Using abstract nouns, adjectives, adverbs, et al.

[rayheinrich]

Just happened across this. I figured it might lead to a useful discussion;
or, even better, to some deliciously snide remarks:

Deciding to use an abstract noun (or adjective or adverb) in a poem is a
decision that should not be taken lightly. While there are very real (pun
intended) uses for them (ruling them out completely is a mistake), their
use can usually be attributed to a fit of sloth. An image that induces the feeling
of what an abstract noun only names, makes for a much more effective poem."
- Mary Oliver

-----------------------

"The beauty of a colorful spring garden."

versus:

"A garden filled with daffodils and spring." - Susan Mitchell

-----------------------

[billy]

i don't actually know what either of them are, i'm guessing neither do many others

[rayheinrich]

i don't actually know what either of them are, i'm guessing neither do many others

You know what they are, you just didn't know you knew:
Abstract nouns denote ideas qualities, states; not concrete objects.

They're the ones milo complains about when he critiques your poem.

A few common abstract nouns:
Love, Hate, Anger, Peace, Pride, Sympathy, Bravery, Loyalty, Honesty, Integrity,
Compassion, Charity, Success, Courage, Deceit, Skill, Beauty, Brilliance, Pain,
Misery, Beliefs, Dreams, Justice, Truth, Faith, Liberty, Knowledge, Thought...

[billy]

right, i know them; i call them imponderables

[rayheinrich]

right, i know them; i call them imponderables

Imponderables? I'd say they were the most over-pondered words in existence; and responsible
for unimaginably titanic piles of bullshite. (Is that the correct British term or do you just use "bullshit"?)

[Jezie]

Ok ok... This may get me into trouble... Yet... I am stuck. Abstract nouns, easy enough... But why ponder on abstract nouns and not catch the "they're
use can usually be attributed to a fit of sloth. ..." maybe it is because I break contractions up when I read and do not use them when I write. But this line bugs me... I do not know who Mary Oliver is... But why was "they're" used and not "their"? Again, not meaning to be rude or anything, just curious on basic grammar... And what I am missing here...

[billy]

i'd say mary dropped a faux there and should have said their.

the there their problem is a different animal altogether

[rayheinrich]

Ok ok...  This may get me into trouble...  Yet...  I am stuck.  Abstract nouns, easy enough...  But why ponder on abstract nouns and not catch the "they're
use can usually be attributed to a fit of sloth. ..." maybe it is because I break contractions up when I read and do not use them when I write.  But this line bugs me...  I do not know who Mary Oliver is...  But why was "they're" used and not "their"?  Again,  not meaning to be rude or anything,  just curious on basic grammar...  And what I am missing here...  

Oops, it wasn't Mary Oliver (who is a famous Pulitzer Prize winning poet that, if unslothfully Googled,
will appear in every result from 1 to 1000 in under a second); it was me not checking my Dragon Dictate
text carefully enough. (My sloth prefers dictating texts from books rather than typing them.) The Dragon
sometimes confuses "there", "they're", and "their"; and since my spell-checker thinks they're there
for their intended purposes (it doesn't, unfortunately, have a context checker), it leaves it to inattentive,
slothful me to proof-read the damn thing.

I have corrected my error.  Anyone reading this thread from now 'til the end of time will be confused
if they're too slothful to read the whole thing.


Billy! You still haven't answered my burning question:
Which term is more prevalent in good old Britain: "bullshite" or "bullshit" ?
(Inquiring minds need to know.)

[billy]

of the two it's bullshit, but more used is the word shite

[shemthepenman]

i don't think this is controversial at all. is there a argument for the liberal use of abstract nouns, adjectives, and adverbs? maybe. let's see if we can't make it controversial.

firstly, and possibly only (i haven't thought this through), poetry isn't simply a case of painting mental pictures. lines can be composed simply for sound, in which case, it depends on the motives of the poet whether they use 'beauty' or 'daffodils', and i don't think it is necessarily lazier one way or the other. furthermore, is it not also one of the aims of poetry to use words in unusual ways? even in the example you have offered [a garden filled with daffodils and spring] spring, an abstract noun, is being used like a concrete noun. it sounds a bit strange, but also satisfying. no doubt the first line is improved with the addition of the concrete 'daffodil', but it is the use of the abstract noun 'spring' that makes this line remotely interesting, and elevates it beyond the mere description of a scene: a garden filled with daffodils.
following on from that, certain abstract nouns are more abstract than others (note the difference between 'silence' and 'love'). in which case, 'beauty' is non-specific, general. the line 'the beauty of her smile' allows for a subjective interpretation; that is, one will simply imagine a smile which we personally find beautiful (this also suggests that abstract nouns never simply name things, they do generally evoke an image-just not a universal one); pretty lazy, i suppose, saying something like 'oh, you figure it out'. however, the word 'spring' is far less abstract; there is an inter-subjectivity that goes further than the individual case. it comes with specific sights and smells and tastes, etc. of course, these are still subjective, but there is also a shared experience of spring which the author is aware of when choosing to use this word.
er... yeah, well, i have lost my enthusiasm for the fight. fuck it. abstract nouns suck.

[rayheinrich]

of the two it's bullshit, but more used is the word shite

Thanks. As a Texan, us bein' next to cattle all the time, we tend towards "bullshit"
(literally). In poems aimed at Britain I shall use "shite" (will try to refrain from literal use).

---

i don't think this is controversial at all. is there a argument for the liberal use of abstract nouns, adjectives, and adverbs? maybe. let's see if we can't make it controversial.

firstly, and possibly only (i haven't thought this through), poetry isn't simply a case of painting mental pictures. lines can be composed simply for sound, in which case, it depends on the motives of the poet whether they use 'beauty' or 'daffodils', and i don't think it is necessarily lazier one way or the other. furthermore, is it not also one of the aims of poetry to use words in unusual ways? even in the example you have offered [a garden filled with daffodils and spring] spring, an abstract noun, is being used like a concrete noun. it sounds a bit strange, but also satisfying. no doubt the first line is improved with the addition of the concrete 'daffodil', but it is the use of the abstract noun 'spring' that makes this line remotely interesting, and elevates it beyond the mere description of a scene: a garden filled with daffodils.
following on from that, certain abstract nouns are more abstract than others (note the difference between 'silence' and 'love'). in which case, 'beauty' is non-specific, general. the line 'the beauty of her smile' allows for a subjective interpretation; that is, one will simply imagine a smile which we personally find beautiful (this also suggests that abstract nouns never simply name things, they do generally evoke an image-just not a universal one); pretty lazy, i suppose, saying something like 'oh, you figure it out'. however, the word 'spring' is far less abstract; there is an inter-subjectivity that goes further than the individual case. it comes with specific sights and smells and tastes, etc. of course, these are still subjective, but there is also a shared experience of spring which the author is aware of when choosing to use this word.
er... yeah, well, i have lost my enthusiasm for the fight. fuck it. abstract nouns suck.

I agree with you, they are definitely useful. And Mary Oliver agrees too.
She's just saying she thinks they are used too frequently; and often because the poet's too
lazy to be more specific. In her quote: "Deciding to use" doesn't imply "don't".
And neither do: "there are very real uses for them" and "ruling them out completely is a mistake".

And you make an interesting point when you say:
"spring, an abstract noun, is being used like a concrete noun".

"A garden filled with daffodils and spring."

Switching its category in such a way is certainly the heart of the line.
It might even be described as a poetic "turn".

Which brings up a corollary:

"My love is a rose."
"When she began to speak... it was then that the crowd truly saw the lioness in her heart."

Concrete nouns are frequently used as abstract ones as well.

Such wonderful poetic devices!

[Jezie]

Ok ok...  This may get me into trouble...  Yet...  I am stuck.  Abstract nouns, easy enough...  But why ponder on abstract nouns and not catch the "they're
use can usually be attributed to a fit of sloth. ..." maybe it is because I break contractions up when I read and do not use them when I write.  But this line bugs me...  I do not know who Mary Oliver is...  But why was "they're" used and not "their"?  Again,  not meaning to be rude or anything,  just curious on basic grammar...  And what I am missing here...  

Oops, it wasn't Mary Oliver (who is a famous Pulitzer Prize winning poet that, if unslothfully Googled,
will appear in every result from 1 to 1000 in under a second); it was me not checking my Dragon Dictate
text carefully enough. (My sloth prefers dictating texts from books rather than typing them.) The Dragon
sometimes confuses "there", "they're", and "their"; and since my spell-checker thinks they're there
for their intended purposes (it doesn't, unfortunately, have a context checker), it leaves it to inattentive,
slothful me to proof-read the damn thing.

I have corrected my error.  Anyone reading this thread from now 'til the end of time will be confused
if they're too slothful to read the whole thing.


Billy! You still haven't answered my burning question:
Which term is more prevalent in good old Britain: "bullshite" or "bullshit" ?
(Inquiring minds need to know.)

Ah... Was wondering... Thank you

[shemthepenman]

of the two it's bullshit, but more used is the word shite

Thanks. As a Texan, us bein' next to cattle all the time, we tend towards "bullshit"
(literally). In poems aimed at Britain I shall use "shite" (will try to refrain from literal use).

---

i don't think this is controversial at all. is there a argument for the liberal use of abstract nouns, adjectives, and adverbs? maybe. let's see if we can't make it controversial.

firstly, and possibly only (i haven't thought this through), poetry isn't simply a case of painting mental pictures. lines can be composed simply for sound, in which case, it depends on the motives of the poet whether they use 'beauty' or 'daffodils', and i don't think it is necessarily lazier one way or the other. furthermore, is it not also one of the aims of poetry to use words in unusual ways? even in the example you have offered [a garden filled with daffodils and spring] spring, an abstract noun, is being used like a concrete noun. it sounds a bit strange, but also satisfying. no doubt the first line is improved with the addition of the concrete 'daffodil', but it is the use of the abstract noun 'spring' that makes this line remotely interesting, and elevates it beyond the mere description of a scene: a garden filled with daffodils.
following on from that, certain abstract nouns are more abstract than others (note the difference between 'silence' and 'love'). in which case, 'beauty' is non-specific, general. the line 'the beauty of her smile' allows for a subjective interpretation; that is, one will simply imagine a smile which we personally find beautiful (this also suggests that abstract nouns never simply name things, they do generally evoke an image-just not a universal one); pretty lazy, i suppose, saying something like 'oh, you figure it out'. however, the word 'spring' is far less abstract; there is an inter-subjectivity that goes further than the individual case. it comes with specific sights and smells and tastes, etc. of course, these are still subjective, but there is also a shared experience of spring which the author is aware of when choosing to use this word.
er... yeah, well, i have lost my enthusiasm for the fight. fuck it. abstract nouns suck.

I agree with you, they are definitely useful. And Mary Oliver agrees too.
She's just saying she thinks they are used too frequently; and often because the poet's too
lazy to be more specific. In her quote: "Deciding to use" doesn't imply "don't".
And neither do: "there are very real uses for them" and "ruling them out completely is a mistake".

And you make an interesting point when you say:
"spring, an abstract noun, is being used like a concrete noun".

"A garden filled with daffodils and spring."

Switching its category in such a way is certainly the heart of the line.
It might even be described as a poetic "turn".

Which brings up a corollary:

"My love is a rose."
"When she began to speak... it was then that the crowd truly saw the lioness in her heart."

Concrete nouns are frequently used as abstract ones as well.

Such wonderful poetic devices!

agreed. on all counts. you really are making this devil's advocate thing rather difficult.

[rayheinrich]

agreed. on all counts. you really are making this devil's advocate thing rather difficult.

Discussions don't have to be debates. My personal peevishness increases with each
false dichotomy I see. I think people must learn to do this from the news media, politicians, etc. .
It's a device to get your attention by creating controversy where none exists.
Example:
"Are social networking sites good for our society?"
This question is formed to illicit a "yes" or "no" response when there really isn't one.
(For most people, at least.)  

[shemthepenman]

agreed. on all counts. you really are making this devil's advocate thing rather difficult.

Discussions don't have to be debates. My personal peevishness increases with each
false dichotomy I see. I think people must learn to do this from the news media, politicians, etc. .
It's a device to get your attention by creating controversy where none exists.
Example:
"Are social networking sites good for our society?"
This question is formed to illicit a "yes" or "no" response when there really isn't one.
(For most people, at least.)  

i agree that not all discussion needs to be a debate. although, in a kind of hegelian sense, an original synthesis can come from extreme oppositions. it also depends on what is at stake in the argument. if it is whether or not to mindlessly use abstract nouns in your poem, then debate is just an exercise to hone one's rhetorical dexterity, wakes the brain up, sparks those misfiring synapses, etc. in short, a bit of fun. however, some people may take this issue incredibly seriously, as if disagreeing with them is somehow an offence to the very core of their being-debates of this type are better left well alone, in my experience.

the other obvious benefit to debate is the aggression with which an opposing view can crash into the status quo. the opposing opinion need not withstand alternative non-dichotomous discussion, just as long as it damages the gregarious, unquestioned, reason. it is a kind of offensive conceptual short cut. contrarians often use this to great effect.

with these exceptions aside, in general people are just lazy when it comes to thinking, and usually get swept along with their own opinions. once they have the idea that, for example, social networking isn't (or is) good for society (based on some incidental personal experience or whatnot), then they rarely question it any further. or, alternatively, they like the sound of a phrase they once came up with years ago down the pub, that got majority nods from the drunks at the bar, and they hang onto it for dear life, and think they must be a latter-day marx, spitting troofs like it ain't no thang.

god, i'm bored. :/

[rayheinrich]

i agree that not all discussion needs to be a debate. although, in a kind of hegelian sense, an original synthesis can come from extreme oppositions.

The more extreme the antithesis, the more ambiguous the synthesis.

it also depends on what is at stake in the argument. if it is whether or not to mindlessly use abstract nouns in your poem, then debate is just an exercise to hone one's rhetorical dexterity, wakes the brain up, sparks those misfiring synapses, etc. in short, a bit of fun. however, some people may take this issue incredibly seriously, as if disagreeing with them is somehow an offence to the very core of their being-debates of this type are better left well alone, in my experience.

Left well alone?Those serious people are the absolute best ones to have fun with.
One-sided fun, of course,  but that's fine with me as I'm almost always on that side.
(He said dichotomously.)

the other obvious benefit to debate is the aggression with which an opposing view can crash into the status quo. the opposing opinion need not withstand alternative non-dichotomous discussion, just as long as it damages the gregarious, unquestioned, reason. it is a kind of offensive conceptual short cut. contrarians often use this to great effect.

Parody is an invincible tyrant.

with these exceptions aside, in general people are just lazy when it comes to thinking, and usually get swept along with their own opinions. once they have the idea that, for example, social networking isn't (or is) good for society (based on some incidental personal experience or whatnot), then they rarely question it any further. or, alternatively, they like the sound of a phrase they once came up with years ago down the pub, that got majority nods from the drunks at the bar, and they hang onto it for dear life, and think they must be a latter-day marx, spitting troofs like it ain't no thang.

god, i'm bored. :/

Ain't that the troof. Elitism is underrated (the same as intelligence just gets you in more trouble).

Take heart, it's better to be figuratively bored than physically bored.

[billy]

trollery will always be trollery unless its a rose being forced to bloom