<![CDATA[Poetry Forum - Poetry Discussion]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/ Mon, 31 Aug 2026 06:02:14 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[A Room with a Bath]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27553.html Sun, 30 Aug 2026 04:10:21 +0000 Kaarlo Tuomi]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27553.html
I am not I'm afraid a writer of poetry, unless you count the drivel I wrote to my girlfriend when I was a love-struck teenager, but I am a reader of poetry and I am researching a book on poetry in film. I have just come across a reference in a film to a poem that possibly exists but confirming the details of the poem, or even its author, is proving problematic and I was hoping that someone here might be able to help.

the film is Band á part (1964) by Jean-Luc Godard. the film is set in Paris, and an early scene is set in an English class where the teacher explains that they will be using classical teaching methods which means that "it is not necessary to learn A Room With a Bath but it is necessary to spell Thomas Hardy correctly," at which point she turns round and writes Thomas Hardy on the blackboard.

A Room With a Bath is an obvious reference to a poem the students do not need to learn. Google search seems to think A Room With a Bath (ARWAB) is a humorous poem and has offered me both A.P. Herbert and Ogden Nash as possibilities for its author. the first time it said that A.P. Herbert was also a co-founder of the American Professional Golfers Association, which I took to be a pretty obvious AI hallucination. then it said the author was Ogden Nash with no further details, and on a third try it claimed that A.P. Herbert wrote it and it was first published in Punch in 1922 and then appeared in Mild and Bitter (1936).

the online Punch archive does not include ARWAB in any edition between 1910 when Herbert first started submitting verse to them and 1922 when the archive ends (there is no 1912 in the archive). copies of Mild and Bitter in the Internet Archive are covers only with no text inside so I have been unable to independently confirm any of these details.

I have obviously searched considerably further than the AI summary at the top, I have visited all my usual poetry haunts, but all I have for my trouble is a large number of poems about baths and bathing and poems set in Bath but no substantive evidence of for or about a poem called ARWAB.

does anyone here have anything to add?

many thanks,

Kaarlo Tuomi]]>
I am not I'm afraid a writer of poetry, unless you count the drivel I wrote to my girlfriend when I was a love-struck teenager, but I am a reader of poetry and I am researching a book on poetry in film. I have just come across a reference in a film to a poem that possibly exists but confirming the details of the poem, or even its author, is proving problematic and I was hoping that someone here might be able to help.

the film is Band á part (1964) by Jean-Luc Godard. the film is set in Paris, and an early scene is set in an English class where the teacher explains that they will be using classical teaching methods which means that "it is not necessary to learn A Room With a Bath but it is necessary to spell Thomas Hardy correctly," at which point she turns round and writes Thomas Hardy on the blackboard.

A Room With a Bath is an obvious reference to a poem the students do not need to learn. Google search seems to think A Room With a Bath (ARWAB) is a humorous poem and has offered me both A.P. Herbert and Ogden Nash as possibilities for its author. the first time it said that A.P. Herbert was also a co-founder of the American Professional Golfers Association, which I took to be a pretty obvious AI hallucination. then it said the author was Ogden Nash with no further details, and on a third try it claimed that A.P. Herbert wrote it and it was first published in Punch in 1922 and then appeared in Mild and Bitter (1936).

the online Punch archive does not include ARWAB in any edition between 1910 when Herbert first started submitting verse to them and 1922 when the archive ends (there is no 1912 in the archive). copies of Mild and Bitter in the Internet Archive are covers only with no text inside so I have been unable to independently confirm any of these details.

I have obviously searched considerably further than the AI summary at the top, I have visited all my usual poetry haunts, but all I have for my trouble is a large number of poems about baths and bathing and poems set in Bath but no substantive evidence of for or about a poem called ARWAB.

does anyone here have anything to add?

many thanks,

Kaarlo Tuomi]]> <![CDATA[Anya Johnson]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27546.html Wed, 26 Aug 2026 15:29:02 +0000 matsunosuperfan]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27546.html https://onlypoems.com/poems/anya-johnson

I'm completely infatuated.]]> https://onlypoems.com/poems/anya-johnson

I'm completely infatuated.]]> <![CDATA[where are the poets writing to be read?]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27544.html Wed, 26 Aug 2026 14:54:18 +0000 matsunosuperfan]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27544.html <![CDATA[Signatures]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27529.html Fri, 21 Aug 2026 16:33:20 +0000 dukealien]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27529.html
I recently read a news story in which Anthropic, developer of AIs such as Claude, is planning to include "code" in Claude's output which - though invisible to human readers - would allow Claude to determine if a written document had been written by Claude.  It was claimed that this signature would be unaffected by typography, file format, etc., and could be recognized (by Claude) even in incomplete samples of text.

First off, the motivations are obvious:  judges will only need to run electronically submitted legal documents through Claude to find out if the AI had created them (with severe consequences for the parties filing them).  The same for publishers, editors, professors, and Hollywood producers.

Second fork:  of course this aspect of Claude's services would motivate courts, producers, etc., to "hire" Claude - to the benefit of Anthropic.

Third fork:  this would also motivate even slightly sketchy writers *not* to use Claude specifically - the same way law firms refuse to use Word™ due to its tendency to hide comments, approvals, and old drafts in the file.  In a roundabout way, this could actually increase trust... a sort of public service by Anthropic even among communities that don't hire them... the way concealed firearm carriers benefit those who don't:  deterrence.

Question:  how does/will this affect (unassisted) writers, and poets in particular?  Does it?
In case it may seem poetry is too short for a "signature" like this to fit, a thought on what it might involve.  Not linguistic tics, but easily (for a massive machine) followed rules.  For example, "From the tenth sentence on, every prime-numbered sentence will contain a prime number of words."  I think this would be undetectable and (since it effectively counts spaces instead of syllables) workable, especially for long documents.  Remember, it's the machine (with its resources) that has to conform and detect, not a person who can't look at the whole document as he composes it.  The actual rule could be more complicated (ignoring sentences, for example).]]>
I recently read a news story in which Anthropic, developer of AIs such as Claude, is planning to include "code" in Claude's output which - though invisible to human readers - would allow Claude to determine if a written document had been written by Claude.  It was claimed that this signature would be unaffected by typography, file format, etc., and could be recognized (by Claude) even in incomplete samples of text.

First off, the motivations are obvious:  judges will only need to run electronically submitted legal documents through Claude to find out if the AI had created them (with severe consequences for the parties filing them).  The same for publishers, editors, professors, and Hollywood producers.

Second fork:  of course this aspect of Claude's services would motivate courts, producers, etc., to "hire" Claude - to the benefit of Anthropic.

Third fork:  this would also motivate even slightly sketchy writers *not* to use Claude specifically - the same way law firms refuse to use Word™ due to its tendency to hide comments, approvals, and old drafts in the file.  In a roundabout way, this could actually increase trust... a sort of public service by Anthropic even among communities that don't hire them... the way concealed firearm carriers benefit those who don't:  deterrence.

Question:  how does/will this affect (unassisted) writers, and poets in particular?  Does it?
In case it may seem poetry is too short for a "signature" like this to fit, a thought on what it might involve.  Not linguistic tics, but easily (for a massive machine) followed rules.  For example, "From the tenth sentence on, every prime-numbered sentence will contain a prime number of words."  I think this would be undetectable and (since it effectively counts spaces instead of syllables) workable, especially for long documents.  Remember, it's the machine (with its resources) that has to conform and detect, not a person who can't look at the whole document as he composes it.  The actual rule could be more complicated (ignoring sentences, for example).]]> <![CDATA[Man this forum is so inactive, it's a real drag]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27512.html Sat, 08 Aug 2026 00:36:57 +0000 matsunosuperfan]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27512.html
(08-08-2026, 09:36 AM)matsunosuperfan Wrote:  I like it here but it is a bummer that people don't even post daily. Also it seems there are like, 6 truly active users. Suffer the little poets to come unto us?

I don't even need to post as often as I draft, I just want something to crit XD]]>
(08-08-2026, 09:36 AM)matsunosuperfan Wrote:  I like it here but it is a bummer that people don't even post daily. Also it seems there are like, 6 truly active users. Suffer the little poets to come unto us?

I don't even need to post as often as I draft, I just want something to crit XD]]> <![CDATA[The Epic]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27500.html Tue, 28 Jul 2026 07:58:36 +0000 RiverNotch]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27500.html
My general thoughts on Nolan's Odyssey are that it's sufficiently faithful, and that Nolan's obsession with chronological disorder works well to give an impression of the original poem's overall vibe. The chuds were dead wrong, not only by being racist, but also because I think the movie's best performances were delivered by Lupita Nyong'o and Elliott Page, even if one of those actors had only a bit role. Those who had more general misgivings over the trailers were only half-wrong: the trailers definitely highlight the worst aspects of the film, namely its drabness, but when one actually views the film one gets so thoroughly impressed by what Nolan and company do right that one doesn't care if, say, Odysseus' ships are more Viking than Greek, or that Agamemnon's costuming is too angular.

In fact, Agamemnon's aura of menace is emblematic of what the film typically gets bang on, which is that the aura or vibe of what sequences it chooses to adapt match the aura or vibe of Homer's story, certain adaptational differences aside. (Here we get into spoilers, not so much for Homer's story as for how Nolan chose to adapt it.) The encounters with Polyphemus, Circe, the Sirens, and the dead are terrifying in ways that capture the overall spirit of terror in those episodes as written, even if the scenes were somewhat truncated. The Fall of Troy is a spectacle one cannot help but cry over, much as every veteran in the book cries when they hear people sing of their war, though that episode of the war itself I don't remember being so directly described by Homer. Odysseus' final encounter with his dog and the slaughtering of the suitors are truly cathartic, even if the latter feels more in the spirit of a contemporary action film.

As for the overall spirit of the adaptation, three things stood out for me, two as I watched the film and one more in retrospect. Most obvious is Nolan's historicizing of the Odyssey qua the Bronze Age collapse, to the point that characters outright mention "peoples of the sea" (and Odysseus himself says "Our age of bronze is ending"). I liked what Nolan meant to do here, even in terms of overall message---that old social contracts, being broken, have left our world in ruins, though we'll get to this in a bit more detail later on---but, I mean, those quoted lines made me roll my eyes in the theatre. Nolan messing with time is a 'Nolanism' that really works for a narrative as sprawling as this, but Nolan writing lines like those....

Next is Nolan's sanitizing of the Odyssey, in particular Odysseus' character. The truncation of the encounter with Polyphemus involved cutting Odysseus making the cyclops drunk, telling the cyclops his name is nobody, and later shouting to everyone but the cyclops that his name is actually Odysseus---this is a sanitization of Odysseus' character that I really didn't mind, since in the film his particular actions still get his men killed, which I believe was the final point of his hubris in the book. But where the sanitizations become....interesting....is in the way the film emphasizes the Fall of Troy, especially Odysseus' culpability in it, such that it becomes a sort of 'ancestral sin' for posthomeric society being as broken as Odysseus or Nolan assay it to be; in the way the film emphasizes the virtue of Xenia, in the film called "Zeus's law", being far more based in the essential dignity of individuals---in their being made in the image of God, essentially---than being as rooted in notions of social class as in Homer; in the way the film frames Odysseus' departure from Ogygia as a "leap of faith", faith thus being framed more as the theological virtue than as the more straightforward loyalty or fidelity of the book; in the way the film omits the slaughtering of Odysseus's unfaithful slaves, again making it seem like Odysseus actually thought of his slaves as anything more than property. The combination of all these choices makes Nolan's Odysseus, not just 'modern', but also markedly 'Christian', which I personally liked, but which more generally is a choice neither good nor bad.

Now for a bad choice, or rather set of choices. Nolan completely omits the Phaeacians, including Nausicaa and Arete, conflating their role in the story with Calypso; Calypso herself gets Odysseus hooked on lotus, rather than the two episodes being entirely separate; Odysseus and his men spend much less time with Circe; Odysseus' time in the Underworld is reduced to a meeting with Tiresias, Agamemnon, and the movie-only character of Sinon, completely omitting his conversation with Anticleia; Athena is reduced to Odysseus's post-traumatic hallucination; and Penelope doesn't actively test Odysseus and his identity at the very end of the story. Some of those choices are for the sake of shortening or historicizing the story, sure, making it feel more verisimilitudinous to the modern audience, but added up, Nolan's adaptation is an oddly regressive one, when it comes to its women, even when compared to the millennia-old original.

What this adaptation means to say, overall, is probably a lot sharper than what the Odyssey has meant for its various audiences, and that's to be expected, since it's a three-hour-long film adaptation of a twenty-four-book-long epic poem, and it mainly goes back to Nolan's historicizing of the narrative, to his notion that certain old virtues such as Xenia, once broken by individuals, lead to irrevocable changes in society. I have heard some commentators note how Nolan's Odyssey is overall 'conservative' in its outlook, that it forwards too much a 'great man' theory of history, but I think this criticism is grossly misguided, since overall where Nolan's Odyssey is 'conservative' is where it faithfully adapts the narrative---where it delivers a millennia-old vision of history, one that predates the divide between conservatives and liberals or especially Carlyle's 19th century notions on 'Great Men'. Thematically, Nolan's Odyssey is only as 'conservative' as one wishes it to read it as 'conservative', its anti-Homeric regressiveness on women aside; one can just as well read its emphasis on Xenia as the emphasis on shared humanity from which all liberal and socialist ethics is ideally derived.

So....yeah. It's a great movie. I think my favorite Nolan movie is still Dunkirk, since that's a story where Nolan's biases against women and towards conservative politics are overcome by the subject matter---the systemic biases behind few women being involved in the Dunkirk evacuation is not one that needs to be interrogated by any adaptation of that story, while the adaptation itself ended up being far more collectivist and egalitarian than Nolan's tendencies might suggest---but my love for seeing Greek myths be treated with respect pushes this adaptation to a comfortable number two, or maybe number three next to The Dark Knight (a movie that is conservative to the point of being ur-fascist, sure, but damn if the spectacle don't impress).

Now, why I put this review in "Poetry Discussion" rather than "Movies, Music, and Media" is because I don't want to talk about Nolan's Odyssey alone, I want to talk about epics---rather, epic poetry, just to exclude things we conventionally describe as epic but are much closer to other genres, for instance movies.

An old, now-closed thread by Quix once asked the question, "What makes an epic poem"? To which this not-quite-dedicated scholar is wont to respond with this diagram of Northrop Frye's theory of genres, courtesy of Robert D. Denham: https://imgur.com/a/aYkcncw

In fact, Frye uses the terms 'epos' and 'epic' separately, with epics referring to particular works that are in genre more typically epos but also inclusive of such prose works as Finnegans Wake. 'Epic' he ties to his notion of 'encyclopaedic forms', which he defines as "presenting an anagogic form of symbolism, such as sacred scripture, or its analogue in other modes"---"modes" Frye generally defines as "a conventional power of action assumed about the chief characters in fictional literature, or the corresponding attitude assumed by the poet toward his audience in thematic literature", which in short we could say is the difference between, say, Dickens and Kafka, or between Scripture and the Commedia; "anagogic form of symbolism", even Frye struggles to describe in less than religious terms, so let's have it be the visionary sensibility shared by, say, Homer, Milton, Blake, and Joyce.

'Epics', then, he ties to cyclical structures of creation to apocalypse, law to kingdom, or birth to death, and he further classifies epics into epics of return, epics of wrath, analogical epics (as in, analogical to some process within the aforementioned cyclical structures), and contrast epics (as in, contrasting one cyclical structure with another). The examples he furnishes are numerous, and thus instructive. Epics of return include the Eddas, the Muspilli, the last book of the Mahabharata, and the Odyssey. Epics of wrath include the Iliad. Analogical epics include the Hercules legends, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Holy Scripture, the Commedia, the Faerie Queene, legends of the Holy Grail, the Aeneid, Milton, Blake, and Joyce's Finnegans Wake. Contrast epics include Ovid, Hesiod, Boethius, and Langland's Piers Plowman. Lastly, there is the distinction he adapts from Milton between the brief epic and the diffuse epic, with the brief epic being a less encyclopaedic epic, or perhaps a more thematically concentrated lyric: his examples here are the Book of Job, Beowulf, Spenser's Epithalamion, Lycidas, Michael's prophecy in Paradise Lost, and The Waste Land.

I'd say Frye gets to what we generally think of as epics, which is to say we generally think of epics as two different kinds of work. There's epics per Frye's definition of 'epos', with an emphasis I think on rhythm and radical of presentation, and there's epics per Frye's definition of 'epic', flexibly allowing for a good deal of prose and lyric poetry, but also thoroughly excluding, say, the less universalizing works of Jane Austen or Sappho. 

I don't know how useful this all is for the general reader, except maybe that it helps set up expectations. The epic-as-'epos' is usually gonna read more even-handed and monotonous than a dramatic or lyric poem; the epic-as-'epic' is gonna feel more expansive in scope than your average novel or anthology. As such, the general reader is advised to have copious cups of coffee or tea ready when reading epics-as-'epos'; reading epics-as-'epic', and it seems enjoyment of such works is really a matter of taste, just as one could prefer Mozart over Wagner when listening to operas, albeit I agree with Frye that certain epics-as-'epic', especially the Bible and Homer, should be required reading for anyone serious about anything related to (Western) literature.

As for the writer, herein lies my dilemma. I'm setting myself up for failure by desiring to write an epic, but my first dilemma is whether it's gonna be an epic in the second sense alone, or if it's gonna be an epic in both senses. As someone whose main experience writing creatively is by writing lyrics, it's gonna be much easier for me to write an epic in the first sense rather than to write prose, but won't that sound terribly outdated, sinking the project just as I embark on it? Indeed, what use do we still have for a genre that's meant mainly to be recited or read aloud for a long period of time, and with a consistent metrical rhythm---we still have plays or at least films, we still have novels or at least comics, we still have anthologies or at least pop records, but where has gone the epic? And, in this age of nuclear disaster and climate catastrophe, how should one anticipate its return?

(It's been ages since I read Frye's The Anatomy of Criticism, so for this discussion, I've mainly relied on this dissertation: https://macblog.mcmaster.ca/fryeblog/cri...eface.html )]]>
My general thoughts on Nolan's Odyssey are that it's sufficiently faithful, and that Nolan's obsession with chronological disorder works well to give an impression of the original poem's overall vibe. The chuds were dead wrong, not only by being racist, but also because I think the movie's best performances were delivered by Lupita Nyong'o and Elliott Page, even if one of those actors had only a bit role. Those who had more general misgivings over the trailers were only half-wrong: the trailers definitely highlight the worst aspects of the film, namely its drabness, but when one actually views the film one gets so thoroughly impressed by what Nolan and company do right that one doesn't care if, say, Odysseus' ships are more Viking than Greek, or that Agamemnon's costuming is too angular.

In fact, Agamemnon's aura of menace is emblematic of what the film typically gets bang on, which is that the aura or vibe of what sequences it chooses to adapt match the aura or vibe of Homer's story, certain adaptational differences aside. (Here we get into spoilers, not so much for Homer's story as for how Nolan chose to adapt it.) The encounters with Polyphemus, Circe, the Sirens, and the dead are terrifying in ways that capture the overall spirit of terror in those episodes as written, even if the scenes were somewhat truncated. The Fall of Troy is a spectacle one cannot help but cry over, much as every veteran in the book cries when they hear people sing of their war, though that episode of the war itself I don't remember being so directly described by Homer. Odysseus' final encounter with his dog and the slaughtering of the suitors are truly cathartic, even if the latter feels more in the spirit of a contemporary action film.

As for the overall spirit of the adaptation, three things stood out for me, two as I watched the film and one more in retrospect. Most obvious is Nolan's historicizing of the Odyssey qua the Bronze Age collapse, to the point that characters outright mention "peoples of the sea" (and Odysseus himself says "Our age of bronze is ending"). I liked what Nolan meant to do here, even in terms of overall message---that old social contracts, being broken, have left our world in ruins, though we'll get to this in a bit more detail later on---but, I mean, those quoted lines made me roll my eyes in the theatre. Nolan messing with time is a 'Nolanism' that really works for a narrative as sprawling as this, but Nolan writing lines like those....

Next is Nolan's sanitizing of the Odyssey, in particular Odysseus' character. The truncation of the encounter with Polyphemus involved cutting Odysseus making the cyclops drunk, telling the cyclops his name is nobody, and later shouting to everyone but the cyclops that his name is actually Odysseus---this is a sanitization of Odysseus' character that I really didn't mind, since in the film his particular actions still get his men killed, which I believe was the final point of his hubris in the book. But where the sanitizations become....interesting....is in the way the film emphasizes the Fall of Troy, especially Odysseus' culpability in it, such that it becomes a sort of 'ancestral sin' for posthomeric society being as broken as Odysseus or Nolan assay it to be; in the way the film emphasizes the virtue of Xenia, in the film called "Zeus's law", being far more based in the essential dignity of individuals---in their being made in the image of God, essentially---than being as rooted in notions of social class as in Homer; in the way the film frames Odysseus' departure from Ogygia as a "leap of faith", faith thus being framed more as the theological virtue than as the more straightforward loyalty or fidelity of the book; in the way the film omits the slaughtering of Odysseus's unfaithful slaves, again making it seem like Odysseus actually thought of his slaves as anything more than property. The combination of all these choices makes Nolan's Odysseus, not just 'modern', but also markedly 'Christian', which I personally liked, but which more generally is a choice neither good nor bad.

Now for a bad choice, or rather set of choices. Nolan completely omits the Phaeacians, including Nausicaa and Arete, conflating their role in the story with Calypso; Calypso herself gets Odysseus hooked on lotus, rather than the two episodes being entirely separate; Odysseus and his men spend much less time with Circe; Odysseus' time in the Underworld is reduced to a meeting with Tiresias, Agamemnon, and the movie-only character of Sinon, completely omitting his conversation with Anticleia; Athena is reduced to Odysseus's post-traumatic hallucination; and Penelope doesn't actively test Odysseus and his identity at the very end of the story. Some of those choices are for the sake of shortening or historicizing the story, sure, making it feel more verisimilitudinous to the modern audience, but added up, Nolan's adaptation is an oddly regressive one, when it comes to its women, even when compared to the millennia-old original.

What this adaptation means to say, overall, is probably a lot sharper than what the Odyssey has meant for its various audiences, and that's to be expected, since it's a three-hour-long film adaptation of a twenty-four-book-long epic poem, and it mainly goes back to Nolan's historicizing of the narrative, to his notion that certain old virtues such as Xenia, once broken by individuals, lead to irrevocable changes in society. I have heard some commentators note how Nolan's Odyssey is overall 'conservative' in its outlook, that it forwards too much a 'great man' theory of history, but I think this criticism is grossly misguided, since overall where Nolan's Odyssey is 'conservative' is where it faithfully adapts the narrative---where it delivers a millennia-old vision of history, one that predates the divide between conservatives and liberals or especially Carlyle's 19th century notions on 'Great Men'. Thematically, Nolan's Odyssey is only as 'conservative' as one wishes it to read it as 'conservative', its anti-Homeric regressiveness on women aside; one can just as well read its emphasis on Xenia as the emphasis on shared humanity from which all liberal and socialist ethics is ideally derived.

So....yeah. It's a great movie. I think my favorite Nolan movie is still Dunkirk, since that's a story where Nolan's biases against women and towards conservative politics are overcome by the subject matter---the systemic biases behind few women being involved in the Dunkirk evacuation is not one that needs to be interrogated by any adaptation of that story, while the adaptation itself ended up being far more collectivist and egalitarian than Nolan's tendencies might suggest---but my love for seeing Greek myths be treated with respect pushes this adaptation to a comfortable number two, or maybe number three next to The Dark Knight (a movie that is conservative to the point of being ur-fascist, sure, but damn if the spectacle don't impress).

Now, why I put this review in "Poetry Discussion" rather than "Movies, Music, and Media" is because I don't want to talk about Nolan's Odyssey alone, I want to talk about epics---rather, epic poetry, just to exclude things we conventionally describe as epic but are much closer to other genres, for instance movies.

An old, now-closed thread by Quix once asked the question, "What makes an epic poem"? To which this not-quite-dedicated scholar is wont to respond with this diagram of Northrop Frye's theory of genres, courtesy of Robert D. Denham: https://imgur.com/a/aYkcncw

In fact, Frye uses the terms 'epos' and 'epic' separately, with epics referring to particular works that are in genre more typically epos but also inclusive of such prose works as Finnegans Wake. 'Epic' he ties to his notion of 'encyclopaedic forms', which he defines as "presenting an anagogic form of symbolism, such as sacred scripture, or its analogue in other modes"---"modes" Frye generally defines as "a conventional power of action assumed about the chief characters in fictional literature, or the corresponding attitude assumed by the poet toward his audience in thematic literature", which in short we could say is the difference between, say, Dickens and Kafka, or between Scripture and the Commedia; "anagogic form of symbolism", even Frye struggles to describe in less than religious terms, so let's have it be the visionary sensibility shared by, say, Homer, Milton, Blake, and Joyce.

'Epics', then, he ties to cyclical structures of creation to apocalypse, law to kingdom, or birth to death, and he further classifies epics into epics of return, epics of wrath, analogical epics (as in, analogical to some process within the aforementioned cyclical structures), and contrast epics (as in, contrasting one cyclical structure with another). The examples he furnishes are numerous, and thus instructive. Epics of return include the Eddas, the Muspilli, the last book of the Mahabharata, and the Odyssey. Epics of wrath include the Iliad. Analogical epics include the Hercules legends, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Holy Scripture, the Commedia, the Faerie Queene, legends of the Holy Grail, the Aeneid, Milton, Blake, and Joyce's Finnegans Wake. Contrast epics include Ovid, Hesiod, Boethius, and Langland's Piers Plowman. Lastly, there is the distinction he adapts from Milton between the brief epic and the diffuse epic, with the brief epic being a less encyclopaedic epic, or perhaps a more thematically concentrated lyric: his examples here are the Book of Job, Beowulf, Spenser's Epithalamion, Lycidas, Michael's prophecy in Paradise Lost, and The Waste Land.

I'd say Frye gets to what we generally think of as epics, which is to say we generally think of epics as two different kinds of work. There's epics per Frye's definition of 'epos', with an emphasis I think on rhythm and radical of presentation, and there's epics per Frye's definition of 'epic', flexibly allowing for a good deal of prose and lyric poetry, but also thoroughly excluding, say, the less universalizing works of Jane Austen or Sappho. 

I don't know how useful this all is for the general reader, except maybe that it helps set up expectations. The epic-as-'epos' is usually gonna read more even-handed and monotonous than a dramatic or lyric poem; the epic-as-'epic' is gonna feel more expansive in scope than your average novel or anthology. As such, the general reader is advised to have copious cups of coffee or tea ready when reading epics-as-'epos'; reading epics-as-'epic', and it seems enjoyment of such works is really a matter of taste, just as one could prefer Mozart over Wagner when listening to operas, albeit I agree with Frye that certain epics-as-'epic', especially the Bible and Homer, should be required reading for anyone serious about anything related to (Western) literature.

As for the writer, herein lies my dilemma. I'm setting myself up for failure by desiring to write an epic, but my first dilemma is whether it's gonna be an epic in the second sense alone, or if it's gonna be an epic in both senses. As someone whose main experience writing creatively is by writing lyrics, it's gonna be much easier for me to write an epic in the first sense rather than to write prose, but won't that sound terribly outdated, sinking the project just as I embark on it? Indeed, what use do we still have for a genre that's meant mainly to be recited or read aloud for a long period of time, and with a consistent metrical rhythm---we still have plays or at least films, we still have novels or at least comics, we still have anthologies or at least pop records, but where has gone the epic? And, in this age of nuclear disaster and climate catastrophe, how should one anticipate its return?

(It's been ages since I read Frye's The Anatomy of Criticism, so for this discussion, I've mainly relied on this dissertation: https://macblog.mcmaster.ca/fryeblog/cri...eface.html )]]> <![CDATA[Why post?]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27486.html Sun, 19 Jul 2026 01:06:38 +0000 busker]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27486.html It can’t really help you improve a poem, though. Its own poems are worthless.
I put Matsun’s poem about the crow through Claude and this is what I got:

The qualities that make “Intersection” timeless — stripped-down, universal images; no cultural anchors; elemental diction — are the same qualities that make it harder to tell apart from other poems doing the same thing. Crows as omens, watching windows, grief coded through waiting — this is well-trodden territory in contemporary poetry about loss and anticipation. A reader who’s spent time in journals or workshops has seen this move before: nature image as vessel for unspeakable feeling, short unrhymed tercets, an ending that widens the aperture to something cosmic. None of that makes the poem bad, but it does mean its voice is less distinctive than its craft.

Which is more than what most humans will be able to or have time to articulate

So does it make poetry fora such as this one worthless? Or useful only because as humans we want other humans to read our poems? Why? I can understand Rowens trying to impress women, but what of those who are already women? Or men who aren’t after that particular angle?
What does this site offer but familiarity?]]> It can’t really help you improve a poem, though. Its own poems are worthless.
I put Matsun’s poem about the crow through Claude and this is what I got:

The qualities that make “Intersection” timeless — stripped-down, universal images; no cultural anchors; elemental diction — are the same qualities that make it harder to tell apart from other poems doing the same thing. Crows as omens, watching windows, grief coded through waiting — this is well-trodden territory in contemporary poetry about loss and anticipation. A reader who’s spent time in journals or workshops has seen this move before: nature image as vessel for unspeakable feeling, short unrhymed tercets, an ending that widens the aperture to something cosmic. None of that makes the poem bad, but it does mean its voice is less distinctive than its craft.

Which is more than what most humans will be able to or have time to articulate

So does it make poetry fora such as this one worthless? Or useful only because as humans we want other humans to read our poems? Why? I can understand Rowens trying to impress women, but what of those who are already women? Or men who aren’t after that particular angle?
What does this site offer but familiarity?]]> <![CDATA[Grammar, Punctuation & Good Critique]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27463.html Wed, 01 Jul 2026 13:59:35 +0000 matsunosuperfan]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27463.html
I think this is frankly completely misguided. There's no reason to think a poem can't use fragments, or must link two independents with a full stop, or whatever normal rules of engagement apply to punctuation and syntax. 

If it doesn't serve the poem, say so. But this is POETRY y'all! There is no inherent reason to reify conventions of Standard English. 

Ok, Fox out!]]>
I think this is frankly completely misguided. There's no reason to think a poem can't use fragments, or must link two independents with a full stop, or whatever normal rules of engagement apply to punctuation and syntax. 

If it doesn't serve the poem, say so. But this is POETRY y'all! There is no inherent reason to reify conventions of Standard English. 

Ok, Fox out!]]> <![CDATA[Is abu nuwas still around? what a thread!]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27413.html Wed, 03 Jun 2026 09:56:35 +0000 busker]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27413.html https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-12325.html

abu nuwas being right as usual in dismissing that fraud Ezra Pound]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-12325.html

abu nuwas being right as usual in dismissing that fraud Ezra Pound]]> <![CDATA[What is poetry]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27403.html Sun, 31 May 2026 16:16:02 +0000 Bruce V]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27403.html
Don't get me wrong:  I write poetry of different types.  But perhaps "poetry" is dead, and now we are simply wordsmiths. So, how would you define poetry?]]>
Don't get me wrong:  I write poetry of different types.  But perhaps "poetry" is dead, and now we are simply wordsmiths. So, how would you define poetry?]]> <![CDATA[No good English poets]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27380.html Sun, 17 May 2026 13:21:15 +0000 busker]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27380.html
I used to like Eliot, but it's hard to buy the argument any more that a rational human being actually believed that the creator of the universe sent his son who is also him and another person, in a universe that's been around for at least 14 billion years, to be killed by a Roman provincial governor as a blood sacrifice for the first homo erectus eating an apple. Yes, yes, all that can be interpreted as literary allegory, but you can't base a faith around that. So all that strutting about in a suit and wearing a hat, taking a cab, smoking a pipe and sounding posh all amounts to nothing.
Larkin built his reputation on saying 'the world sucks' 11,345 times, when the main problem was that he lived on a damp island. All his poems have the same structure of saying something seemingly mundane yet profound about how the world is bad, and taking four stanzas in coming to the conclusion that things weren't going to get any better.
His is the template that a lot of modern poets seem to follow. Look at this one, for instance. The lines in green are marvelous, but try saying that in fifty other poems and you're basically just on a whinge fest.

Mower
The mower stalled, twice; kneeling, I found   
A hedgehog jammed up against the blades,   
Killed. It had been in the long grass. 
I had seen it before, and even fed it, once.   
Now I had mauled its unobtrusive world   
Unmendably. Burial was no help:
Next morning I got up and it did not.
The first day after a death, the new absence   
Is always the same; we should be careful
Of each other, we should be kind   
While there is still time.]]>
I used to like Eliot, but it's hard to buy the argument any more that a rational human being actually believed that the creator of the universe sent his son who is also him and another person, in a universe that's been around for at least 14 billion years, to be killed by a Roman provincial governor as a blood sacrifice for the first homo erectus eating an apple. Yes, yes, all that can be interpreted as literary allegory, but you can't base a faith around that. So all that strutting about in a suit and wearing a hat, taking a cab, smoking a pipe and sounding posh all amounts to nothing.
Larkin built his reputation on saying 'the world sucks' 11,345 times, when the main problem was that he lived on a damp island. All his poems have the same structure of saying something seemingly mundane yet profound about how the world is bad, and taking four stanzas in coming to the conclusion that things weren't going to get any better.
His is the template that a lot of modern poets seem to follow. Look at this one, for instance. The lines in green are marvelous, but try saying that in fifty other poems and you're basically just on a whinge fest.

Mower
The mower stalled, twice; kneeling, I found   
A hedgehog jammed up against the blades,   
Killed. It had been in the long grass. 
I had seen it before, and even fed it, once.   
Now I had mauled its unobtrusive world   
Unmendably. Burial was no help:
Next morning I got up and it did not.
The first day after a death, the new absence   
Is always the same; we should be careful
Of each other, we should be kind   
While there is still time.]]> <![CDATA[What poem or play]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27358.html Fri, 08 May 2026 06:48:19 +0000 busker]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27358.html
For me, it was Prometheus Unbound at age 12. Then Love’s Labour’s Lost, and the two songs at the end.]]>
For me, it was Prometheus Unbound at age 12. Then Love’s Labour’s Lost, and the two songs at the end.]]> <![CDATA[NAPM et al.]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27348.html Sun, 03 May 2026 09:20:53 +0000 rayheinrich]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27348.html and an old list of pros and cons of NAPM came up from a zillion years ago. Never one to
ignore rabbit holes, I went out and did some new searching and added it to the list. I'm
posting it here since NAPM just finished and I thought some people here might be interested
in these or have some thoughts brought about by this year's NAPM that they'd like to add
to the thread.
(I only, haha, posted one this year. But in the distant past I think I completed it twice and
came close another time or two, but pretty much burnt out after that. My congratulations
to the gold critters this year, it takes dedication and grit. For me, after the first week and
a half, it usually got pretty grim. Smile


Pro: A poem‑a‑day exercise gets people writing regularly.

Con: The pressure to write daily discourages many people, especially beginners, from participating.

Pro: Diverse prompts expand subject matter and push writers into new territory.

Con: Many prompts are too form‑specific or too obscure, which can discourage new participants
and beginners and also lead to shallow content, imitation, and “poetry voice.”

Pro: Writing to a prompt teaches discipline and the ability to shape creativity around a subject.

Pro: The exercise reduces perfectionism and helps people loosen up.

Con: This looseness becomes an excuse for sloppy poetry, for normalizing underdeveloped work.

Pro: The shared challenge builds community and participation.

Pro/Con: I love participating in NAPM, but it shouldn't be confused with outreach to new writers,
it's a marathon for insiders, for veteran writers.

Con: High‑volume posting reduces the quality of critique and encourages quick, shallow responses.

Pro: Writers end the month with a reservoir of drafts they can revise later.

Con: Many never learn to revise because the habit of immediate posting becomes impulsive and
after enough participation becomes a habit.

Pro: Prompts can help writers discover new forms and techniques.

Con: Overemphasis on form invites cliché and imitation. Discourages beginners from writing
from personal experience and knowledge.

Pro: The exercise gives confidence because it provides personal confirmation of one's ability
to generate ideas rather than wait for them.

Con: The pressure to produce daily can cause burnout, diminish the pleasure in writing,
turn it into a homework exercise.

Pro: NAPM can be fun, energizing, and creatively stimulating.

Con: Many prompts encourage cliché, dramatization, and hyperbole.

Pro: Prompts can help writers break out of ruts and habitual subjects.

Con: Prompts that push too far outside of lived experience lead to imitation of existing poetry...
and, beginners especially, tend to draw from the many bad examples they've read in the past.

Pro: The exercise can help new writers identify with the larger community of poets and writers.

Con: The pressure to write daily discourages many people, especially beginners, from participating.

Pro: The structure gives people something to look forward to each day.

Con: Writing daily encourages posting first drafts without reflection or revision;
leaves little room for deep thinking or careful crafting.]]> and an old list of pros and cons of NAPM came up from a zillion years ago. Never one to
ignore rabbit holes, I went out and did some new searching and added it to the list. I'm
posting it here since NAPM just finished and I thought some people here might be interested
in these or have some thoughts brought about by this year's NAPM that they'd like to add
to the thread.
(I only, haha, posted one this year. But in the distant past I think I completed it twice and
came close another time or two, but pretty much burnt out after that. My congratulations
to the gold critters this year, it takes dedication and grit. For me, after the first week and
a half, it usually got pretty grim. Smile


Pro: A poem‑a‑day exercise gets people writing regularly.

Con: The pressure to write daily discourages many people, especially beginners, from participating.

Pro: Diverse prompts expand subject matter and push writers into new territory.

Con: Many prompts are too form‑specific or too obscure, which can discourage new participants
and beginners and also lead to shallow content, imitation, and “poetry voice.”

Pro: Writing to a prompt teaches discipline and the ability to shape creativity around a subject.

Pro: The exercise reduces perfectionism and helps people loosen up.

Con: This looseness becomes an excuse for sloppy poetry, for normalizing underdeveloped work.

Pro: The shared challenge builds community and participation.

Pro/Con: I love participating in NAPM, but it shouldn't be confused with outreach to new writers,
it's a marathon for insiders, for veteran writers.

Con: High‑volume posting reduces the quality of critique and encourages quick, shallow responses.

Pro: Writers end the month with a reservoir of drafts they can revise later.

Con: Many never learn to revise because the habit of immediate posting becomes impulsive and
after enough participation becomes a habit.

Pro: Prompts can help writers discover new forms and techniques.

Con: Overemphasis on form invites cliché and imitation. Discourages beginners from writing
from personal experience and knowledge.

Pro: The exercise gives confidence because it provides personal confirmation of one's ability
to generate ideas rather than wait for them.

Con: The pressure to produce daily can cause burnout, diminish the pleasure in writing,
turn it into a homework exercise.

Pro: NAPM can be fun, energizing, and creatively stimulating.

Con: Many prompts encourage cliché, dramatization, and hyperbole.

Pro: Prompts can help writers break out of ruts and habitual subjects.

Con: Prompts that push too far outside of lived experience lead to imitation of existing poetry...
and, beginners especially, tend to draw from the many bad examples they've read in the past.

Pro: The exercise can help new writers identify with the larger community of poets and writers.

Con: The pressure to write daily discourages many people, especially beginners, from participating.

Pro: The structure gives people something to look forward to each day.

Con: Writing daily encourages posting first drafts without reflection or revision;
leaves little room for deep thinking or careful crafting.]]> <![CDATA[Dancing The Critique]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27316.html Fri, 17 Apr 2026 13:10:26 +0000 wasellajam]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27316.html

Quote: it is not hard, but like anything worth doing, it takes time. Here are some useful tips.

1. Read through a poem around 10 times before rushing to hit the "reply" button.
2. On the first pass, try to enjoy the reading. Note lines, expression, word choices, etc. that you like.
3. On the second and third reads, try to pick out things that detract from your enjoyment (awkwardness, poor scansion, line breaks etc) weird grammar or syntax, poor spelling, cliches.
4. On your fourth and fifth reads, try to analyze why the writer picked /specific/ words. Are there double meaning? Symbolism? If the writer picked orchids at a funeral instead of irises, why?
5. Use google. There may be some words or concepts you are not familiar with.
6. What is the central metaphor? Does the word choice the author used complement it? Does it contrast it?
7. See #6 and consider if the writer was trying to use thesis/antithesis, perhaps for allegorical or satirical intent. (note - all Shakespearean sonnets should use thesis/antithesis in the final couplet>
8. Read once more to enjoy the poem. Feel the rhythm, say the words out loud.
9. Make a recording of the poem and listen back to it. Note areas that give you problems in the reading.
10. Comment “I liked this" and rush to post another poem of your own. Hysterical

I suspect we each have some version of a routine that when successful allows us to really take the poem on a spin around the room, to know it better than before we decided to really engage.

How many of the steps listed above do you use, which ones? Is there something identifiable in your method that leads you into a useful critique when you feel unsure? How much of it is in your head before you start and how much is spontaneous?

I’m hoping at least one comment on this thread will connect with someone who is hesitating to the point of inaction.
Please, tell me what you do. Smile]]>

Quote: it is not hard, but like anything worth doing, it takes time. Here are some useful tips.

1. Read through a poem around 10 times before rushing to hit the "reply" button.
2. On the first pass, try to enjoy the reading. Note lines, expression, word choices, etc. that you like.
3. On the second and third reads, try to pick out things that detract from your enjoyment (awkwardness, poor scansion, line breaks etc) weird grammar or syntax, poor spelling, cliches.
4. On your fourth and fifth reads, try to analyze why the writer picked /specific/ words. Are there double meaning? Symbolism? If the writer picked orchids at a funeral instead of irises, why?
5. Use google. There may be some words or concepts you are not familiar with.
6. What is the central metaphor? Does the word choice the author used complement it? Does it contrast it?
7. See #6 and consider if the writer was trying to use thesis/antithesis, perhaps for allegorical or satirical intent. (note - all Shakespearean sonnets should use thesis/antithesis in the final couplet>
8. Read once more to enjoy the poem. Feel the rhythm, say the words out loud.
9. Make a recording of the poem and listen back to it. Note areas that give you problems in the reading.
10. Comment “I liked this" and rush to post another poem of your own. Hysterical

I suspect we each have some version of a routine that when successful allows us to really take the poem on a spin around the room, to know it better than before we decided to really engage.

How many of the steps listed above do you use, which ones? Is there something identifiable in your method that leads you into a useful critique when you feel unsure? How much of it is in your head before you start and how much is spontaneous?

I’m hoping at least one comment on this thread will connect with someone who is hesitating to the point of inaction.
Please, tell me what you do. Smile]]> <![CDATA[To Shut Up Or Not To Shut Up]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27313.html Thu, 16 Apr 2026 13:52:51 +0000 wasellajam]]> https://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-27313.html

I've been thinking about why it seems to be so hard to get in the habit of posting critiques after a few reads of a workshop poem, even in basic. This has been discussed since the site began so obviously it's nothing new but I'd love to hear from current members in today's world. Do we not care enough to post? Do we care too much to post? These two comments caught my eye recently, so with permission to bring them up from the arse:

from Bunx
Quote:Not that it is a great excuse for me. I got pigpen up on my brother's old PC with the goal of giving crit and posting more. It's been a little interpersonally embarrassing how many times I've given crit then deleted, started an idea then deleted. I used to always prescribe to the whole if you don't have anything important to say than don't say anything. By this logic I am silent more often than not.

I wonder if anyone else feels similarly?

The other issue I have is having things fly over my head resulting in imposter syndrome. I feel like I need to understand the core of poem before I can hope to help make it better. Again not trying to justify myself but trying to list the barriers I have been running into as of late.

from milo
Quote:I always used to worry that I would come across as a snooty bastard or what not but in the end - it's say what you can or just shut up and shutting up is boring.

I'd love to post a poll here but I'm afraid you all will click and run. Smile If you've read this please take a minute more to comment. Time is precious but we all we waste plenty of it, what's one more minute? Thanks -ella]]>

I've been thinking about why it seems to be so hard to get in the habit of posting critiques after a few reads of a workshop poem, even in basic. This has been discussed since the site began so obviously it's nothing new but I'd love to hear from current members in today's world. Do we not care enough to post? Do we care too much to post? These two comments caught my eye recently, so with permission to bring them up from the arse:

from Bunx
Quote:Not that it is a great excuse for me. I got pigpen up on my brother's old PC with the goal of giving crit and posting more. It's been a little interpersonally embarrassing how many times I've given crit then deleted, started an idea then deleted. I used to always prescribe to the whole if you don't have anything important to say than don't say anything. By this logic I am silent more often than not.

I wonder if anyone else feels similarly?

The other issue I have is having things fly over my head resulting in imposter syndrome. I feel like I need to understand the core of poem before I can hope to help make it better. Again not trying to justify myself but trying to list the barriers I have been running into as of late.

from milo
Quote:I always used to worry that I would come across as a snooty bastard or what not but in the end - it's say what you can or just shut up and shutting up is boring.

I'd love to post a poll here but I'm afraid you all will click and run. Smile If you've read this please take a minute more to comment. Time is precious but we all we waste plenty of it, what's one more minute? Thanks -ella]]>