Posts: 9
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2023
Some thoughts on the two excerpts below that hopefully will generate a bit of a discussion:
in green light on a forest floor,
refracted as the deepest sea.
and
But I wouldn’t mind ‘refracted’, as it’s a close enough concept for poetry.
When it comes to poetry, is close enough good enough? Don't get me wrong no one's perfect, but surely, if you are using a word incorrectly it should be changed—you'd want to change it, wouldn't you? Isn't Poetry the apotheosis of finding the right words? If someone had written "I looked out from the top of the Eiffel Tower over the beautiful city of Chantilly" you wouldn't justify the geographical error and go "oh well, Chantilly is only 25 minutes from Paris, it's close enough".
In my opinion there are only two ways of reading the above fragment: either you don't know what the word "refracted" means and therefore it won't make any sense, or you do know what the word "refracted" means and it makes about as much sense as if you hadn't known what it meant. It may as well be a spelling mistake. If you squint you might be able to see what they were aiming for, but it's still a mistake.
Am I right or embarrassingly wrong... discuss...
Posts: 952
Threads: 225
Joined: Aug 2016
06-26-2023, 05:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2023, 06:10 AM by CRNDLSM.)
What is poetry, what is art, what is language. I think you're right, but also maybe a little embarrassed. Happy accidents, have a good day!
Close But No Ghazal
"God said 'round them up, travel wide and far.
Once you're finished, toast, and smoke a cigar.
Until then, build a vessel for travel,
like a boat, but fast, you know, as a car.
But big enough to fit two of each kind.
Heavy, it's path's like the earth grows a scar.
In 40 days, I'll come see where you're at.'
When he came back, he screamed, 'flownastigar!
A box and a cat? I'll get someone else.'
I can take off my clothes, it's Noah's cigar!"
Peanut butter honey banana sandwiches
Posts: 468
Threads: 202
Joined: Dec 2017
Let us see what OP had written about it
“Light in the ocean is refracted, not water. Water in the ocean refracts”
These two lines are riddled with holes. Light refracts only when passing from air to water, or through layers of media with different refractive indices.
A torch shone inside the water wouldn’t give out refracting beams of light.
OP should specify that it is sunlight he’s talking about.
In the poem referred to, ‘refracted as the deepest seas’ is wrong, but manages to convey to at least one reader what the author is trying to say.
The reference is to the green, gloomy light on the forest floor, much in the way that light attenuates in water.
The correct way of phrasing this would be to refer to the aforementioned attenuation, with a nod to Rayleigh scattering, perhaps with a detour into the inelastic phenomenon of the Raman effect as well.
Perhaps if someone could suggest a poetic way to describe that.
The point is that all language is imprecise or even inaccurate. The question of where to draw the line is a subjective one. If it works for the majority of qualified readers - the majority of the target readership that the author has in mind (which may exclude a few) - then it is fine in my book.
In the example of the Eiffel Tower, location isn’t a complicated phenomenon like sunlight attenuation, which gives the sea its blue green colour down below, which is often confused with refraction.
Hence, the former is more jarring to most readers.
Posts: 894
Threads: 176
Joined: Jan 2021
(06-26-2023, 05:34 AM)Kynaston Levitt Wrote: Some thoughts on the two excerpts below that hopefully will generate a bit of a discussion:
in green light on a forest floor,
refracted as the deepest sea.
and
But I wouldn’t mind ‘refracted’, as it’s a close enough concept for poetry.
When it comes to poetry, is close enough good enough? Don't get me wrong no one's perfect, but surely, if you are using a word incorrectly it should be changed—you'd want to change it, wouldn't you? Isn't Poetry the apotheosis of finding the right words? If someone had written "I looked out from the top of the Eiffel Tower over the beautiful city of Chantilly" you wouldn't justify the geographical error and go "oh well, Chantilly is only 25 minutes from Paris, it's close enough".
In my opinion there are only two ways of reading the above fragment: either you don't know what the word "refracted" means and therefore it won't make any sense, or you do know what the word "refracted" means and it makes about as much sense as if you hadn't known what it meant. It may as well be a spelling mistake. If you squint you might be able to see what they were aiming for, but it's still a mistake.
Am I right or embarrassingly wrong... discuss...
You probably are right in the scientific definition. I'm not of a scientific bent and wouldn't understand the explanation if I looked it up. When I want to know what a word signifies, I look up the etymology. For "refracted" it simply means "broken again". So it works just fine for me as used in Bryn's poem.
TqB
Posts: 468
Threads: 202
Joined: Dec 2017
Sometimes, the problem is that a more precise articulation lacks beautiful words with the necessary musical qualities. In the absence of alternatives, and seeing as a poem is not intended for publication in Nature, imprecision can be acceptable
Posts: 257
Threads: 108
Joined: Dec 2016
06-26-2023, 09:20 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-26-2023, 09:38 AM by Quixilated.)
This is what my brain does when I read those two lines in the poem:
Green light on a forest floor:
Refracted as the deepest sea:
Also, that is what comes up when you google “ocean refraction images,” so I’m not sure I understand exactly why there is a problem with these lines. I read it that the light in the forest looks like light in the sea, all bendy and otherworldly. I rather liked the lines and the scene they evoke.
The initial discussion seems to stem from this comment:
(06-18-2023, 06:53 AM)Kynaston Levitt Wrote: (06-17-2023, 01:08 PM)brynmawr1 Wrote: I found a place where I was lost
in green light on a forest floor, - I'm already there. Great opening.
refracted as the deepest sea. - this line is confusing to me. Firstly, what is being "refracted" from the previous lines? And secondly, "refracted as the sea"? The sea isn't refracted. So, something can't be refracted as it. I wonder what you thought this line meant. And I also wonder what other readers think you meant by this line.
To answer your “other readers” question. I thought it was clear that the thing from the previous line that is being refracted is the light in the forest, not the water of the sea. The second line meant that the way the light in the forest is behaving looks like the way light behaves in the sea. It was never saying that the sea water is refracted. Perhaps the line should read “refracted as in the sea” to be clear, but surely that is not enough of an omission to cause this level of confusion.
The Soufflé isn’t the soufflé; the soufflé is the recipe. --Clara
Posts: 395
Threads: 58
Joined: May 2022
Well, isn't this fun! Word of Troy that launched a thousand opinions. At least 3, anyway.
Quix illustrated best what I was trying to convey- the light/dark quality of light shining into wavy water like light passing through moving tree canopies and the way is seems to move or ripple. I'm going to take my turn at being pedantic. In water, this happens due to refraction of the light at the surface. And, importantly, because the water's surface isn't flat and is moving. The light coming into the water is traveling in parallel rays. If there is no refraction or the water is flat, there is no rippling because the angle of incidence is constant. The waves cause constantly changing incident angles which varies the trajectory of the rays through the water resulting in summation and cancellation(brighter/darker), ergo the observed rippling on the ocean floor and even in the water itself as the light is reflected (Oooh, new word) off particulate matter in the water. Thus, 'refracted' is an appropriate word to use in this situation. (There is also diffraction going on too but we'll leave that for another day).
If we want to get really nerdy, the phrase "the deepest sea" is even more problematic. As the light travels further the divergent light dilutes as the rays get further apart resulting in now majority parallel light and the ripple effect diminishes. Not to mention there is no light in the deepest parts of the ocean. so there's that.
The real issue is one of syntax around 'refracted', which I agree isn't great. BUT the syntax in this situation hasn't seemed to obscure the image intended, as most commenting readers didn't misunderstand the meaning. (I have been ruminating on adding the 'is' but honestly don't like the way it reads). Which, I think, brings up the real issue, that of the continuum between clarity, ambiguity and obscurity and how this interacts with language rules. We all know that poetry breaks all language rules as needed and reasonable people can, will and have argued ad nauseam whether this is good or not. I certainly don't know the answer.
I have run out of steam. I'm maybe being a little cheeky but I do appreciate everyone's comments and suggestions.
I love all the activity lately. I'm having trouble finding the time to keep up!
Write on,
Bryn
Posts: 894
Threads: 176
Joined: Jan 2021
(06-27-2023, 11:31 PM)brynmawr1 Wrote: We all know that poetry breaks all language rules as needed
BINGO!
Posts: 9
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2023
(06-26-2023, 09:20 AM)Quixilated Wrote: This is what my brain does when I read those two lines in the poem:
Green light on a forest floor:
Refracted as the deepest sea:
Also, that is what comes up when you google “ocean refraction images,” so I’m not sure I understand exactly why there is a problem with these lines. I read it that the light in the forest looks like light in the sea, all bendy and otherworldly. I rather liked the lines and the scene they evoke.
The initial discussion seems to stem from this comment:
(06-18-2023, 06:53 AM)Kynaston Levitt Wrote: (06-17-2023, 01:08 PM)brynmawr1 Wrote: I found a place where I was lost
in green light on a forest floor, - I'm already there. Great opening.
refracted as the deepest sea. - this line is confusing to me. Firstly, what is being "refracted" from the previous lines? And secondly, "refracted as the sea"? The sea isn't refracted. So, something can't be refracted as it. I wonder what you thought this line meant. And I also wonder what other readers think you meant by this line.
To answer your “other readers” question. I thought it was clear that the thing from the previous line that is being refracted is the light in the forest, not the water of the sea. The second line meant that the way the light in the forest is behaving looks like the way light behaves in the sea. It was never saying that the sea water is refracted. Perhaps the line should read “refracted as in the sea” to be clear, but surely that is not enough of an omission to cause this level of confusion.
This is true. When I first read the poem and wrote my reply the word "refracted" put such a big spanner in the works that I couldn't really follow any of it. I couldn't, ironically, see the wood for the trees. But you are correct, it is surely referring to the green light being refracted—my initial confusion came from trying to read the word "refracted" purely as a poetic metaphor—because why wouldn’t I? It doesn’t make sense otherwise—and in that case we don’t need to be committed to the connection between light and refraction, and any of the nouns preceding it [I, green light (although this one leads to the problem being discussed), forest floor] could be the subject of the verb. This makes it a syntax issue. The more interesting problem is when you commit to “green light” being the subject of the verb.
And I do appreciate that you imagine something when you read these lines. But that seems to be because you don’t care what the word means, or that it is the wrong word. And this is what I thought would be interesting to discuss.
I gave the example of someone writing “I stood at the top of the Eiffel Tower and looked out over the city of Chantilly…” It has been suggested by Busker that this is a less complicated phenomenon and therefore not strictly analogous. And that is true. But the principle is the same. It could be argued that if one read this sentence, one would imagine looking out over Paris. Or even more vaguely one might imagine looking over a general cityscape from a great height. The point is most people would imagine the same thing regardless of whether Paris or Chantilly is used in the sentence. But does that mean we shouldn’t care, or shouldn’t point it out as being wrong?
NOTE: I didn’t really mean for this discussion to focus entirely on the “refracted” poem. I thought of it more as a jumping off point. I was actually expecting some counter examples where I would be forced to agree that using an incorrect word is permissible.
(06-28-2023, 01:51 AM)TranquillityBase Wrote: (06-27-2023, 11:31 PM)brynmawr1 Wrote: We all know that poetry breaks all language rules as needed
BINGO!
Rules may be broken in poetry, no doubt, but this kind of "Oh well, it'll do. I know what you meant" kind of attitude is alien to me. I would prefer if no one knew what I meant but I had used the right words in the right order.* Than using a word incorrectly and having people guess what I meant.
*obviously there is experimental poetry which will mess around with grammar and spelling etc. But in those cases I think intention in important.
Posts: 751
Threads: 408
Joined: May 2014
(06-28-2023, 01:51 AM)TranquillityBase Wrote: (06-27-2023, 11:31 PM)brynmawr1 Wrote: We all know that poetry breaks all language rules as needed
BINGO!
I agree, but I don't think we should oversimplify the subject of rule breaking in poetry. Without specific intent, a rule broken is a just a mistake. In this case it seems to me we are already in an abstract scene and "refracted" works fine. You could reconjugate "refract" all day and not please every reader. Effect trumps correct. "Intent" is at the heart of this discussion IMO.
Posts: 9
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2023
(06-27-2023, 11:31 PM)brynmawr1 Wrote: Well, isn't this fun! Word of Troy that launched a thousand opinions. At least 3, anyway.
Quix illustrated best what I was trying to convey- the light/dark quality of light shining into wavy water like light passing through moving tree canopies and the way is seems to move or ripple. I'm going to take my turn at being pedantic. In water, this happens due to refraction of the light at the surface. And, importantly, because the water's surface isn't flat and is moving. The light coming into the water is traveling in parallel rays. If there is no refraction or the water is flat, there is no rippling because the angle of incidence is constant. The waves cause constantly changing incident angles which varies the trajectory of the rays through the water resulting in summation and cancellation(brighter/darker), ergo the observed rippling on the ocean floor and even in the water itself as the light is reflected (Oooh, new word) off particulate matter in the water. Thus, 'refracted' is an appropriate word to use in this situation. (There is also diffraction going on too but we'll leave that for another day).
If we want to get really nerdy, the phrase "the deepest sea" is even more problematic. As the light travels further the divergent light dilutes as the rays get further apart resulting in now majority parallel light and the ripple effect diminishes. Not to mention there is no light in the deepest parts of the ocean. so there's that.
The real issue is one of syntax around 'refracted', which I agree isn't great. BUT the syntax in this situation hasn't seemed to obscure the image intended, as most commenting readers didn't misunderstand the meaning. (I have been ruminating on adding the 'is' but honestly don't like the way it reads). Which, I think, brings up the real issue, that of the continuum between clarity, ambiguity and obscurity and how this interacts with language rules. We all know that poetry breaks all language rules as needed and reasonable people can, will and have argued ad nauseam whether this is good or not. I certainly don't know the answer.
I have run out of steam. I'm maybe being a little cheeky but I do appreciate everyone's comments and suggestions.
I love all the activity lately. I'm having trouble finding the time to keep up!
Write on,
Bryn
It is a syntax/grammar problem, which as far as I am concerned means you have used the word incorrectly—"sunlight" and "in" would make the word correct [or just "in"].
I know I started this with the "refracted" thing, but I really only meant it to be taken as an example. The interesting thing to me was how the incorrect use of a word was being defended. I just don't want it to be an overly long critique of 2 lines in 1 poem (which it has turned into). The word "refracted" in that line is objectively the wrong word. Yet, subjectively, it seems debatable. Let's leave it at that.
Posts: 468
Threads: 202
Joined: Dec 2017
(06-27-2023, 11:31 PM)brynmawr1 Wrote: Well, isn't this fun! Word of Troy that launched a thousand opinions. At least 3, anyway.
Quix illustrated best what I was trying to convey- the light/dark quality of light shining into wavy water like light passing through moving tree canopies and the way is seems to move or ripple. I'm going to take my turn at being pedantic. In water, this happens due to refraction of the light at the surface. And, importantly, because the water's surface isn't flat and is moving. The light coming into the water is traveling in parallel rays. If there is no refraction or the water is flat, there is no rippling because the angle of incidence is constant. The waves cause constantly changing incident angles which varies the trajectory of the rays through the water resulting in summation and cancellation(brighter/darker), ergo the observed rippling on the ocean floor and even in the water itself as the light is reflected (Oooh, new word) off particulate matter in the water. Thus, 'refracted' is an appropriate word to use in this situation. (There is also diffraction going on too but we'll leave that for another day).
If we want to get really nerdy, the phrase "the deepest sea" is even more problematic. As the light travels further the divergent light dilutes as the rays get further apart resulting in now majority parallel light and the ripple effect diminishes. Not to mention there is no light in the deepest parts of the ocean. so there's that.
The real issue is one of syntax around 'refracted', which I agree isn't great. BUT the syntax in this situation hasn't seemed to obscure the image intended, as most commenting readers didn't misunderstand the meaning. (I have been ruminating on adding the 'is' but honestly don't like the way it reads). Which, I think, brings up the real issue, that of the continuum between clarity, ambiguity and obscurity and how this interacts with language rules. We all know that poetry breaks all language rules as needed and reasonable people can, will and have argued ad nauseam whether this is good or not. I certainly don't know the answer.
I have run out of steam. I'm maybe being a little cheeky but I do appreciate everyone's comments and suggestions.
I love all the activity lately. I'm having trouble finding the time to keep up!
Write on,
Bryn
Bryn - it’s not the divergence of rays that causes the light to fade down below. Sunlight that has travelled 149 mn km won’t suddenly fall away because of being a few more km.
It’s the absorption of light by water molecules. The attenuation is much more rapid than in air.
Posts: 395
Threads: 58
Joined: May 2022
[/quote]
Bryn - it’s not the divergence of rays that causes the light to fade down below. Sunlight that has travelled 149 mn km won’t suddenly fall away because of being a few more km.
It’s the absorption of light by water molecules. The attenuation is much more rapid than in air.
[/quote]
Hey Busker,
I understand that but I'm not concerned with how bright the light is. More the 'shimmering' effect of light in water, again, as compared to sunlight coming through a tree canopy.
take care,
bryn
|