Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Rescuing the cliche: A love poem becomes something else. Perhaps.
Both are untitled. Due, mostly, to laziness. (But I'll take suggestions, if you like.)
Now then, Version 1: And, post-revision, Version 2:
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Those are completely different. The first reads sweet and innocent, while the other is forceful. They’d actually be interesting side by side on a spread. See what happens when you play on the tone of each poem. There is something in the first, however, that you lose. There’s a dis-unity in the beginning that makes the poem interesting. And suddenly, it's lost. I want to know why.
the fact that in the first poem the first stanza seems to find the two actors apart (say, across a room) and then by the second stanza they are suddenly together?
the fact that in the first poem the first stanza seems to be from the perspective of the male actor, while the rest of the poem seems more neutral?
both of those, i suppose, are lost in the second poem to some extent at least. but im not sure i miss them. that is, im not sure i find that either made the first poem interesting -- just less coherent.
I see disunity in the first stanza. The two actors, as you say, are two separate people. One person is doing the assuming and presuming, advancing and relying. That is a singe person’s actions, or so it would seem by the singular pronoun “her” (making the other actor the ‘him’). By the second stanza, the point of view of the poem switches. It is “their secrets” and “between them.” The subjects seem to be unified, they have become one entity. The shared quality is perpetuated in the third and fourth stanza, but it isn’t stated until the fifth. Why is that? Are these two people in sync with one another in the second and third stanza, or not until the fifth? The idea of an advancer, if you will, is lost in the second stanza. Does it still exist? Does it exist until she follows his gaze with her hand? Where do these people fuse? It feels as though the line break between the first and second stanza is a muted, yet graceful, collision of these characters. That collision isn’t presented until the fifth stanza. I feel like I’m running myself in circles, so here’s my question: When does this him and her become a them? When does the assumption become unnecessary and the knowing begins? Where is their pivotal point? Is it truly in the last two lines of the poem, or are you hiding it in between the first two stanzas?
I suppose the difference between the first and second poem is the difference between “making love” and “fucking.” The second poem is all about him. It is his obsession with her body. The problem I have with this poem is almost the opposite of the first. Do they have secrets, or does he, does she? Is nothing between them bare, or is nothing between him and her bare? The ‘him’ and ‘her’ here seem to be separate throughout the majority of the poem, and yet, it says “their.” Are they a plural or two singulars occupying the same space?
Thanks for the poetry. I hope these comments aren’t too conceited.
to respond to a later point first, no i didnt intend performer in my comment. i used actor interchangeably with subject.
as to the rest. in the first poem. its interesting to me that you find the most clearly stated "fusing" of these two people in the last two lines, since those two lines (as opposed to lines in the middle three stanzas) are entirely non-physical in the sense of the two individuals touching each other. not interesting in a bad way. just interesting.
beyond that. the questions you ask as to who is advancing and (particularly) when the two come together i think are some of the questions that led me to revise the poem. im not sure the two people ever came together in the first poem.
with that in mind, i think youre right that the first and last stanzas seem different than the middle three -- but perhaps unclearly so. again, reason for revision.
i wont say what i intended, in large part because i dont remember, but i will say that it seems to me the first poem could stand another (perhaps less drastic, perhaps formal) revision.
as to the second poem. your questions here, it seems to me, imply your own answers. i would only suggest to you that perhaps the two poems are not as different as you suppose. one sweeter than the other, maybe. but perhaps it is not only the second poem that is him obsessing over her body.
a love poem becomes something else? perhaps.
thanks for your comments. (though i must admit curiosity as to your identity.)
i'm not yet sure if i am entirely satisfied with this response, or whether in retrospect, it is all passion and not explained at all (which makes it more than a little ironic).
that said:
I think that in large part, the job of a poet is to hold –with conviction– a meaning. And through the page (as that is the medium of a poet (conventionally)) convey that meaning. That is to say, through line breaking, spacing, images, allusions, punctuation, capitalization, word choice, etc. (!) the poet’s task is to show the reader what s/he intends to say (not just words but concepts, ideas, philosophies!) through this cluster of words on a page (or screen, as it were). It is essential that you, not only remember, but know what you mean to say, and you that you say it. Otherwise, what are you doing at all except rearranging your vocabulary in space? That said, if you have a Meaning, I agree that you shouldn’t paste a header onto your poem that reads “THIS IS LOVE! (in my opinion, if you please).” Your poem should say that for you. So, I will fling the question at you (hopefully not too harshly): What are you saying?
Make it clear. Don’t hit me over the head with it, but let your meaning be found. Because if you don’t put it out there, no one will ever find it.
ideally, i would think, the abstract job of everyone would be to hold onto meaning with conviction.
that said. poets ought to write with intent, of course. and that intent, i think, ought to be to illumine. you would say, yes, to illuminate the poet's own meaning. and i would say, no, to illuminate the readers' meanings.
i would say the poet succeeds whenever her reader is unable to read her poem without thinking about it and interpreting it and reflecting upon it.
you read the two poems here and found the first to be an expression of love and the second an expression of lust. i might entreat you to reread the first, considering the first and last stanzas as a moment in time and the middle three stanzas as occurring in the male actor's imagination -- and then i might ask you whether it is still different in kind from the second poem, or only in degree. and you could consider that and decide either way, or something entirely different.
but the lack of "clarity" is not, i dont think, fatal.
you ask me what i meant. and i say to you, in all honesty, i refuse to presume that it matters.
in other words. if i write a poem about lust, and you think it reads like a love poem, you would say ive failed. id say, on the contrary, ive succeeded in furthering the illumination of your feelings about love. and all the more so when we (or you and others) have a conversation about why it is a poem about love or about lust.
of course, poets often (always?) wear other hats. were i to write an anti-war poem that you read and consider a pro-war poem, i will have failed as an activist -- though i will have succeeded as a poet. if i write a love poem that you read as a poem about lust alone, i will have failed as a romantic in the very moment i succeeded as a poet.
in sum. the poet, bob dylan wrote, is the one who carries the light bulb. whenever the bulb turns on, i think, the poet has succeeded -- no matter what it reveals.
7 comments:
Those are completely different. The first reads sweet and innocent, while the other is forceful. They’d actually be interesting side by side on a spread. See what happens when you play on the tone of each poem.
There is something in the first, however, that you lose. There’s a dis-unity in the beginning that makes the poem interesting. And suddenly, it's lost. I want to know why.
im not sure what you mean by dis-unity.
the fact that in the first poem the first stanza seems to find the two actors apart (say, across a room) and then by the second stanza they are suddenly together?
the fact that in the first poem the first stanza seems to be from the perspective of the male actor, while the rest of the poem seems more neutral?
both of those, i suppose, are lost in the second poem to some extent at least. but im not sure i miss them. that is, im not sure i find that either made the first poem interesting -- just less coherent.
id love to hear (read) you elaborate.
thanks for your comment.
Clarification:
I see disunity in the first stanza. The two actors, as you say, are two separate people. One person is doing the assuming and presuming, advancing and relying. That is a singe person’s actions, or so it would seem by the singular pronoun “her” (making the other actor the ‘him’).
By the second stanza, the point of view of the poem switches. It is “their secrets” and “between them.” The subjects seem to be unified, they have become one entity. The shared quality is perpetuated in the third and fourth stanza, but it isn’t stated until the fifth.
Why is that? Are these two people in sync with one another in the second and third stanza, or not until the fifth?
The idea of an advancer, if you will, is lost in the second stanza. Does it still exist? Does it exist until she follows his gaze with her hand?
Where do these people fuse? It feels as though the line break between the first and second stanza is a muted, yet graceful, collision of these characters. That collision isn’t presented until the fifth stanza.
I feel like I’m running myself in circles, so here’s my question:
When does this him and her become a them? When does the assumption become unnecessary and the knowing begins? Where is their pivotal point?
Is it truly in the last two lines of the poem, or are you hiding it in between the first two stanzas?
Also, do you say “actor” and mean subject, or do you mean performer?
There doesn’t seem to be any mention of theater in the poem… should there be?
If you mean actor, then that adds a completely different facet to the poem, but also satirizes your title of an un-clichéd representation of love --or redefines the cliché, as it were.
If you mean actor, my personal opinion is that you should stop meaning actor. You have a beautiful portrayal of love, don’t let it be an interpretations of an interpretation, let it be a definition. Write in the moment, not three screens between.
I suppose the difference between the first and second poem is the difference between “making love” and “fucking.” The second poem is all about him. It is his obsession with her body. The problem I have with this poem is almost the opposite of the first. Do they have secrets, or does he, does she? Is nothing between them bare, or is nothing between him and her bare? The ‘him’ and ‘her’ here seem to be separate throughout the majority of the poem, and yet, it says “their.” Are they a plural or two singulars occupying the same space?
Thanks for the poetry. I hope these comments aren’t too conceited.
to respond to a later point first, no i didnt intend performer in my comment. i used actor interchangeably with subject.
as to the rest. in the first poem. its interesting to me that you find the most clearly stated "fusing" of these two people in the last two lines, since those two lines (as opposed to lines in the middle three stanzas) are entirely non-physical in the sense of the two individuals touching each other. not interesting in a bad way. just interesting.
beyond that. the questions you ask as to who is advancing and (particularly) when the two come together i think are some of the questions that led me to revise the poem. im not sure the two people ever came together in the first poem.
with that in mind, i think youre right that the first and last stanzas seem different than the middle three -- but perhaps unclearly so. again, reason for revision.
i wont say what i intended, in large part because i dont remember, but i will say that it seems to me the first poem could stand another (perhaps less drastic, perhaps formal) revision.
as to the second poem. your questions here, it seems to me, imply your own answers. i would only suggest to you that perhaps the two poems are not as different as you suppose. one sweeter than the other, maybe. but perhaps it is not only the second poem that is him obsessing over her body.
a love poem becomes something else? perhaps.
thanks for your comments. (though i must admit curiosity as to your identity.)
i'm not yet sure if i am entirely satisfied with this response, or whether in retrospect, it is all passion and not explained at all (which makes it more than a little ironic).
that said:
I think that in large part, the job of a poet is to hold –with conviction– a meaning. And through the page (as that is the medium of a poet (conventionally)) convey that meaning. That is to say, through line breaking, spacing, images, allusions, punctuation, capitalization, word choice, etc. (!) the poet’s task is to show the reader what s/he intends to say (not just words but concepts, ideas, philosophies!) through this cluster of words on a page (or screen, as it were).
It is essential that you, not only remember, but know what you mean to say, and you that you say it. Otherwise, what are you doing at all except rearranging your vocabulary in space?
That said, if you have a Meaning, I agree that you shouldn’t paste a header onto your poem that reads “THIS IS LOVE! (in my opinion, if you please).” Your poem should say that for you.
So, I will fling the question at you (hopefully not too harshly):
What are you saying?
Make it clear. Don’t hit me over the head with it, but let your meaning be found. Because if you don’t put it out there, no one will ever find it.
ideally, i would think, the abstract job of everyone would be to hold onto meaning with conviction.
that said. poets ought to write with intent, of course. and that intent, i think, ought to be to illumine. you would say, yes, to illuminate the poet's own meaning. and i would say, no, to illuminate the readers' meanings.
i would say the poet succeeds whenever her reader is unable to read her poem without thinking about it and interpreting it and reflecting upon it.
you read the two poems here and found the first to be an expression of love and the second an expression of lust. i might entreat you to reread the first, considering the first and last stanzas as a moment in time and the middle three stanzas as occurring in the male actor's imagination -- and then i might ask you whether it is still different in kind from the second poem, or only in degree. and you could consider that and decide either way, or something entirely different.
but the lack of "clarity" is not, i dont think, fatal.
you ask me what i meant. and i say to you, in all honesty, i refuse to presume that it matters.
in other words. if i write a poem about lust, and you think it reads like a love poem, you would say ive failed. id say, on the contrary, ive succeeded in furthering the illumination of your feelings about love. and all the more so when we (or you and others) have a conversation about why it is a poem about love or about lust.
of course, poets often (always?) wear other hats. were i to write an anti-war poem that you read and consider a pro-war poem, i will have failed as an activist -- though i will have succeeded as a poet. if i write a love poem that you read as a poem about lust alone, i will have failed as a romantic in the very moment i succeeded as a poet.
in sum. the poet, bob dylan wrote, is the one who carries the light bulb. whenever the bulb turns on, i think, the poet has succeeded -- no matter what it reveals.
thanks for your comments.
come now children,
no more fighting.
to smiles
Post a Comment