08-12-2023, 01:34 PM
They don't have flaws, maybe faults, in the sense of openings.
Each masterpiece, in its good and bad, are portals into the allusive playground.
This is how poetry works in a religious sense. The linkage.
You don't have to do that.
But you can, and that seems to be a technique that enriches.
Enriches what?
that's the question
is/are portals
you see?
With the Bible and other Mythology and pop culture, you can play with quirks, mistranslations, all this stuff.
The same with language. Archaic or not.
I have a quirk. I say that genius resides in silence. And that many biblical authors didn't know how rich with meaning their works were/are.
The same with poetry. But/And, all these things are games of context.
Deny the bible and shakespeare, you deny allusions straight down the line to right now poets writing.
The faults are important. The arguments are important.
People are interpreting things today. Did the poets plant all that stuff, knowingly?
Things come together, "after the fact",
Even if it's really stupid and ignorant sounding. Some things are masterpieces, they are, why? They are, anyway, because of what can be got out of them.
The faults, even. You can misinterpret that Shelley poem forever and get stuff. That's what makes it lasting.
I take poetry as literal magical reality.
Shelley is a powerful magus. Why? there is no answer to that question other than 1) I like his poems and 2) I can use his magic to make my own.
But the point I'm making in the context of this thread is:
Shelley was not talking like people talked. I've read 19th century autobiographies: even then, they were using their thous and thees theatrically.
We should all, before continuing this conversation, get drunk on milk and his or her or whatever vices of choice, read Shakespeare and Boswell, listen to Mozart (beethoven/chopin, whatever) and consider the Cold War.
Consider the Cold War.
And be glad.
.........
This whole message was built on allusion. Allusion which only works if you know the source material.
Or at least like what I wrote enough to digest the source material
UNKNOWINGLY
as most readers, and glad readers, of their favorite poetry do
Instead of looking at things and saying: wrong or archaic,
there's a lot more use in reading stuff and seeing how you can use it.
I'm not a regular person when I read poems. I read poems and say, that ties in with the things I write, I'm going to make that work with me.
I'm going to take everything that I read and appropriate it into what I write.
I'm not going to say: This syntax was distorted by Robert Browning, and complain about it.
Hell no!!! I'm going to utilize that last name Browning, and the critique of that man and his wife, and play with his eccentricities to enrich my own.
Forward and Upward
Each masterpiece, in its good and bad, are portals into the allusive playground.
This is how poetry works in a religious sense. The linkage.
You don't have to do that.
But you can, and that seems to be a technique that enriches.
Enriches what?
that's the question
is/are portals
you see?
With the Bible and other Mythology and pop culture, you can play with quirks, mistranslations, all this stuff.
The same with language. Archaic or not.
I have a quirk. I say that genius resides in silence. And that many biblical authors didn't know how rich with meaning their works were/are.
The same with poetry. But/And, all these things are games of context.
Deny the bible and shakespeare, you deny allusions straight down the line to right now poets writing.
The faults are important. The arguments are important.
People are interpreting things today. Did the poets plant all that stuff, knowingly?
Things come together, "after the fact",
Even if it's really stupid and ignorant sounding. Some things are masterpieces, they are, why? They are, anyway, because of what can be got out of them.
The faults, even. You can misinterpret that Shelley poem forever and get stuff. That's what makes it lasting.
I take poetry as literal magical reality.
Shelley is a powerful magus. Why? there is no answer to that question other than 1) I like his poems and 2) I can use his magic to make my own.
But the point I'm making in the context of this thread is:
Shelley was not talking like people talked. I've read 19th century autobiographies: even then, they were using their thous and thees theatrically.
We should all, before continuing this conversation, get drunk on milk and his or her or whatever vices of choice, read Shakespeare and Boswell, listen to Mozart (beethoven/chopin, whatever) and consider the Cold War.
Consider the Cold War.
And be glad.
.........
This whole message was built on allusion. Allusion which only works if you know the source material.
Or at least like what I wrote enough to digest the source material
UNKNOWINGLY
as most readers, and glad readers, of their favorite poetry do
Instead of looking at things and saying: wrong or archaic,
there's a lot more use in reading stuff and seeing how you can use it.
I'm not a regular person when I read poems. I read poems and say, that ties in with the things I write, I'm going to make that work with me.
I'm going to take everything that I read and appropriate it into what I write.
I'm not going to say: This syntax was distorted by Robert Browning, and complain about it.
Hell no!!! I'm going to utilize that last name Browning, and the critique of that man and his wife, and play with his eccentricities to enrich my own.
Forward and Upward