Dogs as poems

[rayheinrich]

Dale: I'm impressed, when you miss the point, you do it so intelligently
as to be beguiling. But... just because I think it doesn't matter
a whole lot what a piece of writing is called, you jump to the
conclusion I have no criteria for the quality of the writing. Not true.
I can assure you that my standards are so needlessly severe and cryptic
that even you would be impressed. But basically, they have more to do
with how content is communicated than with how it is categorized.

As Juliet said: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other
name would smell as sweet..."

So, yeah, if somebody wants to call their dog a poem, sure, fine with me.
I may not like their dog, but I'll tolerate it as long as it licks my hand,
wags its tail, and doesn't piss on the carpet.

Ray


P.S. Not that I don't think debating about the true nature of a Madeleine
wouldn't be fun. Is it a sponge cake, or is it a cookie? (I'd argue sponge
cake.) I just don't want that debate to interfere with the Madeleine's
delicious fragrance while it's baking. (Or for the words that its fragrance
might inspire afterwards.)

P.P.S. abu nuwas: I think the number of angels depends heavily on the type
of dance they are doing. Ballet = fewer angels. Tap dance = more.

P.P.P.S. Gotta have a definition? Here's one by George Oppen:

   "Surely, there is is-ness. The mind operating in a marvel
    which contains the mind. Of that marvel, it can really
    not be thought about because it contains the thought.
    But it can be felt. It is what all art is about."

[billy]

yes but the guy said it wasn't a poem.

it did seemed to written as a piece of prose.
i can admit to writing a few dogs myself but normally if i say it's not a poem, and it's in prose....
i can understand someone saying a dog is a poem and people thinking wtf.

i must have missed something?

[rayheinrich]

billy said:
yes but the guy said it wasn't a poem.

He's the boss, an unpoem it is!


it did seemed to written as a piece of prose.
i can admit to writing a few dogs myself but normally if i say it's not a poem, and it's in prose....
i can understand someone saying a dog is a poem and people thinking wtf.

I'm one of those people (what's the word for it? troll?) who loves getting
people to THINK. Having them think WTF is just a bonus.


i must have missed something?

It was SO profound that I think I missed something myself.
Especially that Dale guy, man, he's so deep he's on the other side.
(But don't get me wrong, I love him dearly, he completes me.)


P.S. I'm told rambling is OK in 'Misc Poems'.
That true?

Nonsensical Ray

[Leanne]

Something to think about:

If someone posts something that you would normally consider prose but calls it a poem, do you read it differently? Even if you're only reading it with the irritation of having someone call something that which you think it isn't

[Wildcard]

Leanne makes a good point. I posted a 'poem' called 'Contrast' (at least I thought it was a poem), but the girls (Leanne, addy and Aish) set me straight fairly quickly. The one piece of crit that Aish gave me included the line

The original presentation is too rambling, even for prose.

At first I was quite stunned by this comment, but now when I look back I can see just what she meant. I had basically written a short-short-short story! If someone wrote a novella and called it a poem, I would probably never get past the first page because I would feel that I couldn't trust the author. What I mean is that I wouldn't waste my time with someone who couldn't properly label their writing because I would assume (maybe inaccurately) that they must not know what they were doing.

[Leanne]

I once read a very effective poem, entitled:

Jesus?

Jesus!

I consider it a poem, because it had a poem's effect on me.

[rayheinrich]

...
If someone wrote a novella and called it a poem, I would probably never get past the first page because I would feel that I couldn't trust the author. What I mean is that I wouldn't waste my time with someone who couldn't properly label their writing because I would assume (maybe inaccurately) that they must not know what they were doing.

Which was one of points: Pay attention to the content, not the label.
It's the smell of the rose, not the name.
If you don't, you're gonna miss a lot in this life (oh, yeah, and in
poetry too).

[Leanne]

Content AND context.

A dictionary definition for a computer might be:

an electronic device that operates under controls stored in its own memory.

Now, what happens if you took away the part that says it's a definition for a computer, relineated it and said it was a poem called "Love Slave"?

Once something is identified as a poem, we (probably should) automatically assume that there's more going on than is immediately obvious. We recognise the literal meaning but know that there should be something figurative as well.

Unfortunately, many people these days are used to reading single meaning "poems" that have NOTHING else going on.

I was sad
because you left me
now I'm going to
die from loneliness

[Wildcard]

Doesn't it come down to 'showing' or 'telling' though. Just asking. I'm new to all this.

[Leanne]

Showing and telling are maybe part of it, but not entirely. "Telling" might well be a tool used by people who are also employing irony or some other subtlety.

For example, you can write an entire poem that seems very obvious in its literal meaning, all the while having a subtext going on that is acting in a completely different way. These are the "deceptively simple" things that we keep talking about, that get written off by people who assume that "obvious" means "only". The subtext may only work on people whose experience or knowledge set allows them into it, but it's a mistake to assume that there's nothing else happening just because we can't immediately see it. Of course, in some things there is nothing else happening

[Wildcard]

Okay that makes sense. I keep worrying about getting off topic, but then again I could post off topic and then just call it on topic :p

[Leanne]

I don't think off topic is really an issue with a topic that started because it was off topic on another topic, debating about whether that topic was on topic or not in the first place

In discussions like this, you never really know what's going to be pertinent -- something seemingly irrelevant may in fact turn out to be the key to the whole thing.

---

I can't help wondering if people's opinions on things like this have a great deal to do with their "personality type" if such a thing exists, or simply the way their minds work. I know that I rarely think in "straight lines", relying instead on sort of intuitive leaps, which I know aren't actually intuition, I just gather information in a fairly haphazard or chaotic manner. I don't learn well through "steps", I'm rather more abstract. Then again, once I reach a conclusion I always work backwards through it in a logical fashion so that I can try and explain it to someone else.

On the Myers-Briggs thingo I'm an INTP. The summary of that is actually pretty accurate, though who knows if that's just me projecting -- I take all those things with an entire cellar of salt.

[abu nuwas]

Showing and telling are maybe part of it, but not entirely. "Telling" might well be a tool used by people who are also employing irony or some other subtlety.

For example, you can write an entire poem that seems very obvious in its literal meaning, all the while having a subtext going on that is acting in a completely different way. These are the "deceptively simple" things that we keep talking about, that get written off by people who assume that "obvious" means "only". The subtext may only work on people whose experience or knowledge set allows them into it, but it's a mistake to assume that there's nothing else happening just because we can't immediately see it. Of course, in some things there is nothing else happening


Leaving aside my own simplistic nature, your last line is itself a little conundrum. If at first we understand the plain meaning, and then, if we have that special ability, perceive that there is more, a different meaning to be extracted, at what point do we throw in the towel, and decide there are no further meanings? When boredom strikes? When Nature calls?

I do not in truth eschew the idea of subtexts and so on, yet one does wonder: someone wishes to say two things, one patently. But why sneak in the other latently? Why not write two separate poems?

[Leanne]

Because if you only want something to operate on the literal level, you might as well write an essay.

No, that's not right, that's flippant of me and I apologise.

Consider Blake's "Tyger". We may read that literally, as an address to a tiger, and it works perfectly well. However, we can tell by the expansive nature of some of the word choices that the poet is inviting us to look at it from another angle, that there is definitely something else going on.

[billy]

...
If someone wrote a novella and called it a poem, I would probably never get past the first page because I would feel that I couldn't trust the author. What I mean is that I wouldn't waste my time with someone who couldn't properly label their writing because I would assume (maybe inaccurately) that they must not know what they were doing.

Which was one of points: Pay attention to the content, not the label.
It's the smell of the rose, not the name.
If you don't, you're gonna miss a lot in this life (oh, yeah, and in
poetry too).

is poetry like smell?
i think poetry and how we see or don't see it is more objective. as i said i saw it as out and out prose, you saw it as poetry (i think) the author said it wasn't poetry (and i saw no ambiguity in his statement) so for me it's prose. or an attempt at prose, if i felt it had merit as a poem i'd have mentioned it in my reply. if you see poetry then you see poetry. but to say everyone must see your poetry seems to be a be churlish, cuntish even i don't expect everyone to see what i see but i expect to be able to say, i saw prose" without someone telling me i didn't.

[Leanne]

Maybe it's more like whisky. To some people, it's just something to get drunk on so they guzzle it without it even touching the sides. Others will sip and appreciate peaty tones or brandy backgrounds with a satisfied sigh. Still others will swirl it ostentatiously around in the glass, go on loudly about the "legs" and pretentiously announce that they can tell it was filtered through a black cow's udder on a Saturday.

To me, poetry is a fairly personal experience. I like to savour it but I don't like to be told what I should and shouldn't enjoy, or what is or isn't "the right stuff". I find it where I find it, not where anyone else does.

[Erthona]

"Which was one of points: Pay attention to the content, not the label."

"Which was one of points" Do you mean "Which was one of the points?' Excuse me, I forgot, in your world articles are optional, not to mention sense, logic and reason.

Actually that was not one of your points at all. Your non-point was

"If the writer calls it a poem, it's a poem."

That has nothing to do with content, it has to do with perception.

You are a revisionist Ray. You like to pretend you are the gadfly on society's ass, but you are no Socrates (I know, I knew Socrates). You like to act as though picking the fly shit out the pepper is a worthwhile pursuit.

"Dale: I'm impressed, when you miss the point, you do it so intelligently"

Ray, it's impossible to miss the point since you never made a point. An unsupported statement is not a point. Where is your thesis? Where are your supporting arguments. Oh yeah, I forgot in your world there is no logic.

From your own words Ray, here is your thesis:

"If the writer calls it a poem, it's a poem."

and here is your supporting argument.

I have other criteria for writing that are much more important to me.

OH, yeah! Now I see the clear line of reasoning you are following, sure that makes perfect sense.

And one final coup de grâce

"you jump to the conclusion I have no criteria for the quality of the writing."

Really? And where was that? When were we talking about the quality of writing? What does that have to do with

"If the writer calls it a poem, it's a poem."

because that is the only thing I have been taking about.

OH and BTW - "Newsflash" "Everyone who knows what a poem is has a criteria for what constitutes a good poem!

What makes yours so special?

Oh yes we have your word that,

"I can assure you that my standards are so needlessly severe and cryptic
that even you would be impressed."

Cryptic? Do you even know what that word means?

Oh that's right, you assign your own meaning to a word. The meanings that are important to you.

Just one question Ray, old buddy, old pal, old chum, why should I give a rat's ass what is important to you?

BTW All that I have written here is purely rhetorical! I know it is because I said so, and I am the writer!

---and PS For all you morons that were too stupid to get it, this is also a poem!

Dale

[billy]

it didn't read like a poem
seems my kids were right, i'm a moron.

yeah it could be a poem and not an out and out rant to get a point across i suppose.

[Wildcard]

Jesus! <---just quoting Leanne's poem

If only there were a forum where you could go and rant about nothing . . .

[rayheinrich]

------
Leanne said: "... The subtext may only work on people whose experience or
knowledge set allows them into it, but it's a mistake to assume that there's
nothing else happening just because we can't immediately see it. Of course,
in some things there is nothing else happening."

------
abu nuwas said in reply to Leanne: Leaving aside my own simplistic nature,
your last line is itself a little conundrum. If at first we understand the
plain meaning, and then, if we have that special ability, perceive that there
is more, a different meaning to be extracted, at what point do we throw in the
towel, and decide there are no further meanings? When boredom strikes? When
Nature calls? (Wink)

I do not in truth eschew the idea of subtexts and so on, yet one does wonder:
someone wishes to say two things, one patently. But why sneak in the other
latently? Why not write two separate poems?
------

And ray just had to add:


< in regards to the excess radioactivity in Belarus (and surrounding countries) >
  
   one day 
  (while reading the instructions 
   for performing a cooling system test 
   on my reactor)
   
   some thoughts
    
   occurred to me:
   
   even these instructions 
   for operating this nuclear power plant
   are subject to interpretation
   
   there are always multiple meanings 
   because communication 
   is never perfect
   
   as the operator 
   i must decide
   what is intended
   
   a different operator
   might make
   a different decision
   
  (at a nuclear power plant
   we would never
   call them guesses)
   
   have i found the right meaning?
   is there more than one?
   how do i know?
   
   this word 'three'
   written here
   in these instructions
   
   is it 
   intentional?
   an error?
   
   written or read consciously?
   written or read subconsciously? 
  (each 'or' above an 'and' ?)
   
   so many meanings 
   i have to guess what they are
   i have to guess when to stop guessing 
   
   pump three, reactor four?
   
   reactor four, pump three?
   
   off is left?
   
   more is down?
   
             - - -



P.S. Dale:
Saw your trenchant reply right after I posted the above.
I plan to return with my very own screed. (Note fervid [yet ambiguous] intent.)
Nonsensical Ray