12-27-2014, 11:17 PM
Brownlie,
"So, studying a book on sonnets by Wordsworth may be somewhat useful if you want to learn how to write."
Sorry, I don't know where that came from. I do think one of Wordsworth strong points was his command of the forms, not quite as good as Tennyson, but close; it was content he was generally lacking, unless Coleridge was around to inspire him.
Yes, thank you. It should be "too". Will change in my copy.
"The end of the rhyme is what seems to work here." Not really sure what you mean. "Alone" is an off rhyme, unless one has a very strange accent and pronounces "alone" like "a-loon". Then "loon" would rhyme with "doon"
"Playing with Kubla Kahn, maybe add quotations around some of it."
Actually I thought of that (As I really hate having the least look of impropriety in my poems, and as I am quick to point it out in others, as I think anyone should), but as it is merely alluding to the last few lines in "Kubla Kahn" (see below) it would be difficult to even foot note it. The first is the closest.
The second usage only repeats a single word.
"Weave a circle round him thrice, - "Weave the circle round me thrice" I think this deserves a footnote.
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed
And drunk the milk of Paradise." - "and entered into paradise."
"Weave the circle round me thrice1
one time alone will suffice.
Then let it truly be said,
he on greatness at last has fed,
before he lay down his head,
and entered into paradise."
1 Compare to Coleridge's "Kubla Kahn" fourth from last line: "Weave a circle round him thrice"
would that suffice?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Your poem is in pretty decent shape for not being edited yet. Hopefully, you are going to get rid of those capitals at the start of lines that aren't sentences. There are some lines I would question the point of, such as:
"When has the heifer or the blade of grass
Surprised the naked flesh across my neck?"
My response to that is, "why should it?" Your first line is great, but these 2 lines seems a great disconnect, despite speaking of cows and grass.
I'm not sure how something can be echoed dead? Could you explain it to me so I could understand. Evidently you have something specific in mind. I could understand it if "echoed" were removed, but it seems that is the lynchpin of what you are trying to explain. However I have no problem understanding the line before it.
"My summons to immortal spirits of the ode"
Although I don't know if it is really in line with the mythology, as "Melpomene" would probably be the muse of the ode. There are four muses of poetry and she seems the one would fit. Of course you are referring to something else. So this is a line where the meaning is clear, but I am unsure what you are referring to as I have never heard of "immortal spirits of the ode". It is obvious you are going back to an older tradition where the poet ask for inspiration from some source. The nearest I can come would be an allusion to Wordsworth's "Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood", which is a slim reed indeed, but outside of creating from whole cloth I am at a loss.
"I’ve conjured chasing mythic skylarks."
Do you mean "I've conjured while chasing mythic skylarks"?
I have never heard of "mythic skylarks". In fact when I did a search on the internet the only thing I got was this page. For all intents you might have said angelic toads. Undefined and undefinable phrases like this seem to be the main problem in this poem. I'm assuming that the grammatical problems, such as the use of "Pleiades" without the use of an article (the)will be corrected in the edit.
(The following is a continuation of this thread's discussion and not primarily related to Brownlie's poem, although it uses it as a spring board into the topic.)
I think to go farther is unfair as this is still rough/unedited (Brownlie's poem). I would simply advise to look at all the phrases and make sure they describe something that a reader can understand. It is good you are trying to stretch the boundaries of metaphor and description, but they still must be within the range of what is recognizable. All the cool looking/sounding metaphors/descriptions in the world do a person no good if they do not translate into something the reader can comprehend. It doesn't matter if it somehow makes sense to me, the question is does it make sense to the reader.
I have noticed a problem during this age, from about the 1970's forward. People are so poorly trained in poetry that they have a completely false apprehension about it. The first and foremost of which is the dubious idea that somehow poetry that is obscure or difficult to understand makes it good poetry. This idea derives from reading poems, primarily in school, without understanding the context. What is thought to be obscure is simply a non-understanding of the context of the time the poem was written. It would be the same as thinking what made Shakespeare a genius was that he used "thees" and "thous". I have actually met people who thought this was true, and tried to write poetry with the use of these archaic pronouns. This is completely understandable in the United States, as most teachers, teach from a list of the "great poems" but haven't a clue as to why these poems are great; understandable, but not acceptable. So we have fast food mentality adults coming into the larger world and deciding for whatever reason they want to write poetry. They have at most a 10% understanding of what the poetry they are reading is doing, completely unaware of most of the poem. So when they write, they copy only the superficial aspects of the poems they have read without any true understanding, or worse an erroneous understanding of what they are attempting. I'll reference what I said earlier (although there are many others, just less obvious), that people write "free verse" but have never trained their the ear, which only comes with learning to write formal poetry. It might be of interest to note that Allen Ginsberg wrote only formal poetry for the first part of his life, and when he did begin to write "free verse" or "beat" it was with a very good understanding of the underlying rhythmic quality of poetry. However, for those who had not studied formal poetry (metered and rhymed), and more so, had actually written formal poetry, hadn't a clue what he was doing in his poetry. To them he was just writing words that had no rhyme and no meter, simply expressed his thoughts. Then people thought, well I can do that, and then I can share my brilliant insights with the rest of the world. whaa-hoo! If one approached such a person, and tried to explain where they were going wrong, their reply was the standard that was birthed in the beginning of political correctness. "Everybody has an opinion, yours is no better than mine!" Thus effectively insulating themselves from any kind of criticism that actually addressed the main problems of their "poetry". Willful ignorance is not a pretty thing, and it makes for even worse poetry. Whether people want to here it or not, clarity is a major problem with poetry today. Either a writer is unskilled in communicating his (I use the generic him which also includes she/her) point, or he is a follower of the who flung doo, where they just throw a bunch a words up and see what sticks, hoping because no one understands it, the reader will interpret it as too deep for them to understand, thus effectively blaming the reader for the lack of ability of the writer; i.e., "if you were smarter you would be able to make something out of my poetry because it is there to be had", when in actuality the only one being had is the reader. As most people are not trained in poetry, they go along with this BS, and agree to try harder in the future to understanding a poem that is not written to be understood.
It is really beyond comprehension how this occurs. Poetry is the only arena of writing that is excused from unclear writing. A person would certainly complain if he bought an item that needed to be assembled and the instruction were completely unintelligible. Oh wait, they most often are. But we do not accept that it is out fault, and if we were smarter we would be able to comprehend the instruction. No, we rail against the idiot who wrote the instruction as an incompetent boob. If, in the corporate world someone were to write up a report that was as incomprehensible as some of this poetry, they would probably lose their job, if not then, then the next time. If one buys a novel and it reads like the instruction to your new put-it-together-yourself home entertainment center, even though it has a name here and describes a car there, a house over there, but none seem to be connected to each other, one would quickly demand a refund and say "I got scammed".
Granted at times poets deal with difficult or unfamiliar topics, which is why metaphor is our main tool. However the point of metaphor is to make something which is not known, or a perception which is new known, available to the reader in a way the reader can understand. It is not used to purposefully obfuscate what is being communicated to make it appear more than what it actually is. Such deceit has no place in poetry.
Dale
"So, studying a book on sonnets by Wordsworth may be somewhat useful if you want to learn how to write."
Sorry, I don't know where that came from. I do think one of Wordsworth strong points was his command of the forms, not quite as good as Tennyson, but close; it was content he was generally lacking, unless Coleridge was around to inspire him.
Yes, thank you. It should be "too". Will change in my copy.
"The end of the rhyme is what seems to work here." Not really sure what you mean. "Alone" is an off rhyme, unless one has a very strange accent and pronounces "alone" like "a-loon". Then "loon" would rhyme with "doon"
"Playing with Kubla Kahn, maybe add quotations around some of it."
Actually I thought of that (As I really hate having the least look of impropriety in my poems, and as I am quick to point it out in others, as I think anyone should), but as it is merely alluding to the last few lines in "Kubla Kahn" (see below) it would be difficult to even foot note it. The first is the closest.
The second usage only repeats a single word.
"Weave a circle round him thrice, - "Weave the circle round me thrice" I think this deserves a footnote.
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed
And drunk the milk of Paradise." - "and entered into paradise."
"Weave the circle round me thrice1
one time alone will suffice.
Then let it truly be said,
he on greatness at last has fed,
before he lay down his head,
and entered into paradise."
1 Compare to Coleridge's "Kubla Kahn" fourth from last line: "Weave a circle round him thrice"
would that suffice?
____________________________________________________________________________________
Your poem is in pretty decent shape for not being edited yet. Hopefully, you are going to get rid of those capitals at the start of lines that aren't sentences. There are some lines I would question the point of, such as:
"When has the heifer or the blade of grass
Surprised the naked flesh across my neck?"
My response to that is, "why should it?" Your first line is great, but these 2 lines seems a great disconnect, despite speaking of cows and grass.
I'm not sure how something can be echoed dead? Could you explain it to me so I could understand. Evidently you have something specific in mind. I could understand it if "echoed" were removed, but it seems that is the lynchpin of what you are trying to explain. However I have no problem understanding the line before it.
"My summons to immortal spirits of the ode"
Although I don't know if it is really in line with the mythology, as "Melpomene" would probably be the muse of the ode. There are four muses of poetry and she seems the one would fit. Of course you are referring to something else. So this is a line where the meaning is clear, but I am unsure what you are referring to as I have never heard of "immortal spirits of the ode". It is obvious you are going back to an older tradition where the poet ask for inspiration from some source. The nearest I can come would be an allusion to Wordsworth's "Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood", which is a slim reed indeed, but outside of creating from whole cloth I am at a loss.
"I’ve conjured chasing mythic skylarks."
Do you mean "I've conjured while chasing mythic skylarks"?
I have never heard of "mythic skylarks". In fact when I did a search on the internet the only thing I got was this page. For all intents you might have said angelic toads. Undefined and undefinable phrases like this seem to be the main problem in this poem. I'm assuming that the grammatical problems, such as the use of "Pleiades" without the use of an article (the)will be corrected in the edit.
(The following is a continuation of this thread's discussion and not primarily related to Brownlie's poem, although it uses it as a spring board into the topic.)
I think to go farther is unfair as this is still rough/unedited (Brownlie's poem). I would simply advise to look at all the phrases and make sure they describe something that a reader can understand. It is good you are trying to stretch the boundaries of metaphor and description, but they still must be within the range of what is recognizable. All the cool looking/sounding metaphors/descriptions in the world do a person no good if they do not translate into something the reader can comprehend. It doesn't matter if it somehow makes sense to me, the question is does it make sense to the reader.
I have noticed a problem during this age, from about the 1970's forward. People are so poorly trained in poetry that they have a completely false apprehension about it. The first and foremost of which is the dubious idea that somehow poetry that is obscure or difficult to understand makes it good poetry. This idea derives from reading poems, primarily in school, without understanding the context. What is thought to be obscure is simply a non-understanding of the context of the time the poem was written. It would be the same as thinking what made Shakespeare a genius was that he used "thees" and "thous". I have actually met people who thought this was true, and tried to write poetry with the use of these archaic pronouns. This is completely understandable in the United States, as most teachers, teach from a list of the "great poems" but haven't a clue as to why these poems are great; understandable, but not acceptable. So we have fast food mentality adults coming into the larger world and deciding for whatever reason they want to write poetry. They have at most a 10% understanding of what the poetry they are reading is doing, completely unaware of most of the poem. So when they write, they copy only the superficial aspects of the poems they have read without any true understanding, or worse an erroneous understanding of what they are attempting. I'll reference what I said earlier (although there are many others, just less obvious), that people write "free verse" but have never trained their the ear, which only comes with learning to write formal poetry. It might be of interest to note that Allen Ginsberg wrote only formal poetry for the first part of his life, and when he did begin to write "free verse" or "beat" it was with a very good understanding of the underlying rhythmic quality of poetry. However, for those who had not studied formal poetry (metered and rhymed), and more so, had actually written formal poetry, hadn't a clue what he was doing in his poetry. To them he was just writing words that had no rhyme and no meter, simply expressed his thoughts. Then people thought, well I can do that, and then I can share my brilliant insights with the rest of the world. whaa-hoo! If one approached such a person, and tried to explain where they were going wrong, their reply was the standard that was birthed in the beginning of political correctness. "Everybody has an opinion, yours is no better than mine!" Thus effectively insulating themselves from any kind of criticism that actually addressed the main problems of their "poetry". Willful ignorance is not a pretty thing, and it makes for even worse poetry. Whether people want to here it or not, clarity is a major problem with poetry today. Either a writer is unskilled in communicating his (I use the generic him which also includes she/her) point, or he is a follower of the who flung doo, where they just throw a bunch a words up and see what sticks, hoping because no one understands it, the reader will interpret it as too deep for them to understand, thus effectively blaming the reader for the lack of ability of the writer; i.e., "if you were smarter you would be able to make something out of my poetry because it is there to be had", when in actuality the only one being had is the reader. As most people are not trained in poetry, they go along with this BS, and agree to try harder in the future to understanding a poem that is not written to be understood.
It is really beyond comprehension how this occurs. Poetry is the only arena of writing that is excused from unclear writing. A person would certainly complain if he bought an item that needed to be assembled and the instruction were completely unintelligible. Oh wait, they most often are. But we do not accept that it is out fault, and if we were smarter we would be able to comprehend the instruction. No, we rail against the idiot who wrote the instruction as an incompetent boob. If, in the corporate world someone were to write up a report that was as incomprehensible as some of this poetry, they would probably lose their job, if not then, then the next time. If one buys a novel and it reads like the instruction to your new put-it-together-yourself home entertainment center, even though it has a name here and describes a car there, a house over there, but none seem to be connected to each other, one would quickly demand a refund and say "I got scammed".
Granted at times poets deal with difficult or unfamiliar topics, which is why metaphor is our main tool. However the point of metaphor is to make something which is not known, or a perception which is new known, available to the reader in a way the reader can understand. It is not used to purposefully obfuscate what is being communicated to make it appear more than what it actually is. Such deceit has no place in poetry.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.