Ghosts

[RaoulDuke]

Alone once more with time to contemplate
Romance and commercialism hand in hand.
Insensate machines and implanted dreams between us all;
Trapped in a room full of nomads in a desolate abyss.
Chemical aphrodisiacs and chimerical lovers;
Projections of self give a love between ghosts.

A weary rambler, Weltschmerz afflicted
Lost in the vulgarity and senselessness of it all.
Aghast at my own hypocrisy -
Dutch blossoms, the fuel and the fire.
Ephemeral bonds between transient lives
Promise to heal the ruptured rapture.

A caricature played out in the blue hour,
A façade mirrored with spineless enthusiasm,
Lights illuminate nothing but bodies
Writhing with rhythm and laughter.
Caught in the eye of a moment so quotidian
Strangers revel in ritual chaos.

The familiar touch of suent sultry skin
Conceals the void of intimacy like a pall;
Addicts cut out a line, inhale each other's redolence
And groan a succedaneous lullaby.
Delusional thoughts and erroneous eclecticism
Delay the knowing of what lies beneath.

A staccato of shared memories and moments,
Still wanting of a glue to bind them together,
Still wanting of an enduring united cohort;
To break down walls with a collective shout,
To say in one beautiful, powerful, unified voice:
We were alive together!

But the spectres, dancing their infernal swing, persist:
The abortion of innocence,
The absence of honesty.
The simplicity of purity,
The final taboo.
Projections of self give a love between ghosts.

________

I would be interested to hear people's interpretation of this poem. When I wrote it there were two ideas that I wanted to convey, but I feel that one of them has come out much more strongly than the other, which isn't necessarily what I intended.

[J.D. Sparks]

There is some really beautiful use of language in this poem. (And it makes me so happy to see the word weltschmerz used and spelled correctly!) But I find the the phrase "give a love" to be extremely awkward, especially compared to the grace of the rest of the poem. Maybe it's addition of "give a love between", I'm not sure, but the diction and syntax aren't working for me. But the poem is otherwise dark and compelling.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Re your request for interpretation, I take this as a condemnation of all the plasticized versions of 'reality' that we are force-fed night and day, but my more urgent instinct is to praise this for its literate - or even hyper-literate - language! There are words here that are not to be found in ANY of the 1000s of poems that have been posted. Whatever this poem 'means,' it is most certainly a tribute to the vast, varied vocabulary of the English language. I look forward to your future posts. Thank you.

[hillwalker]

A powerful poem, nicely encapsulated in the final verse.

Personally I feel that one or two of the more obscure words do grate slightly, almost as if they were included purely so they might stand out above the 'quotidian' - but a well-written piece full of authority and daring.

Good stuff

H

[MorpheusSandman]

Before I get into hermeneutics, I certainly want to echo's Prince's praise of this being such an extremely literate poem. But beyond the literacy it's also filled with potent imagery. It seems to epitomize so many themes that are pervasive in post-modernism. If this were a film it'd probably be made by Tsai Ming-liang.

Anyway, the way I read it is being about living in a world where technology that superficially connects has the paradoxical result of making us even more alienated. Images are generated constantly and bombards our minds, replacing our own abilities to dream. Drugs and chemicals replace our natural abilities to feel. We engage in sex just to connect and feel, we engage in drugs so we can disconnect and cease to feel. It seems to essentially be about how we EXIST together but we don't LIVE together. Modernism has suffocated our own natural abilities to connect and to feel, so we devise our own, but they're little more than fakes and imitations of the real thing.

Whether I'm "right" or not, I truly love this piece. Definitely one worthy of being published.

[Hawkman]

I’m sorry to be the one to break the flow of admiration but my first impression on reading this is that it is a very self-conscious poem. It gives the impression that it’s trying a little too hard to show off. I get the message and it does make its point, but I feel it could have been made more effectively with less obscure imagery.

The stanzas are well balanced and the lines flow well, but it’s a little bleak for my taste and describes a world I’m not familiar with. My life is a little more pastoral than the technological, drug fuelled, mechanised dystopia which it describes. I wonder which of us is more alienated, me or you? :)

Look forward to seeing what else you will have to say. Best. H

[RaoulDuke]

Thankyou all for your kind words.

You're all very much on the mark with the thoughts you are drawing from this poem. But more specifically, I wanted to describe the 'weekend culture' of substance (ab)use, casual sex and "ephemeral" freinds, which from the perspective of an introvert, seems very bleak and false.

Morpeheus - you are spot on with your interpretation. "We EXIST together but we don't LIVE together"; I don't think I could have put it as clearly and succinctly as that.

Hawkman - I wonder if the weekend culture (I use the word culture generously here) is not yours? I'm still young and foolish, and living in the city; maybe the poem is exaggerated but it definitiely has a basis in experience.

[Delta40]

this poem gave me the impression that work and love intertwine, are separated and interchange in priority and worth. I admit that some words (I have never even heard of!) left me wondering but I decided not to look them up and just go with how your poem struck me.

[MorpheusSandman]

I’m sorry to be the one to break the flow of admiration but my first impression on reading this is that it is a very self-conscious poem. It gives the impression that it’s trying a little too hard to show off. Self-consciousness seems to be a lingering disease of modernism. I don't think it's inherently bad as long as it's not used pretentiously, and I don't think it is here. Of course, it's subjective. I don't see how the piece is "showing off". Yeah, some of the language is difficult and abstract, but I've always been of the mind that writers should try to write just slightly above the head of their audience. That way it forces them to put some work into the reading and add something of themselves while, hopefully, learning something in the process.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Self-consciousness seems to be a lingering disease of modernism.

I once began a short story with the words


A spectre is haunting the world - the spectre of self-consciousness

borrowing from a certain historic document. The anti-hero of this story was to have been Jorge Luis Borges!


I don't think it's inherently bad as long as it's not used pretentiously, and I don't think it is here. Of course, it's subjective. I don't see how the piece is "showing off". Yeah, some of the language is difficult and abstract, but I've always been of the mind that writers should try to write just slightly above the head of their audience. That way it forces them to put some work into the reading and add something of themselves while, hopefully, learning something in the process.

and I very much agree with you that the elevated language in this poem is not used pretentiously!

[blank|verse]

It could just be a cultural thing, but I find myself agreeing with Hawkman and hillwalker.

Superficially, this is impressive, but scratch the surface and it becomes more concerning. And while it's good to have a wide vocabularly, using so much in a poem runs the risk of it being overwritten and stands accused of wanting to impress people with big words. Both in form and content, this is a very macho, self-centred piece. Poetry is 'the best words in the best order', according to Coleridge - not the longest.

I think that's one reason it's hard to care about the narrator (although, you might not want the reader to). Another is his (I presume it's a 'he') melodramatic self-loathing:

A weary rambler, Weltschmerz afflicted
Lost in the vulgarity and senselessness of it all.
Aghast at my own hypocrisy -
"Oh, how horrid! All these vulgar people! I'm so superior to them all, and yet I find myself treading among them! I must lash myself with the birch when I return to my ivory tower!"

The narrator doesn't want everyone to understand, is the subtext. He's dismissive of the people around him in the poem, and he's also raising the drawbridge to a lot of readers, or trying to talk down to them with his big words.

I think that's why us class-conscious Brits are sceptical of this approach - because the narrator sounds like a posh snob. Wordsworth recognised this risk in poetry is his famous 'Preface' to 'Lyrical Ballads' in which he kicked against the Augustans and others. Effectively, he was saying the poet removes himself further from the truth by using elaborate, 'distancing' language.

And that's the irony of the poem: that the narrator criticizes others for 'Still wanting of a glue to bind them together' yet in sounding like a snob and using distancing language, does little to suggest he's any different from them.

There are also no real people in the poem - they're all reduced to abstractions (again distancing the narrator from them); they appear as 'bodies' or 'addicts' or 'strangers'. Where's the telling detail that lets me in to this poem? Where's the humanity?

The diction also attracts attention because it is the only thing going on poetically; the stanzas each have six lines, but the lines themselves are just broken according to phrases or clauses, not rhythmically, so read like cut-up prose.

But all that said, you clearly love language, and there's nothing to stop you continuing to write as you are, so keep writing - it might just be a phase you're going through! I'm sure there are stronger poems to come in future.

[NikolaiI]

I thought this was elegant and really beautiful.
I loved reading it... thank you so much for posting it here.

You are a great writer. Hope we'll see more to come!

[RaoulDuke]

...

I don't really know how to respond to the "snob" or "showing off" labels. (I know showing off wasn't your word, but it was used earlier and you seem to be echoing the sentiments of that post). What can I say? It wasn't intended as such.

The poem is about feeling disconnected. It's about being surrounded by people but not really knowing any of them. The "bodies" stanza you referred to is about finding yourself in nightclubs and bars every weekend, being surrounded by people who you talk to, have a laugh with, share a joke or a flirt with but who then disappear back to work on Monday morning and who in all likelihood you will never see again. In the hazy alcohol inebriated state we act like best friends, but away from the Friday and Saturday night and when sobriety hits we tend to go about life as strangers. I used the words "bodies" specifically because names are often lost through the noise and the alcohol haze. I used it becuase when you stop in a club and look around that's what you see - bodies, under flashing lights "writhing with rhythm and laughter".

The "glue" stanza is about wishing that this wasn't so; wishing that we could be so open and friendly with complete strangers all the time without "chemical aphrodisiacs", and imagining the possibilities if this were the case. The narrator is no different from the other people he sees; this poem is simlpy his reflection.


NikolaiI - thankyou for your encouragement.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I don't really know how to respond to the "snob" or "showing off" labels. (I know showing off wasn't your word, but it was used earlier and you seem to be echoing the sentiments of that post). What can I say? It wasn't intended as such.

Whilst I normally agree wholeheartedly with B|V - or wish I had the erudition to agree with him - I think that any implication of "snobbishness" or showing-off was possibly both unkind and unfair. Did you perhaps get pleasure from using so many arcane or little used words? Why shouldn't you have? Isn't poetry at least in part the expression of our fascination with language, our love of its diversity?

I never for a moment felt that you were flaunting your obviously wide vocabulary but rather that you were inviting or permitting us to enjoy it as much as (I hope) you did.

[NikolaiI]

I agree wholeheartedly with Prince, and while your poem or you don't need defending, nonetheless, in your explanation about bodies, I got that, I got what you mean. And it seems funny for someone to say "I don't like it because it's not like this," when in fact that is part of the point, and the expression of the poem. I wouldn't worry about that person's criticism too much - what's my conclusion? Your poem is not for him. Don't take it to heart. Please. It is a wonderful poem.

:)

[RaoulDuke]

Myshkin and Nikolai, thankyou again for your plaudits. I'm not offended by criticism, but I do feel compelled to explain myself when I feel it's not justified.

[blank|verse]

Thanks for the reply, Raoul.

I should start by saying that any comments I've made were intended to be about THE POEM or THE NARRATOR of the poem AND NOT YOU personally. If you feel any of my comments have slipped into the personal, then I apologise for breaching the forum rules (although on re-reading my comments, I don't feel I have).

You're clearly a gifted and intelligent writer, so I felt you deserved an honest opinion on the poem you presented.

Technically, the language you're using is from the 'acrolect' – the highest form of expression in a particular language. This is the language of authority, of which people during the C20th have grown increasingly distrustful. Think of lawyers, politicians or bureaucrats – people don't trust professionals who use the sort of rhetorical language that isn't used in everyday speech as they believe they're being deliberately confused or deceived. And those professionals using it are trying to assert their power by flaunting their superior education, learning, and by association, wealth and self-declared importance.

Therefore, when you use language (albeit not 'professional') from this highest form in a poem, it comes with baggage. By having your narrator speak this language, you are suggesting s/he belongs to the upper echelons of society: the richer, more educated, and yes, more snobby members of society. And when this language is coupled with the views expressed by the narrator – the abhorrence he feels towards others, speaking of them as abstractions not real people – it seems to reinforce this view.

In short, the narrator thinks he's better than other people: this is expressed in what he says and the way in which he says it. And it's that subtext which I find strongly disagreeable.

This is my reason for being quite forthright and why, as I said, your poem 'runs the risk' or 'stands accused' of being interpreted in this way. This may or may not have been your intention but you need to realise your artistic decisions carry connotations of which you might not be aware. If there was any irony to the narrator's views (as previously mentioned) it doesn't seem to have been articulated strongly enough to come through in the poem, nor in subsequent comments you've made.

So does all that mean you can't use erudite or esoteric diction at all? Of course not: there will always be room for a little polyphiloprogenitiveness in poetry. But, like everything you write, you need to be aware of the implications behind its use.

And with all that said, I repeat my earlier comment about how you are obviously a talented writer, and that I – and clearly others on the forum – look forward to your next poem.

Regards,
b|v

[milktea]

My interpretation? You've got us plum stuck in the right panel of Hieronymus Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights.

Unfortunately, I didn't realize the disconnection which you tried to express. I thought instead that you were trying to convey a sense of numbness due to over-stimulation (judging by your language, style, and the actual meaning of your words). I assumed you were being ironic as if to say "How painful it is to be numbed by one's pleasures"

*smiles* ah well no critic points for me in this round ^_^;;

p.s. I didn't know what 'Weltschmerz' meant.

[MorpheusSandman]

Did you perhaps get pleasure from using so many arcane or little used words? Why shouldn't you have? Isn't poetry at least in part the expression of our fascination with language, our love of its diversity?Very true, Prince. If Joyce didn't have a gut-busting time writing Ulysses and Finnegans Wake (especially) I'd be utterly shocked.


Technically, the language you're using is from the 'acrolect' – the highest form of expression in a particular language. This is the language of authority, of which people during the C20th have grown increasingly distrustful. As much as I disagreed with your first critique, B|V, I must say that your last post provided a very enlightening perspective and some substance behind the criticism. I guess what I would say is that the key aspect is precisely what perspective someone is approaching this from. I think most writers and poets appreciate language. While I can't speak for others, I know I always look up words with a certain giddiness of learning something new, perhaps adding something to my own linguistic repertoire. FWIW, I never approach those who speak in terms and language that I don't understand about things I don't understand with distrust, I merely recognize that their intellect is existing on a plane that mine has yet to reach and/or explore. And I DO think there's a big difference between professionals who are notorious for being sleazy and worthy of distrust like lawyers and poets using such "acrolect" language.

Anyway, that's just my $0.02 on the issue. I find Raoul's use of language quit elegant and, if nothing else, having the ability to write in such an erudite manner is a great ability to have. Afterall, part of the greatness of writers like Shakespeare and Chaucer was their ability to reach into all areas of life through the differing idiomatic languages that people and classes spoke.

[MorpheusSandman]

Also, @Raoul, as most around here know by now I'm a film buff as well as a fan of poetry and literature, and if you want to check out some great cinema about modern social disconnection I highly recommend the films of Tsai Ming-liang. What Time is it There? would be a great place to start.

[NikolaiI]

b|v, you clearly are interested and somewhat knowledgable about poetry; and I commend you that with your second attempt at criticism, you are not as harsh as in the first.

Having said that you are somewhat knowledgable about poetry, yet I disagree completely with your conclusions and I will give my reasons why to each of your points. First of all, I have every right to say with equal authority as you that I loved the poem, completely, and consider it flawless - even if it is not the equal of Byron or Shelley, yet it is a perfectly expressed poem from RaoulDuke. To say that your vote "no" on the poem is any more meaningful than my vote "yes" is then to indicate something between yourself and myself.

And, just to look at your first words, you have a clear misunderstanding of how this poem has been received by others. You greatly exaggerate the negatives of the one, and stretch out the negatives of the other, whilst not realizing that an even greater number of over-all posters have accorded positively with the author, without any negativity contained in their posts. This over-sight or mispercpetion is characteristic of your critique in general.



Technically, the language you're using is from the 'acrolect' – the highest form of expression in a particular language. This is the language of authority, of which people during the C20th have grown increasingly distrustful. Think of lawyers, politicians or bureaucrats – people don't trust professionals who use the sort of rhetorical language that isn't used in everyday speech as they believe they're being deliberately confused or deceived. And those professionals using it are trying to assert their power by flaunting their superior education, learning, and by association, wealth and self-declared importance.

I didn't know this, and this is one reason I say you are knowledgable. However - you go on about bureaucrats and professionals people don't trust, who use this language, but I find no connection between this and this poem. There are no words within this poem which I find objectionable in the slightest. I have no reason whatsoever to reject any word, nor any negative connotation or feeling about any one of them. Understanding this, what is left is where the word is placed, how it sounds, how it feels, and what it means, and so forth; and all of this check out okay with me. They are all fine, and good - there's a lot I get from this poem, both word-wise, feeling-wise, and meaning-wise.

Absolutely no connetion whatsoever with professionals flaunting their power.


Therefore, when you use language (albeit not 'professional') from this highest form in a poem, it comes with baggage. By having your narrator speak this language, you are suggesting s/he belongs to the upper echelons of society: the richer, more educated, and yes, more snobby members of society. And when this language is coupled with the views expressed by the narrator – the abhorrence he feels towards others, speaking of them as abstractions not real people – it seems to reinforce this view.

This I disagree with as well. I don't see any of it as coming with baggage. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using words which are out of common day speech for the present's society. It's an attempt just like any other poem. There are many factors you can consider as criteriea which are more important - how does it sound, how does it feel, how easy or difficult is it really? This one is not difficult at all really. The most difficult part would be that you have to look up a word you don't know - or 20, depending on your vocabulary.

But that's true with every poem. There's many poems which use many words that I wouldn't know. Many times poets even make up words. Here none are made up.


In short, the narrator thinks he's better than other people: this is expressed in what he says and the way in which he says it. And it's that subtext which I find strongly disagreeable.

I would like to defend the character but I a not interestd in wasting any more time with this.

I won't defend your poems anymore (I am sorry I'm not going to come back here and continue this discussion at all..), Raoul Duke, but trust me, you write great poetry and pretty much everything this guy has said in analysis about your poem is bogus to me. Not saying don't listen to criticsm, and I don't react like this toward all criticism, trust me. But in this case, pretty much everything the guy's saying seems wrong. Just wanted to say that.

Going through this poem, line by line, every line is great. End of story, period.

[Alexander III]

I have just read this poem for the first time and I have mixed feelings.

From an asethtic point of view I considered its marvelosuly crafted, very well written indeed. I do not find the language to be a flaw, the words never seem forced, and with a dictionary at hand I learned a few new interesting ones. Critiziseing poetry for erudite language, is like critisising Mobby Dick, because it makes the reader strain his intelect when trying to comprehend the novel, unlike Dan Brown, who is light and breezy on the mind...

However on the subject content of the poem, my personal opinion clashes with yours. You see this "weekend culture" as a dystopian ruin of society, I on the other hand appreciate its beauty and view it as a boon full of positives shining as garlands upon our now free brows.

Nonetheless as has been said by others, you display a good talent :)

[PrinceMyshkin]

Thanks for the reply, Raoul.

I should start by saying that any comments I've made were intended to be about THE POEM or THE NARRATOR of the poem AND NOT YOU personally. If you feel any of my comments have slipped into the personal, then I apologise for breaching the forum rules (although on re-reading my comments, I don't feel I have).

You're clearly a gifted and intelligent writer, so I felt you deserved an honest opinion on the poem you presented.

Technically, the language you're using is from the 'acrolect' – the highest form of expression in a particular language. This is the language of authority, of which people during the C20th have grown increasingly distrustful. Think of lawyers, politicians or bureaucrats – people don't trust professionals who use the sort of rhetorical language that isn't used in everyday speech as they believe they're being deliberately confused or deceived. And those professionals using it are trying to assert their power by flaunting their superior education, learning, and by association, wealth and self-declared importance.

Therefore, when you use language (albeit not 'professional') from this highest form in a poem, it comes with baggage. By having your narrator speak this language, you are suggesting s/he belongs to the upper echelons of society: the richer, more educated, and yes, more snobby members of society. And when this language is coupled with the views expressed by the narrator – the abhorrence he feels towards others, speaking of them as abstractions not real people – it seems to reinforce this view.

In short, the narrator thinks he's better than other people: this is expressed in what he says and the way in which he says it. And it's that subtext which I find strongly disagreeable.

This is my reason for being quite forthright and why, as I said, your poem 'runs the risk' or 'stands accused' of being interpreted in this way. This may or may not have been your intention but you need to realise your artistic decisions carry connotations of which you might not be aware. If there was any irony to the narrator's views (as previously mentioned) it doesn't seem to have been articulated strongly enough to come through in the poem, nor in subsequent comments you've made.

So does all that mean you can't use erudite or esoteric diction at all? Of course not: there will always be room for a little polyphiloprogenitiveness in poetry. But, like everything you write, you need to be aware of the implications behind its use.

And with all that said, I repeat my earlier comment about how you are obviously a talented writer, and that I – and clearly others on the forum – look forward to your next poem.

Regards,
b|v

I'm freaking delighted with your post, first of all, because in taking issue with you before I was afraid that I might have injured the mutually respectful relationship I believe we have; tied for first: because everything you say here is as usual instructive and interesting. And a very close 2nd place, because it has stimulated so mamy thoughtful responses from others.

I do maintain my conviction that in writing as he did, RaoulDuke was in no way intending to show off or demonstrate his manifestly superior vocabulary. The poem remains for me a joy both in what it says and most definitely in the high-minded way in which it says it.

"acrolect", eh? I will definitely have to Google that.

Best wishes
JN

[blank|verse]

Thanks for the comments, Prince and Morpheus; I appreciate your considered responses and grace in accepting my arguments on the basis of the evidence presented, even if they're not ones with which you agree.

My point again is not that I'm against the use of ornate diction in poetry or literature per se, but I do think one needs to be aware of the consequences of using it – it's the application and implications of language and diction that are important – something Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens… all professional writers, I would say, are well aware of – and it's the application of ornate language in the context of this poem, reinforced by what is said, that I feel betrays the true character of the narrator, which is not one I find agreeable.

(And just to add, the 'acrolect' form of language is the highest form and includes professional language – but not exclusively – academics also fall into this category, for example, and the diction in this poem also uses it.)

Thanks again,
b|v

[NikolaiI]

Generally something which strikes us as unpleasant... there is a tendency to follow that and create a really negative view in our minds... which can often be utterly devoid of objectivity. This isn't really a refined quality, and if you are intelligent enough you can see right through this kind of thing for what it is.

[RaoulDuke]

Also, @Raoul, as most around here know by now I'm a film buff as well as a fan of poetry and literature, and if you want to check out some great cinema about modern social disconnection I highly recommend the films of Tsai Ming-liang. What Time is it There? would be a great place to start.

If I'm honest my usual cinematic viewing doesn't extend much beyond belly laugh comedies, but I will definitely give this a look, out of curiosity if nothing else.

blank|verse - I appreciate your further responses, I feel they made both the nature and intentions of your criticism much clearer. I maintain that poem wasn't intended to written from a lofty point of view, and with an objective hat on (or as objective a hat as a proud father can wear) I still wouldn't apply any of those connetations to this poem, but I understand the thrust of what you are saying and I will definitely bear it in mind.

[NikolaiI]

b|v, I sincerely and humbly apologize for interrutping, as nothing you said was directed to me. Take care.

[MorpheusSandman]

If I'm honest my usual cinematic viewing doesn't extend much beyond belly laugh comedies, but I will definitely give this a look, out of curiosity if nothing else.The thing to keep in mind is that these films are closer to poetry than what you'd traditionally think of as plot or character driven cinema. The emphasis is on the aesthetics and what the moving images suggest and evoke. Tsai is also peculiar in that there's very little dialogue, but the silence emphasizes the disconnection and malaise between the characters. If you do end up seeing What Time is it There? (or any of his films), please let me know what you think.

[blank|verse]

RaoulDuke - thank you for the response; you accept my comments with an admirable grace and it good to see you are continuing to post poems on the forum. I'm sure there are plenty of other users who would have stopped speaking to me had you been driven away by anything I had said. Thanks again.

NikolaiI - thank you for your reply also; no harm done.

Best wishes,
b|v