To some, poetry

[PrinceMyshkin]

To some, poetry is more
than elegant lines that don’t quite reach
the right-hand edge of the page.

No, it is their Beef Wellington,
their coq au vin, love, heartbreak,
a whole other way of life,

better than sex or jogging.

[Bar22do]

The wellington crumbs
fall from the Duke’s mouth
all sliding straight
to poet’s plate.
le filet de boeuf en croûte
shares the same route.

Thank you, Prince!

[PrinceMyshkin]

The wellington crumbs
fall from the Duke’s mouth
all sliding straight
to poet’s plate.
le filet de boeuf en croûte
shares the same route.

Thank you, Prince!

Thanks for this witty use of some of the references from the foregoing poem.

[MorpheusSandman]

I really love the concept on the extremely relative nature of the value we place on things. For too many people poetry has become an obsolete art form; something that no longer has anything of value to offer modern people. To those like us it's... well, you covered it in your piece. I get so tired of people always telling me that the things I love are "just movies" or "just music" or "just books" or whatever; as if these things have some kind of absolute value. As if, as you say, sex or jogging have some kind of absolute, measurable value that's automatically greater. Is it really so much that people can't deal with any kind of ambiguous relativity they feel the need to reduce others' passions to "merely just"?

Anyway, nice piece Prince on a subject I'm very passionate about.

[blank|verse]

Yes, very droll Prince!

Morpheus - for a second I thought this was aimed at me and thee - a subtle come-back for all the 'deconstructing' of Prince we've been doing recently! But then, of course, there's the irony that the poet himself must be included in this description.

I liked the humorous prioritising of 'jogging' last, as if better than 'sex' - that is a joke, right Prince??

[PrinceMyshkin]

Yes, very droll Prince!

Morpheus - for a second I thought this was aimed at me and thee - a subtle come-back for all the 'deconstructing' of Prince we've been doing recently! But then, of course, there's the irony that the poet himself must be included in this description.

I liked the humorous prioritising of 'jogging' last, as if better than 'sex' - that is a joke, right Prince??

Oh, absolutely, abso-effing-lutely, and God bless you for seeing it! I wondered for maybe half a moment whether the final line should be "jogging and sex," but that, it seemed to me, would have so much more of the didactic lead-footedness I'm sometimes prone to.

[AuntShecky]

I was thinking about these lines of yours off and on all weekend, and now I think I've got it (maybe not.) But it seems to me that the two gourmet dishes you named appeal to "refined" tastes, perhaps elitist. The analogy could perhaps apply to Poetry, which some folks think appeals only to highbrows.

The other notion is that the two gourmet delights, while savory, don't last long. If not consumed, they rot just as quickly as cheaper meals would. Poetry -- good or "great" poetry, anyway -- would last much longer than the finest foods and wines and other transitory phenomena you mentioned. The so-called "runner's high" allegedly achieved by jogging and the je nais se quoi quality that (more or less) arises from sex are both short-lived (even, as in the case of the latter, the practioners are well-versed in the Kama Sutra. No matter how loudly enthusiasts might gush over their respective "experiences," sometimes a meal is just a meal; a cigar, as well all know, is just a cigar. "One's grand flights," Wallace Stevens wrote, "one's Sunday baths/ Occur as they occur."

By contrast, the very best poetry is so signifigant that it is literally a matter of life and death. It took me a long time to find this line online; it's from "Astrophel, that Greeny Flower" by William Carlos Williams:

It is difficult
to get the news from poems
yet men die miserably every day
for lack
of what is found there.

Perhaps we've been indoctrinated to believe poetry is
trivial or unimportant because so much of it is pretty dreadful. It could be a case of Gresham's Law, in which the
bad drives out the good.

[Babbalanja]

To some, poetry is more
than pretentious words that some amateur
sneezes onto the page

"Look everyone, I'm a poet!" he says, clicking
to make more mawkish verses
appear on the brown screen

No, you're not.

Regards,

Istvan

[PrinceMyshkin]

I was thinking about these lines of yours off and on all weekend, and now I think I've got it (maybe not.) But it seems to me that the two gourmet dishes you named appeal to "refined" tastes, perhaps elitist. The analogy could perhaps apply to Poetry, which some think appeals only to highbrows.

The other notion is that the two gourmet delights, while
savory, don't last long. If not consumed, they rot just as
quickly as cheaper meals would. Poetry -- good or "great"
poetry, anyway -- would last much longer than the finest
foods and wines and other transitory phenomena you
mentioned. The so-called "runner's high" allegedly achieved by jogging and the je nais se quoi quality that
supposedly arises from sex are both short-lived (even, as
in the case of the latter, the practioners are well-versed
in the Kama Sutra. No matter how loudly enthusiasts might gush over their respective "experiences," sometimes a meal is just a meal; a cigar, as well all know, is just a
cigar. "One's grand flights," Wallace Stevens wrote, "one's Sunday baths/ Occur as they occur."

By contrast, the very best poetry is so signifigant that it is literally a matter of life and death.It took me a long time to find this line from "Astrophel, that Greeny Flower" by William Carlos Williams:

"It is difficult
to get the news from poems
yet men die miserably every day
for lack
of what is found there."

Perhaps we've been indoctrinated to believe poetry is
trivial or unimportant because so much of it is pretty dreadful. It could be a case of Gresham's Law, in which the
bad drives out the good.

Oh boy! Maybe I ought to go back and replace those dishes with, e.g., shepherd's pie and corned-beef hash? But I did want hoity-toity dishes to suggest something 'elevated' but yet far less important than poetry.

The lines you quote from W.C.W. are wonderful and deserve being read over and over again. His "Danse Russe" is one of my all-time favourite poems.


To some, poetry is more
than pretentious words that some amateur
sneezes onto the page

"Look everyone, I'm a poet!" he says, clicking
to make more mawkish verses
appear on the brown screen

No, you're not.

Regards,

Istvan
Fair enough, up to a point, but one critic's "pretentious" might be some would-be poet's attempt to stretch his own vocabulary and/or his/her emotional reach.

[Babyguile]

Babbalanja The Bitter I shall call you. I edited that poem you 'commented' on and I'd like to see you review your opinion of it, I re-wrote it because of an other members comments which I found very useful, still...

Aunt Shecky hi! Your analysis of the dishes is very smart and makes perfect sense but shouldn't they have been in the first stanza when he/she was talking about the modern opinion of poetry? In the second stanza she/he explains how powerful petry is.

[JuniperWoolf]

The other notion is that the two gourmet delights, while savory, don't last long. If not consumed, they rot just as quickly as cheaper meals would. Poetry -- good or "great" poetry, anyway -- would last much longer than the finest foods and wines and other transitory phenomena you mentioned. The so-called "runner's high" allegedly achieved by jogging and the je nais se quoi quality that (more or less) arises from sex are both short-lived (even, as in the case of the latter, the practioners are well-versed in the Kama Sutra. No matter how loudly enthusiasts might gush over their respective "experiences," sometimes a meal is just a meal; a cigar, as well all know, is just a cigar. "One's grand flights," Wallace Stevens wrote, "one's Sunday baths/ Occur as they occur."


It sounds a bit like you're downplaying real life because it can't compare to words on a page. Sure, maybe a poem will last longer, but is that really the point? Does duration = quality? I'd say that the best sexual experience that I've ever had, or the best meal, or my most exhilarating moment is far more valuable than a fantastic portrayal of said event in meter and rhyme. Without the experience, the words are meaningless.

[MorpheusSandman]

Morpheus - for a second I thought this was aimed at me and thee - a subtle come-back for all the 'deconstructing' of Prince we've been doing recently!HA! I hadn't even considered this but I would certainly be honored if Prince was thinking of us (at all) as he wrote the piece!


It sounds a bit like you're downplaying real life because it can't compare to words on a page... I'd say that the best... experience(s) that I've ever had... is far more valuable than a fantastic portrayal of said event in meter and rhyme. Without the experience, the words are meaningless.You actually bring up a very interesting point about actual experience VS a representation of experience in art. Why do we need art when we can experience the real thing first hand? For one, I don't think art is *merely* about capturing life experiences. For me, the best art tends to make us think about life in a new or certain way, or it makes us feel life in a new or certain way. When we experience life we can only filter it through our own senses and psyche, but with art there's always the intention of the artist directing, in an abstract sense, our experience of their work. It's somewhat like an artist saying "look over here instead of over there where you normally would".

FWIW I'm not sure if the power/experience of art is any more or less transitory than life experiences. I'm vividly reminded from a moment in an experimental Japanese film called Love & Pop where the main character narrates having been profoundly effected one night watching a film on the Diary of Anne Frank but the next day at school life goes back to normal. I've always found something really truthful about that; how we can experience art (or anything in life) and have it be so important in the moment and yet how fast that experience fades to being just a memory. It makes one wonder if there IS anything lasting and permanent.

[Delta40]

I love reading the postings of you all who I consider to be poets. You have a quality about you which eludes me. Is it merely perspective or is there more required? I wonder, what is the selection criteria of a poet?

[cogs]

I love reading the postings of you all who I consider to be poets. You have a quality about you which eludes me. Is it merely perspective or is there more required? I wonder, what is the selection criteria of a poet?
i would say anyone can become not just a poet, but any artist, should they practice with the given tools of expression, be it words, paint, moves, or sound. where there is serial (ordered) usage of those tools, expression soon becomes parallel, or, as i say, spiritual.

[Dinkleberry2010]

The state has finally been reached where anything that is written can be labeled as a poem. It doesn't matter; it can be a laundry list. There are no rules--absolutely none.
You can write the word f u c k and label it a poem.

[MorpheusSandman]

I love reading the postings of you all who I consider to be poets. You have a quality about you which eludes me. Is it merely perspective or is there more required? I wonder, what is the selection criteria of a poet?I guess my answer would be that anyone could be and, in fact, most everyone is a poet in their own way. The real question is what does it take to be a GOOD poet, to which I might say it takes the same thing to be good at just about anything. First you need the inspiration to be a poet, the imagination and ability to render life (both in a tangible and abstract sense) into interesting subjects, and a knowledge or intuitive grasp of the art of poetry in order to bring that vision to fruition. As with anything, experience and thought are invaluable. So often I've found the answer to my own questions by simply asking myself why and thinking critically about the possible answers.


There are no rules--absolutely none.There may be no rules but there are definitely still standards and accepted forms that I feel too many ignore because they're scared of standing in the shadow of giants. Though there are many, like Prince, who has formed such a distinct poetic voice of their own they can get away with it. But most aren't that good and it's probably the deluge of bad poetry because of the downfall of rules and standards that had a lot to do with the devaluation of poetry to begin with.

[Delta40]

I guess I'm thinking that a poet, inspired would write outside of the box and still deliver tacit standards

[Dinkleberry2010]

As far as poetry goes, there are no rules, no standards and no accepted forms. In short, poetry is f u c k e d

[firefangled]

…I don't think art is *merely* about capturing life experiences. For me, the best art tends to make us think about life in a new or certain way, or it makes us feel life in a new or certain way. When we experience life we can only filter it through our own senses and psyche, but with art there's always the intention of the artist directing, in an abstract sense, our experience of their work. It's somewhat like an artist saying "look over here instead of over there where you normally would".



Poets experience life with different perceptions in my opinion. There is a heightened awareness at work beyond a single moment. Morpheus, as you say above, it is something that says look out the window as you eat your Beef Wellington; see, high in the frieze of the cathedral, a hawk builds its nest without a mate; how is it this moment shares so many lives.

The best poetry must be fiction, because it is not often about single moments and if it is, it is always with a long lens perspective, and is looking for a truth behind an experience. Therefore, as in any fiction, the artist lies to tell the truth about something. The artist must make you believe, to make you "see." Art is divisive by nature. Poetry is about associations, about adjacent angles and, ultimately about itself, as painting is ultimately about painting and so on...

Art of any kind is a way of “seeing.” An artist chooses a medium because there is an experience that needs to be exposed in a certain way to get at its quintessence. I don’t think a person want to be a poet just to be a poet. The same applies to painting or sculpture or medicine or architecture…Somewhere in Lit-Net I tried to explain what I mean by this as it applies to poets:

The Hiding

There is a hiding in us all that can rise like heat from a desert of desire. Deep within there is a place of summer days we dreamed, when all the windows filled with white and nights were cold and long. And deeper still, a nameless we loves beyond the heart, beyond love in return. It surfaces along our veins, not in a flowing, but a tow as if something of the world, wonderful and wild wants it so, and pulls it slow, until we cannot help but write. This is why we live in this mirage of flesh and bone, for these moments that are poems, whether caught in words or passing on to another hiding in another hidden world.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Poets experience life with different perceptions in my opinion. There is a heightened awareness at work beyond a single moment. Morpheus, as you say above, it is something that says look out the window as you eat your Beef Wellington; see, high in the frieze of the cathedral, a hawk builds its nest without a mate; how is it this moment shares so many lives.

The best poetry must be fiction, because it is not often about single moments and if it is, it is always with a long lens perspective, and is looking for a truth behind an experience. Therefore, as in any fiction, the artist lies to tell the truth about something. The artist must make you believe, to make you "see." Art is divisive by nature. Poetry is about associations, about adjacent angles and, ultimately about itself, as painting is ultimately about painting and so on...

Art of any kind is a way of “seeing.” An artist chooses a medium because there is an experience that needs to be exposed in a certain way to get at its quintessence. I don’t think a person want to be a poet just to be a poet. The same applies to painting or sculpture or medicine or architecture…Somewhere in Lit-Net I tried to explain what I mean by this as it applies to poets:

The Hiding

There is a hiding in us all that can rise like heat from a desert of desire. Deep within there is a place of summer days we dreamed, when all the windows filled with white and nights were cold and long. And deeper still, a nameless we loves beyond the heart, beyond love in return. It surfaces along our veins, not in a flowing, but a tow as if something of the world, wonderful and wild wants it so, and pulls it slow, until we cannot help but write. This is why we live in this mirage of flesh and bone, for these moments that are poems, whether caught in words or passing on to another hiding in another hidden world.

I'm tempted to add something to this discussion if only for the pleasure of participating in something so civil and intelligent. The one thing I might add is perhaps inappropriate inasmuch as I have in mind the analogy of a performing rather than a creating artist: i.e., if I were an expert guitarist, I might want to play for you just to hear and to demonstrate what beautiful sounds can be produced (Yes, yes: "Peter Quince at the Clavier")... Just so, beyond what the writer and the painter can represent is the desire to share the beauty of words, colour and lines.

Somewhere in one of Faulkner's novellas, one of the protagonists asks: "Why are we talking about the bear?" to which the other replies (approximately): "We need to talk about something."

[JuniperWoolf]

As far as poetry goes, there are no rules, no standards and no accepted forms. In short, poetry is f u c k e d

Haha, I think that no rules = a good thing. Who is qualified to dictate what poetry is? Poetry doesn't belong to anyone. It's expression, so it's personal.

[Delta40]

I don't disagree with anything I have read regarding art. I have thought that writing as a medium is a way to reveal the author, whether fiction or not. What we write creates our own path and ultimately our own picture. This perspective has naivety yet I only know discovery as I discover it

[PrinceMyshkin]

Haha, I think that no rules = a good thing. Who is qualified to dictate what poetry is? Poetry doesn't belong to anyone. It's expression, so it's personal.

This is a struggle that has been going on forever and perhaps always will: between those who can hardly get out of bed in the morning without rules for doing so, and those who see every rule as a barrier to their own self-realization.

[MorpheusSandman]

@firefangled: I wish I had more to add but what you said was extremely eloquent and very, very truthful. About the only thing I have to say is I'm not so sure poets inherently have a heightened awareness of life and greater sensitivity, but merely they have a means by which to express it. We can only guess at the universe of thoughts inside any given person; many of which simply don't have the skill to work in an artistic medium. Though I definitely think what makes great artists is an ability to present their awareness of things we are not aware of or take for granted; a way of making us see what they see through their art. Art should make us go "aha! I'd never considered that!". And apart from just seeing it's a way of communicating. In fact, all art works almost identical to communication on its most basic and abstract level.


Haha, I think that no rules = a good thing.Freedom VS Rules isn't a good VS bad thing, it's merely another example of polar opposites where both sides have their pros and cons (as always there's a "middle" spectrum between them as well). I may work this concept into a poem myself, but some view complete freedom as an endless ocean in which if they attempt to dive into they'll inevitably drown. Others view freedom as a world without gravity where they can move, float, and fly at will. Some view rules as being shackled in prison and chains. Others view rules as having a sidewalk and gravity; you may not be able to fly, but at least you can walk without the fear of floating into nothingness.

[PrinceMyshkin]

@firefangled: I wish I had more to add but what you said was extremely eloquent and very, very truthful. About the only thing I have to say is I'm not so sure poets inherently have a heightened awareness of life and greater sensitivity, but merely they have a means by which to express it. We can only guess at the universe of thoughts inside any given person; many of which simply don't have the skill to work in an artistic medium. Though I definitely think what makes great artists is an ability to present their awareness of things we are not aware of or take for granted; a way of making us see what they see through their art. Art should make us go "aha! I'd never considered that!". And apart from just seeing it's a way of communicating. In fact, all art works almost identical to communication on its most basic and abstract level.

Freedom VS Rules isn't a good VS bad thing, it's merely another example of polar opposites where both sides have their pros and cons (as always there's a "middle" spectrum between them as well). I may work this concept into a poem myself, but some view complete freedom as an endless ocean in which if they attempt to dive into they'll inevitably drown. Others view freedom as a world without gravity where they can move, float, and fly at will. Some view rules as being shackled in prison and chains. Others view rules as having a sidewalk and gravity; you may not be able to fly, but at least you can walk without the fear of floating into nothingness.

Yes, freedom can be as tricky to navigate as even the densest thicket of rules. In the first place we'd need to discriminate between freedom from and freedom to.