How To Write Like Largo

[Jacob]

Go ahead and assume that everything here is intentional. 


How To Write Like Largo

Don’t talk about the weather
Deaden your senses
Close your eyes- 
          plug your nose- 
          cover your ears- 
          rip out your tongue
Leap gladly into a lake of fire
Reach out past the cave in which you sleep
Tell me what is happening

Don’t talk about death
Life is endless- 
          the everlasting- 
          the infinite-
          the universal- 
          cosmic debris- 
          deep shit
Pretend your soul
Play a little game in which you won’t ever die
A religion for this life that’s what you’re looking for
Holiness for the next five minutes

Don’t be melodramatic
Shut your mouth-
          there are so many who are the same as you who have already spoken-
          who are still speaking-
          and you are the same as them
Let the silent others tell
If it feels like there’s no way to win here
You don’t get to win here
That welling up impotent frustration maybe that’s just what you get

And when you walk through the valley of the shadow of death fear no evil-
          because you are evil- 
          because you look like a demon- 
          you look more demon than the demons-
          and they are all scared of you-
          and when you look around and see that-
          don’t dare try to shrink away
Stand up
Be the enemy you wish to see in the world
Just what we all need

[Achebe]

The poem reads to me like an arrangement of angsty teenage or pop new age abstractions.  There is not a single sentence that I can see making an impression on the reader and therefore qualifying as poetry, which makes the piece very difficult to critique.
The only specific comment I can offer is on the title: what does "How to write like Largo" mean? Who or what is Largo, if not the Italian for slow tempo in a piece of classical music? Of course, there may be any number of people with the last name Largo whom this poem might be alluding to, but if that's the case then some more hints would be necessary.

EDIT: On second thought, it's possible that 'Largo' is this generation's Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings and the entire poem is a dig at this Largo character.....I'll come back to this later.
As parody, it would work only if I had an idea as to who or what was being parodied...

[dukealien]

Go ahead and assume that everything here is intentional. 


How To Write Like Largo

Don’t talk about the weather
Deaden your senses
Close your eyes- 
          plug your nose- 
          cover your ears- 
          rip out your tongue
Leap gladly into a lake of fire
Reach out past the cave in which you sleep
Tell me what is happening

Don’t talk about death
Life is endless- 
          the everlasting- 
          the infinite-
          the universal- 
          cosmic debris- 
          deep shit
Pretend your soul
Play a little game in which you won’t ever die
A religion for this life that’s what you’re looking for
Holiness for the next five minutes

Don’t be melodramatic
Shut your mouth-
          there are so many who are the same as you who have already spoken-
          who are still speaking-
          and you are the same as them
Let the silent others tell
If it feels like there’s no way to win here
You don’t get to win here
That welling up impotent frustration maybe that’s just what you get

And when you walk through the valley of the shadow of death fear no evil-
          because you are evil- 
          because you look like a demon- 
          you look more demon than the demons-
          and they are all scared of you-
          and when you look around and see that-
          don’t dare try to shrink away
Stand up
Be the enemy you wish to see in the world
Just what we all need

Being a person of a certain age, I miss the reference in the title and can't find one that looks like a good match by Googling.  Not a criticism, just acknowledging my limitations.

Whatever Largo's writing is like, though, has points of interest.  I get the message - not exactly cynical, more Machiavellian, that is, look at things cynically, but then act with a degree of idealism:  having an enemy, even if self-constructed, is an ideal.  So is a religion "for the next five minutes," which is, after all, a very long time by some reckonings.  And note that the reader is not being urged to acti like Largo, only instructed in the attitude necessary to write like (him?)

In mild technical critique,  there's an unnecessary gramatical problem in the second verse,

"Pretend your soul
Play a little game in which you won’t ever die"

Seems to me it should either be "Pretend you're soul" or "Plays a little game..." so the two lines agree with each other.

Can't decide if the last line is cliche or not.  The usual form (in my neck of the woods) is, "Just what the world needs..." so this may be a turnabout reference.

On the whole, I thought the poem was well-organized, with a clear message.  Cynicism is not, in itself, a bad theme or stance, though it may be a bit easy at times.  Solipsism is unproductive, but this poem doesn't go there.   I liked it, and think it could be improved with a little editing and clarification - perhaps an author's note hinting as to the title's reference.

[rayheinrich]

Yeah, me too.
Since I couldn't find a likely 'Largo' reference, I went with "overblown", as it fits the irony.
If this is what's intended, you should change the title; either to a generic one or to a
specific name that's readily identifiable. I much prefer the former, as the latter route,
depending on the audience, can suffer the same fate that "Largo" (may) have suffered here.

But... even if I'd known who "Largo the Pompous Character" was, there's not enough parodic
deviation in the repetition of the mythological/religious/philosophical/new age/etc. stereotypes
to hold my interest.

Though I did like the incongruous "deep shit" in the second stanza. If there was one such
diversion (two at most) per stanza (they might be anachronistic or thematic ones instead),
that might make it more fun.

Or...

I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about but was sincerely trying to help
Ray

[Jacob]

Ronsaik - I am curious what sections you feel qualify as “teenage angst” and/or “pop new age.” I wrote plenty of both in my formative years and had thought I’d rather moved beyond it. I suspect what’s throwing you off is the fact that the poem’s written in 2nd person and doesn’t describe a scene, or really have images of any kind, and it’s kind of stream-of-consciousness and there’s no punctuation. I also suspect that you missed the sarcasm, the piece isn’t intended to be quite tongue-in-cheek but its not exactly sincere either. 

Dukealien - the lines in the second stanza are not meant to be read as connected. “Pretend your soul” means aproximatly “pretend you have a soul,” pretending as an act of creation. I get the confusion though, it’s just close enough to sound awkward, and without punctuation there’s nothing to indicate the full stop after “your soul.” I’ll have to think about this.
If the last line is cliche I would think the deliberate cliche in the line before it would nullify the effect, but I don’t know, maybe my irony isn’t coming through.

Rayheinrich - the “deep shit” line has come and gone in a couple edits and I remain uncertain about it. I’m honestly not sure if the incongruity works. I wonder if the fact that this seemed like a welcome break from some “new age” stereotypes means that my irony really isn’t coming through.

As for the title, it’s an inside joke, largely with myself. There are people in existence who would get it immediately, but there are not very many of them. To be honest, I like deliberately cryptic, obtuse titles. I’ve read enough early modern poetry to be fairly skeptical about their utility, and I think that if your poem can’t stand alone without the title to act as a decoder ring you have more serious problems.
I feel kind of bad that you guys seem to have put a lot of thought into what it might mean, so I’ll go ahead and give it away. “Largo” was the nickname of rock climber and widely published adventure writer John Long, I believe it came out of his days in Yosemite with the Stonemasters and it was a joke on how much more heavily built he was than most of the men and women he climbed with. Although I respect him as both a climber and a writer he has a habit of proscribing his stripped down, journalistic, Tim O’Brien, style to everyone else that I find especially annoying.

Another note: the indented and dashed lines were originally strung together, appearing as such

Deaden your senses
Close your eyes plug your nose cover your ears rip out your tongue
Leap gladly into a lake of fire

I prefer how what I posted looks, but the original better indicates how I intend it to be read.
Any input there will be appreciated. 

[rayheinrich]

Rayheinrich - the “deep shit” line has come and gone in a couple edits and I remain uncertain about it. I’m honestly not sure if the incongruity works. I wonder if the fact that this seemed like a welcome break from some “new age” stereotypes means that my irony really isn’t coming through.

It was "mythological/religious/philosophical/new age/etc.", not just "new age".  
You're irony is coming through quite well; my point was that I didn't find the irony that entertaining.
A politician calling for change in a speech comprised of one cliché after another IS ironic; but it's not that interesting.

"Deep shit", while a bit plain, had a nice jolt to it. But yes, I'd go with more "sophisticated" incongruities:
Ill-fitting, wrong-meaning words, anachronisms, mixed metaphors/idioms...
The poem's been ironed too much, it needs a few wrinkles put back into it.

Ah, now we know what "Largo" means. But no, it wasn't a good idea to put it in the title unless
your intent was to have the reader puzzling over the title instead of reading your poem.
You stopped all three of us right there, our brains were veritably crawling with it.

But, nevermind...

In the future, when you're selecting a poem to post for critique, you should pick one that you
are serious about having other people read; posting private joke poems in a critique forum is a
waste of critiquers time.
Ray

[Achebe]

Ronsaik - I am curious what sections you feel qualify as “teenage angst” and/or “pop new age.” I wrote plenty of both in my formative years and had thought I’d rather moved beyond it. I suspect what’s throwing you off is the fact that the poem’s written in 2nd person and doesn’t describe a scene, or really have images of any kind, and it’s kind of stream-of-consciousness and there’s no punctuation. I also suspect that you missed the sarcasm, the piece isn’t intended to be quite tongue-in-cheek but its not exactly sincere either. 

Jacob - since you intended the poem as an inside joke, my comment is no longer relevant.
From what you said about Largo the rock climber there's enough raw material for a funny, ironic poem.  Not coming through in this one though.

[Jacob]

Let me clarify, while the title is an inside joke (many of my titles are; I think this is a valid practice; we may have to agree to disagree on this one), the poem, on the other hand, is not. It is only about my frustration with John Long in the most superficial way, and only in the first half. I am in no way "not serious" about having other people read this poem.

I will admit that this being my first poem posted here, it was to some degree a testing of the waters. I am aware of how strange and difficult this piece is. I am aware that "strange" and "difficult" are two of the nicest terms one could use to describe it. I was sort of morbidly curious what anyone would have to say about it, what, if anything, I had actually managed to convey. I like to know from the outset how many people will tell me to f off if I present something wildly contrary to the popular aesthetic.

The poem has a great deal of meaning to me and I am currently rather enamored with it but, if history is any lesson, in a month or two I'll read it again and just groan. It is a persistent problem of mine that I fail to get my thoughts fully onto the page, my artistic gesture too often gets stuck somewhere between what I write and what goes through my mind when I read it. In this sense your critiques were quite helpful, as they showed me just how impenetrable my gesture was.

That said, writing this piece was a lot of fun and it's too bad you guys didn't get anything out of it. I am unsure to what extent that means that the poem is a failure.

[rayheinrich]

Let me clarify, while the title is an inside joke (many of my titles are; I think this is a valid practice;
we may have to agree to disagree on this one)...

I should have been more specific. My complaint wasn't so much about inside jokes in titles
or poems. My poems, intentionally or unintentionally, certainly have them. Actually,
in some sense, ALL of my poems are inside jokes.

What I object to is forcing your inside joke on the reader without giving her/him a clue
as to how to "get" the joke.  It's particularly frustrating when even Google doesn't help.

I try to give my reader a path (or two, or three) through my poem that does not rely on
interpreting or even being aware of my inside jokes.

One of the great things about poems is that you are free to do anything you want with them;
if you want to piss readers off and distract or even prevent them from reading your poem,
you're certainly free to do that. And as critics, of course, we're certainly free to point that out.

I am aware of how strange and difficult this piece is.

I don't think of it as "strange" or "difficult" or  "contrary to the popular aesthetic". I think
it's a string of clichés that, of themselves, are not that interesting. But, you're right, it's
possible that I'm not "getting it". It has happened too often for me to be able to deny it.

I will admit that this being my first poem posted here, it was to some degree a testing of the waters.

Yes, and I must apologize for not taking that into account in my remarks.

The poem has a great deal of meaning to me and I am currently rather enamored with it but,
if history is any lesson, in a month or two I'll read it again and just groan. It is a persistent
problem of mine that I fail to get my thoughts fully onto the page, my artistic gesture too often
gets stuck somewhere between what I write and what goes through my mind when I read it. In this
sense your critiques were quite helpful, as they showed me just how impenetrable my gesture was.

I feel EXACTLY like that most of the time. One of the reasons this place exists is to "help" resolve a bit of this.
I think the rest is the inescapable price we pay for having this much fun with words.

Looking forward to your next poem,
Ray