12-21-2011, 07:09 PM
Each individual will come to a piece of poetry with their own ideals, life experiences, and cultural memories. What immediately tugs at one reader may appear to be nonsense to another. While I do agree that proper spelling is necessary, grammar and punctuation are tools not all poets embrace. It does not necessarily make them bad poets.
If an idea is to be put forth as straightforwardly as possible that is stripped down prose, not poetry. Poetry illicits emotion and instinct while telling a story. There is a huge difference between writing " I smelled a rose" and "the sweet scent of petals caressed my nostrils" or even "flushed bouquets invaded and bedded their angel faces". Angel Face is a type of rose, but not every one knows that.
Literary devices such as metaphor,simile, alliteration, allusion, hyperbole, etc. do not have to be abused cliches. In point of fact, I find pieces more enjoyable that introduce these things in such a manner as to be unconventional. I also think the reader is who gives the poem meaning. The poet expresses themselves, hopefully in a manner others connect with. The reader then infuses their own personality (good and bad) into what they are reading.
While there are certainly guidelines for interpretation and critique, the guidelines will be different for each individual. By experience we are each trained to recognize different things. Personal taste will account for much of what is accepted or rejected. This is true even in the world of publishing.
Although I frequently layer esoteric substances and ideas into my writing, it is not an academic process. I write simply because there is a part of myself that must do so or die. It is hot and passionate and comes at will, not by design. This does not mean I write without intent or concrete ideas. People who know me personally or have read me at length tend to 'get' my way of communicating. Some, like Todd, are uncanny in their abilities to see the layers and grasp the truth beneath. I am generally pleased whenever someone comments back having found something different than what I had intended.
This problem is one I see often. An example I think befitting is one from scripture. Many people have trouble grasping the words of Jesus. This is because they are reading from the viewpoint of a modern western culture. He did not speak in riddles, he simply operated from the fulcrum point in between two tensions. For someone well versed in Kabbalistic principles he makes perfect sense.
If a persons own tastes and preferences limit the scope of understanding that is too bad. It does not have to be projected onto others.
If an idea is to be put forth as straightforwardly as possible that is stripped down prose, not poetry. Poetry illicits emotion and instinct while telling a story. There is a huge difference between writing " I smelled a rose" and "the sweet scent of petals caressed my nostrils" or even "flushed bouquets invaded and bedded their angel faces". Angel Face is a type of rose, but not every one knows that.
Literary devices such as metaphor,simile, alliteration, allusion, hyperbole, etc. do not have to be abused cliches. In point of fact, I find pieces more enjoyable that introduce these things in such a manner as to be unconventional. I also think the reader is who gives the poem meaning. The poet expresses themselves, hopefully in a manner others connect with. The reader then infuses their own personality (good and bad) into what they are reading.
While there are certainly guidelines for interpretation and critique, the guidelines will be different for each individual. By experience we are each trained to recognize different things. Personal taste will account for much of what is accepted or rejected. This is true even in the world of publishing.
Although I frequently layer esoteric substances and ideas into my writing, it is not an academic process. I write simply because there is a part of myself that must do so or die. It is hot and passionate and comes at will, not by design. This does not mean I write without intent or concrete ideas. People who know me personally or have read me at length tend to 'get' my way of communicating. Some, like Todd, are uncanny in their abilities to see the layers and grasp the truth beneath. I am generally pleased whenever someone comments back having found something different than what I had intended.
This problem is one I see often. An example I think befitting is one from scripture. Many people have trouble grasping the words of Jesus. This is because they are reading from the viewpoint of a modern western culture. He did not speak in riddles, he simply operated from the fulcrum point in between two tensions. For someone well versed in Kabbalistic principles he makes perfect sense.
If a persons own tastes and preferences limit the scope of understanding that is too bad. It does not have to be projected onto others.
(12-17-2011, 01:36 AM)rbl Wrote: you dismiss all prominent apocalypse theories where saints prevail and shove the dining room in the closet. I find this disturbing. Not because you launched directly into a personal declaration, but because this smacks of aggressive pain. As a woman, I believe this type of sentiment is something my sex knows intimately - how to shove something horrendously painful into submission and shut the door on it (i.e. the dining room into the closet).
I know your restlessness, the tangled scent of red. there's nothing heroic about this. The first impression I had here hit me quite hard, and rang of something aborted, whether it was a child, an idea, a romance, or a life path.
you're irresistible amongst flat tires, and the minutia of a daytime half-moon. I found this to be lovely. After the castigation of your opening line and the destruction of the second, this is the portion of daily grind incidentals which either holds a couple together like mortar, or crumbles their bond to dust.
To me this poem is a healing process.
PS. If you can, try your hand at giving some of the others a bit of feedback. If you already have, thanks, can you do some more?