience 180-degrees different from all other readers. For that one reader, the poem will be spooky. The line, "now what?" will ask the reader to take seriously the miraculous? random? meaningful? accidental? experience that she just had. In short, the reader will be engaged in the kinda of questions that make human beings interesting and good.
The title, self-titled, now emphasizes "self-". Self- refers to that specific reader.
Pass three requires the realization that that one readers experience reforms the self-referential nature of the poem for all other readers, as the poem now references not itself, but the experience if that one reader. This elevation of that readers experience implicates the word "-titled." It is now a word meaning "titled, as a ruler: a king, viscount, etc."
The fourth pass requires the realization that the poem is now about the abstract notion of dignity. It is an optimistic comment on the power of one individual's humanity to defeat the cynicism of a world of other readers. The emphasis returns to the word "self-".
Finally, the fifth pass requires the realization that the reader who conducts such an analysis has, herself, verified the cynicism-defeating experience of the hypothetical reader with the hypothetical bug. This last step reunites "self-" and "-titled".
Or so it seems to me.
And as to the "enlightening the wretched fools," that's not my opinion of the folks here at all. I love you guys, and apologize if I'm seeming like I'm lording mystery over anyone.
In any case, here's my analysis, for anyone who's curious what I was going for:
I know this is poor form, but this poem is almost certainly the best thing I will ever write. Problem is, to see why, you have to walk stepwise through a very difficult analysis that, on its face, the poem doesn't appear to justify. So, against the normal practices, I'm going to provide the analysis, myself . . . It feels weird to me, too, but I think you'll end up liking it . . . I hope . . . (I just sacrificed a small animal to pacify the gods of leanne, billy, milo, et al.'s rolling eyeballs. Aweemaway, lions
)The analysis of this poem comprises five passes.
The first pass was exceptionally well-stated by mercedes, above, as a dig against self-referential poetry. The poem appears at first to be merely irritating. It seems to be a written version of "made you look." As a poem, it references cynicism, hucksterism, negativity, trickery, and vacuousness.
It is a self-referential poem referencing nothing. And that's true for 999,999 of 1,000,000 hypothetical readers. It's a self-referential poem.
To discover the second-pass requires quite an epiphany. It requires the analyst to realize that for that 1-in-1,000,000 reader, it will not be a self-referential poem. Because for that one hypothetical (or actual--the analysis holds either way) reader, a bug will land on the white space just as the reader is reading.
And that changes everything.
That one reader will have an experience 180-degrees different from all other readers. For that one reader, the poem will be spooky. The line, "now what?" will ask the reader to take seriously the miraculous? random? meaningful? accidental? experience that she just had. In short, the reader will be engaged in the kinda of questions that make human beings interesting and good.
The title, self-titled, now emphasizes "self-". Self- refers to that specific reader.
Pass three requires the realization that that one readers experience reforms the self-referential nature of the poem for all other readers, as the poem now references not itself, but the experience if that one reader. This elevation of that readers experience implicates the word "-titled." It is now a word meaning "titled, as a ruler: a king, viscount, etc."
The fourth pass requires the realization that the poem is now about the abstract notion of dignity. It is an optimistic comment on the power of one individual's humanity to defeat the cynicism of a world of other readers. The emphasis returns to the word "self-".
Finally, the fifth pass requires the realization that the reader who conducts such an analysis has, herself, verified the cynicism-defeating experience of the hypothetical reader with the hypothetical bug. This last step reunites "self-" and "-titled".
Or so it seems to me.
A yak is normal.