Another piece that won't be read

[Jolly McJollyso]

An abandoned car in the middle of a field
leaking oils onto the grass,
dyes the browning leaves black underneath.

Withering and rusting together,
while insects scurry by them—
scurry and swarm and scuttle around them

to keep them company
and sate themselves on oil-stains,

because flies love to buzz
around an abandoned car
in an abandoned field.

[dyingflame]

I read it! lol. in relation to the thread's title, I think a lot of members here read each other's stuff, but if the poster is relatively unknown he wont get comments. that seems to be the general tendency anyway, to me.

now, with the poem in mind, I like the image of the car dripping oil on the field and "corrupting it" very much. At least according to my interpretation I feel I relate to my opinion of what it entails. For me your piece is a metaphor to the post modern era and our situation in denial of our natural habitat; the car symbolizing quite aptly humanity's rush to urbanization, and the innocent insects being those who think materialism is the key to happines; the "browning leaves black underneath" for me seems to be the most powerful image, of nature dying, ignored, corrupted. I don't know if this is what you had in mind but the image is very powerful. I would play around with it a bit and enhance this symbolic power it has to make it sound broody (the tone is quite detached, seems like an observation, which I like) but to inject some emotion in poetry is rarely a bad thing, I think. The introducing two lines could also be rephrased (I dunno how I just thought they're too direct on first read) The form is quite apt though, its brevity catching the solitude of the car.. the abandoned wreck

[NickAdams]

if the poster is relatively unknown he wont get comments.

It's best to post on other threads and keep your name on the recent forum post.

The poem is mysterious in the vein of Edward Hopper. I know the wind blows, but can neither see, nor hear it. Abandonment takes time to be concluded, so I know the care has been there awhile, but the leak suggest something fairly recent. Then there's the insects. The decay of time?

[Ace]

I figured he had been relating the thread title to the car- abandoned because people are too busy to pay mind to it.

Then again, maybe I am thinking too deeply.

[NickAdams]

Ace,

That's good.

[Jolly McJollyso]

I figured he had been relating the thread title to the car- abandoned because people are too busy to pay mind to it.

Then again, maybe I am thinking too deeply.
Ace hit the nail on the head.

[Pendragon]

It's good. Sorry I took so long to get to it! I would add one more line to the last verse to balance the poem, but what I couldn't say... Something like "You never lack for company, even when you're a wreck..." or words to that effect. You know, now new things surround the car since it has been abandoned, insects as you mention, probably mice in the upholstery, and snakes underneath. http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/ThumbsUp.gif

[dyingflame]

beh i don't know sometimes a poet feels invisible everywhere; i guess that's normal for us though

[Jolly McJollyso]

Pendragon: I don't think the car's a wreck. It's just abandoned. The only things left to it are insignificant buzzers who swarm around it.

[Countess]

ACE - that was my first thought - that the title was a double entendre (but I love double entendres: they're so ambiguous. (-:)

The second was of a poem I wrote "Smashed" which hypothesized about the wrecked cars in one of those "new parts" places. It was very depressing but I liked it and wish I hadn't lost it.

BUT - in keeping with your poem, are we flies then, because we are buzzing around your abandoned car - LOL.

[Jolly McJollyso]

ACE - that was my first thought - that the title was a double entendre (but I love double entendres: they're so ambiguous. (-:)

The second was of a poem I wrote "Smashed" which hypothesized about the wrecked cars in one of those "new parts" places. It was very depressing but I liked it and wish I hadn't lost it.

BUT - in keeping with your poem, are we flies then, because we are buzzing around your abandoned car - LOL.
I think of the abandoned car leaking oils onto the grass as the forgotten style of "technical" writing, the pun being on cars as technology. I wrote it about people like James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, William Faulkner, and Marcel Proust, gone from the public eye, around whom only a handful of the insignificant flies of the academy buzz.

[blp]

Neat, nice. A little prosy at the end. Made me think of photos of Jackson Pollock with an old car in a field. The idea that it's a metaphor slightly mucks it up for me. The car and the oil and the flies seem enough in themselves. I read a Susan Sontag essay attacking metaphor when I was quite young and I guess I've never got over it. Can't recall the title.

[Jolly McJollyso]

Metaphors are all we have left to separate us from JK Rowling and Dan Brown.

[blp]

Metaphors are all we have left to separate us from JK Rowling and Dan Brown.

Yeah. Because they've completely co-opted and neutralised formal experimentation, haven't they? ;)

[Il Penseroso]

"Against Interpretation" is the essay blp.

I dig the mysterious bit of plurals in the middle, struck me as a bit odd which separates this from the all too mundane experience it could be. Not one of your best, but there's definitely enough to keep a person interested for such a short work.

[blp]

Thanks, P. I've recommended it about a thousand times. My mind just went blank.

[NickAdams]

Metaphors are all we have left to separate us from JK Rowling and Dan Brown.

I read The Da Vinci Code and barfed, because of Brown's similes.:sick:

[Jolly McJollyso]

I read The Da Vinci Code and barfed, because of Brown's similes.:sick:
Hahaha.

I'm not a fan of similies. My feelings on them are this: "Grow a pair and make it a metaphor... 'oh, it was LIIIKE thiiisss,' shut up, simile-boy."

In fairness, though, Dan Brown is particularly bad at them.

[SteveH]

Keats it ain't, but it's got something. The way it comes full circle, with slight alteration, is effective, and the image is vivid.

[SteveH]

Hahaha.

I'm not a fan of similies. My feelings on them are this: "Grow a pair and make it a metaphor... 'oh, it was LIIIKE thiiisss,' shut up, simile-boy."


What's a metaphor?

I don't know - what is it for?

[SleepyWitch]

hey Jolly, I like it.. except the last stanza.. it sounds funny and banal in some way... the first three stanzas make the reader (or at least they make SleepyWitch) wonder what the poem is about. and then the last stanza seems to say "Well, it's all because flies like to buzz around abandoned cars, dumba**"... the first three stanzas kinda "pull" the reader into the image and make him/her visualize the scene, and then the last one kicks you back out.. :bawling:
but apart from the last stanza, I like it a lot. i didn't have trouble visualizing the car, the field, the leaves and the beatles...
I can't "feel" the image either.. but that's OK, seeing as the car is abandoned there shouldn't be anyone there to "feel" it (not even the reader) ...argh, I'm not making too much sense, am I?

[Countess]

Metaphors are all we have left to separate us from JK Rowling and Dan Brown.

LMAO! Can I add Nicholas Sparks? He's the devil you know. The devil was virtually ignored until some publisher saw his pretty face, and thought he could market him, and His Infernal Magesty (not the rock group) was mass produced, and dripped diarrhea all over The South, in the laps of middle-aged housewives whose idea of a good book includes a photo of a windblown couple in some field...

That is why all the authors I read are dead. Dead authors are the best ones, because only recently has the commercial infestation ruined every known art form to man. I wish I could single-handedly destroy the entire machine, but I can't.

But that might make for a good book - a superhero bent on redeeming art, music and literature from the hands of greedy capitalist swine...

[Countess]

I wrote it about people like James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, William Faulkner, and Marcel Proust, gone from the public eye, around whom only a handful of the insignificant flies of the academy buzz.

I love Joyce and Beckett, don't care for Faulkner and haven't read Proust. But all the authors I adore are noticably absent these days as well. One of the great ironies is Stephen King has called Lovecraft the second coming of Edgar Allen Poe, and yet King sits on the coffee table of a great many homes while, at the mention of Lovecraft, people say "Who dat"?

[NickAdams]

Countess,

Why book? Let's start a movement! I think there's a literary movement called the brutalist which is moving that way, but I'm not totally clear on their manifesto. I think it should be a natural progression for the existential movement though. Writers need to be in complete control of their literary freedom. So, lets make our own choices. New York is great soil for little seeds. Who's with me?!

[SleepyWitch]

count me in :)
i've got no idea what you're talking about, but "literary movement" sounds like fun...
i'm not too happy about the art-for-art's-sake aspect, though

[NickAdams]

count me in :)
i've got no idea what you're talking about, but "literary movement" sounds like fun...
i'm not too happy about the art-for-art's-sake aspect, though

Me either. I don't see what's interesting in writing just to put words on paper. I need, need, NEED a deeper motive. What is your literary philosophy?

[SleepyWitch]

Me either. I don't see what's interesting in writing just to put words on paper. I need need a deeper motive. What is your literary philosophy?

dunno.. i don't really have any (yet)..
well, I'm no good at writing on demand or writing just to entertain people... e.g. I don't like my-neighbour-is-an-alien stories that don't have any deeper point...
when/if I write a story I've got to really want to write it.. I can't sit down and say "OK, it's time I wrote a story. Maybe I should write about a vampire today and a detective tomorrow and an murderer the day after tomorrow, coz I haven't written about these"...
er?

[Jolly McJollyso]

Me either. I don't see what's interesting in writing just to put words on paper. I need, need, NEED a deeper motive. What is your literary philosophy?
Post-structuralism and deconstruction.

[blp]

What is your literary philosophy?

As Sam Fuller says in Godard's Pierrot le Fou: 'Emotion'.

[No, look, shut up about My Chemical Romance. That's not what I mean!]

[Countess]

My literary philosophy runs along the lines of art for art's sake, but perhaps is better expressed in these words "the exposition of the self". I absolutely disdain "writing because one has a 'neat idea' for a story", "writing to make alot of money", "writing to convey an agenda" and "writing to be creative". Great literature is the exercise of one's passion in words.
Now, as to the movement, count me in. I think we should start with peaceful protests, however, ala Martin Luther King. I don't think a march on Washington will generate the effect we desire, so - what is the literary capital of the world? Let's march somewhere; a nice walk is always a pleasurable experience.

[Jolly McJollyso]

My literary philosophy runs along the lines of art for art's sake, but perhaps is better expressed in these words "the exposition of the self". I absolutely disdain "writing because one has a 'neat idea' for a story", "writing to make alot of money", "writing to convey an agenda" and "writing to be creative". Great literature is the exercise of one's passion in words.
Now, as to the movement, count me in. I think we should start with peaceful protests, however, ala Martin Luther King. I don't think a march on Washington will generate the effect we desire, so - what is the literary capital of the world? Let's march somewhere; a nice walk is always a pleasurable experience.
Bloomsday, perhaps?

[NickAdams]

dunno.. i don't really have any (yet)..
well, I'm no good at writing on demand or writing just to entertain people... e.g. I don't like my-neighbour-is-an-alien stories that don't have any deeper point...
when/if I write a story I've got to really want to write it.. I can't sit down and say "OK, it's time I wrote a story. Maybe I should write about a vampire today and a detective tomorrow and an murderer the day after tomorrow, coz I haven't written about these"...
er?

I find it funny when friends and family suggest stories for you to write. I can't write it if I don't have a personal connection to the material.


Post-structuralism and deconstruction.

I have two books by Darrida, but I haven't read them yet. Could you explain the logos?


My literary philosophy runs along the lines of art for art's sake, but perhaps is better expressed in these words "the exposition of the self". I absolutely disdain "writing because one has a 'neat idea' for a story", "writing to make alot of money", "writing to convey an agenda" and "writing to be creative". Great literature is the exercise of one's passion in words.
Now, as to the movement, count me in. I think we should start with peaceful protests, however, ala Martin Luther King. I don't think a march on Washington will generate the effect we desire, so - what is the literary capital of the world? Let's march somewhere; a nice walk is always a pleasurable experience.

I always thought art for art's sake was writing to be creative.;)

I think the movement will be stronger with writers havings different ideas about literature, minus the seekers of financial gain. I'm thinking boycott, but a march would be nice. Maybe would could hand out free fiction.

Writing to convey an agenda: Would you include Sartre and Camus?

[blp]

I think 'logos' means spoken, aural language. Derrida suggests that, from Plato onwards and perhaps even before him, this is insidiously, but crucially, privileged over written language, which is depicted, variously, as witchy, unnatural and even poisonous. Hence 'logocentrism'. Derrida's view seems to be that this has somehow governed the entire development of Western philosophy. His aim is not to give writing pre-eminence, but deconstruct the opposition, showing that what is feared in writing is already present in speech.

[brokenheartpoet]

Great poem way to go you got talent

[Jolly McJollyso]

I think 'logos' means spoken, aural language. Derrida suggests that, from Plato onwards and perhaps even before him, this is insidiously, but crucially, privileged over written language, which is depicted, variously, as witchy, unnatural and even poisonous. Hence 'logocentrism'. Derrida's view seems to be that this has somehow governed the entire development of Western philosophy. His aim is not to give writing pre-eminence, but deconstruct the opposition, showing that what is feared in writing is already present in speech.
Pretty much. Impressive comprehension; Derrida can be quite dense.

[blp]

I'm afraid it's all out of 'Derrida for Beginners', J. :blush:

[Jolly McJollyso]

I'm afraid it's all out of 'Derrida for Beginners', J. :blush:
Haha, that's ok. Unless we are impressively versed in the pre-existing critical theories, we all need a little help when first looking to Derrida.

[Countess]

Bloomsday, perhaps?

I haven't a clue to be honest. ;) I tend to think for myself and then get told that somebody else has already come up with the idea - LOL. I'll look Bloomsday up to see if we're compatible.

Thanks for the reference, however.

[Countess]

I have two books by Darrida, but I haven't read them yet. Could you explain the logos?

I always thought art for art's sake was writing to be creative.;)

Writing to convey an agenda: Would you include Sartre and Camus?

For me, "writing to be creative" is slightly different to me than art for arts sake - the motive is different. Writing to be creative is intentional, ie: "I'm going to write a book because I want to create art" versus "I'm going to write a book because I have an internal compulsion that drives me to translate this internal event/paradigm/emotion, etc into something tangible."

Re: Logos. For me, this word (actually, I named one of my characters Logoi Archenous because of it) will always be defined in the Greek sense: the material substance by and through which all things are created/one.

I kinda have a similiar belief about the incorpreal as well (I think all souls are made of stuff and certain souls are made of the same stuff but shaped differently, which is why we feel an uncanny bond to certain folks. It's not so much reincarnation as a creation out of same material. God recycles his stuff, so he never runs out of it - LOL!)

I'm sure somebody else has already thought that up.

Sartre and Camus. Yes, I would include them. I like their books/existential philosophy and have read both but I don't consider it "pure literature" as much as "philosophy personified".

I have learned from them. Even Nietschze, who I don't like at all, has taught me something, but now I'm off on a tangent again.

[SleepyWitch]

My literary philosophy runs along the lines of art for art's sake, but perhaps is better expressed in these words "the exposition of the self". I absolutely disdain "writing because one has a 'neat idea' for a story", "writing to make alot of money", "writing to convey an agenda" and "writing to be creative". Great literature is the exercise of one's passion in words.
Now, as to the movement, count me in. I think we should start with peaceful protests, however, ala Martin Luther King. I don't think a march on Washington will generate the effect we desire, so - what is the literary capital of the world? Let's march somewhere; a nice walk is always a pleasurable experience.

hehe, in my case, the only effect that a march to Washington would have would be a drowned SleepyWitch at the bottom of the Atlantic :)


Great literature is the exercise of one's passion in words.
I'll subscribe to that

[SleepyWitch]

I'm afraid it's all out of 'Derrida for Beginners', J. :blush:



I think 'logos' means spoken, aural language. Derrida suggests that, from Plato onwards and perhaps even before him, this is insidiously, but crucially, privileged over written language, which is depicted, variously, as witchy, unnatural and even poisonous. Hence 'logocentrism'. Derrida's view seems to be that this has somehow governed the entire development of Western philosophy. His aim is not to give writing pre-eminence, but deconstruct the opposition, showing that what is feared in writing is already present in speech.


sounds interesting... I've only read his article "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" so far.. had to read it for a Lit course... it was OK to read but I haven't ventured to read any of his books yet. Are they very difficult to understand?