Human for Dummies

[PrinceMyshkin]

This is the way it works, when it does:
in falling in love with him
she discovers a vein of loveliness
deeper than what she had seen at first
which enables her to open up more of herself
to him, seeing which he discovers
more of himself to offer her,
which leads her...

But you see how it goes?
Love is the manual
by which we study to become truly human.

[ampoule]

Clever with the title and when I opened up the book, there it is in black and white, all one needs to know.
Very good Prince.

[asilef73]

this IS the way it should work. i really need to get this book.

[TheFifthElement]

Yes, interesting poem Prince, especially those last 3 lines. It follows your usual 'conversational' style which, if it were mine, I might trim down a little - on first read I tripped over this line "deeper than what she had seen at first", and rephrased it in my own mind "deeper than she had first seen", but I wonder if in this respect I am more influenced by how it would sound, spoken in the rough Lancastrian accent I am used to.

I love the way the poem builds, almost as though the thought becomes carried away with itself, only to be caught by those last three lines. Your opening line is excellent; gripping.

[Virgil]

Actually I prefer the first stanza, especially up to here.

This is the way it works, when it does:
in falling in love with him
she discovers a vein of loveliness
deeper than what she had seen at first
which enables her to open up more of herself
to him,
These lines below need something else in my opinion, something more robust.

seeing which he discovers
more of himself to offer her,
which leads her...
Not that they're bad, but they lack anything like the "vein" image of the lines before.

As to the last stanza, it seems like a Hallmark card phrase to me. Actually if you left it out completely, the poem communicates it all.

[Virgil]

this IS the way it should work. i really need to get this book.

:lol: Yes, we all need that book. :D

[PrinceMyshkin]

Actually I prefer the first stanza, especially up to here.

These lines below need something else in my opinion, something more robust.

Not that they're bad, but they lack anything like the "vein" image of the lines before.

As to the last stanza, it seems like a Hallmark card phrase to me. Actually if you left it out completely, the poem communicates it all.

I'd be wounded to the quick by your Hallmark remark - had I not already so described it in a discussion with a friend of mine! But without trying to justify my three lines by this argument, might I offer as a general observation that one ought not to scorn everything that one finds in one of those saccharine Hallmark cards. It would be a mistake, I think, to assume in advance that nothing that is written there can possibly contain even a grain of truth.

On the other hand, I reproach those last three lines of mine because they are prettier than they are true. As an idealization, there is (I hope) some truth in them. As an observation of the world and how it really works, it's b/s.

When Auden was preparing his collected poetry for publication, he came back to the line in one of them

We must love one another or die
and decided that while it had a nice poetic sound it was not strictly true, that without food shelter or water we might die; without love we might live sad, lonely lives but would not necessarily die so he changed the line to

We must love one another and die...

But even there, I believe, he stopped short of the whole, unvarnished truth. We must indeed die, but there is no comparable physiological or other compulsion to love each other... And we have all probably known at least one or two who recognize an obligation that others have to love them but no reciprocal obligation to return that love.

Thanks for your closely reasoned critique of my poem.

[Virgil]

I'd be wounded to the quick by your Hallmark remark - had I not already so described it in a discussion with a friend of mine! But without trying to justify my three lines by this argument, might I offer as a general observation that one ought not to scorn everything that one finds in one of those saccharine Hallmark cards. It would be a mistake, I think, to assume in advance that nothing that is written there can possibly contain even a grain of truth.


It is never my intention to ever, ever wound anyone in these poetry discussions. (That's for our political and cultural arguments :p ). Truely I don't ever mean to wound anyone here. With that I offer opinion that a poet might take into consideration or drop. It is his/her poem and it's your decision. I just offer my thought.


On the other hand, I reproach those last three lines of mine because they are prettier than they are true. As an idealization, there is (I hope) some truth in them. As an observation of the world and how it really works, it's b/s.

When Auden was preparing his collected poetry for publication, he came back to the line in one of them

We must love one another or die
and decided that while it had a nice poetic sound it was not strictly true, that without food shelter or water we might die; without love we might live sad, lonely lives but would not necessarily die so he changed the line to

We must love one another and die...

But even there, I believe, he stopped short of the whole, unvarnished truth. We must indeed die, but there is no comparable physiological or other compulsion to love each other... And we have all probably known at least one or two who recognize an obligation that others have to love them but no reciprocal obligation to return that love.

Thanks for your closely reasoned critique of my poem.
I agree there is definitely a place for lines such as those sometimes. I'm not sure if there are any hard fast rules on it, perhaps on an occaision by occaision basis. Perhaps longer poems can sustain them better than short, but even there i can probably think of examples of when they do or don't for either short or long. I hope that helps. It's probably up to the reader as to how he reacts to it.

[kelby_lake]

love the title!

[PrinceMyshkin]

Yes, interesting poem Prince, especially those last 3 lines. It follows your usual 'conversational' style which, if it were mine, I might trim down a little - on first read I tripped over this line "deeper than what she had seen at first", and rephrased it in my own mind "deeper than she had first seen", but I wonder if in this respect I am more influenced by how it would sound, spoken in the rough Lancastrian accent I am used to.

I wonder if that "rough Lancastrian accent" of yours is anything like my Yiddish-inflected English? But no, I wouldn't go with your preferred revision because it sounds just a touch literary or formal to me.


I love the way the poem builds, almost as though the thought becomes carried away with itself, only to be caught by those last three lines. Your opening line is excellent; gripping.

Your observation re the thought becoming carried away is precisely how I work. Thank you.

[firefangled]

This is the way it works, when it does:
in falling in love with him
she discovers a vein of loveliness
deeper than what she had seen at first
which enables her to open up more of herself
to him, seeing which he discovers
more of himself to offer her,
which leads her...

But you see how it goes?
Love is the manual
by which we study to become truly human.


I enjoyed the thoughts here very much and the way they were written.

The first part of this made me think of a reverse rendering of R.D. Lang's Knots, an undoing of the knots, if you will.

To what has been said of the last three lines, I would add that where love is what you say, the manual must be thick with false epiphanies, encrypted secrets neither lover knows of the other, nor themselves. The exposures and discoveries may take years, in some cases, and the real human characteristics of love, therefore, are good old fashion faith and patience that we all will eventually be exposed and we all will eventually see loveliness in one another.

That is what makes the last three lines seem Hallmarkish - seeming, not being oversimplified. Because I agree with you about such expressed sentiments being worthy of our attention.

It's just that a simple true statement regarding love, though always true, may never lend itself to being, truly, simply said.

[PrinceMyshkin]

It's just that a simple true statement regarding love, though always true, may never lend itself to being, truly, simply said.

It's just that a simple true statement regarding love,
though always true,
may never lend itself to being, truly, simply said.

Found poetry is like a handshake
from a little-known stranger
in which there is unexpected warmth.

[TheFifthElement]

I wonder if that "rough Lancastrian accent" of yours is anything like my Yiddish-inflected English? But no, I wouldn't go with your preferred revision because it sounds just a touch literary or formal to me.

Probably not! I think it's just me. It's the "what" which makes me trip up on the line. Locally the word "what" is used as an rough alternative to "that", and coupled with the rest of the accent it makes me cringe, for example:

"that's a nice car what you have got"

or

"I don't know what you're talking about, it were him what done it."

etc, etc.

When I hear it I'm always sent spiralling in the other direction, headlong towards the good old proper formal Queen's English (otherwise known as sounding like you've got a stick up your **se, guess I can't win!).

Is this just a British thing, or does that happen elsewhere?

[CdnReader]

This is the way it works, when it does:
in falling in love with him
she discovers a vein of loveliness
deeper than what she had seen at first
which enables her to open up more of herself
to him, seeing which he discovers
more of himself to offer her,
which leads her...

But you see how it goes?
Love is the manual
by which we study to become truly human.


Nice piece, Jer. The first time through I read "loveliness" as "loneliness." Hmmm......

[Pendragon]

If this be "Human For Dummies" I pray they read it! :) http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/LoveHeart.gif

[PrinceMyshkin]

Probably not! I think it's just me. It's the "what" which makes me trip up on the line. Locally the word "what" is used as an rough alternative to "that", and coupled with the rest of the accent it makes me cringe, for example:

"that's a nice car what you have got"

or

"I don't know what you're talking about, it were him what done it."

etc, etc.

When I hear it I'm always sent spiralling in the other direction, headlong towards the good old proper formal Queen's English (otherwise known as sounding like you've got a stick up your **se, guess I can't win!).

Is this just a British thing, or does that happen elsewhere?

Very much appreciated the note what you left for me. Thanks.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Actually I prefer the first stanza, especially up to here.

These lines below need something else in my opinion, something more robust.

Not that they're bad, but they lack anything like the "vein" image of the lines before.

As to the last stanza, it seems like a Hallmark card phrase to me. Actually if you left it out completely, the poem communicates it all.

Case I didn't make this perfectly clear before, I took NO OFFENSE whatsoever at any part of your thoughtful critique.

Apropos those last three lines, however, I seem to remember some poet saying that if there are lines you're in love with, get rid of them - but I'm not quite man (or poet) enough to do that!

[TheFifthElement]

Very much appreciated the note what you left for me. Thanks.

:lol: