Mind's Eye

[Red-Headed]

Breezy sunlit day -
daffodils blown by the wind
now talk to the grass,

a dozen roses
climbing a broken trellis
all so very red,

some Canada geese
in loud honking formation
what is their problem?

Anthill: City of
a million soldiers all
so very busy,

snail - in his small house
tired of gypsy life could
throw away his shell,

bumble bee bounces
here & there; he looks so drunk
on living and flight:
All of these things I recall -
reflected in my mind's eye.

[everyadventure]

I liked the snail segment.

Won't you undo your tidy bun and let that red hair go wild? Please oh please post a free verse poem?

[Red-Headed]

Please oh please post a free verse poem?

Maybe ... Hmmm *pensively stares into middle-distance* ... but vers libre of any kind, itself, has structure. The term free verse is essentially a misnomer as most of it assimilates at least one or more of the prosodies. Although, in my opinion prosody is hampered from concepts derived from Classical Greek quantitative principles & English stress patterns are different. The entire theory is an artificial superimposure.

Having said that; the often irregular rhyme of free verse, although in itself a structuring, rather than an integral structural device, is often a better form or guide than any precise variation in line length. And of course, without any rhyme whatsoever, free verse has to accommodate or utilise some form of syntactic momentum, like enjambment for example. ... *suddenly snaps out of reverie*

So ... yes, I'm thinking about free verse, I just don't believe it actually exists.

[everyadventure]

Ah, that is exactly what I am talking about! Stop thinking of poetry as science, complete with mathematical formulas. Just let yourself WRITE and see where it takes you. Consider it an experiment, if you must ;)

[Red-Headed]

Ah, that is exactly what I am talking about! Stop thinking of poetry as science, complete with mathematical formulas. Just let yourself WRITE and see where it takes you. Consider it an experiment, if you must ;)

Poetry IS science, all language is semiotic. Most of my poetry is pretty eccentric as it is. I don't do maths ...

Try & write a musical melody without a knowledge of music, try & compose a chord progression without a knowledge of rhythm & chord progression.

Even if you think that you are not using form or prosody, inevitably you are. When you realise that ... you can truly write free.

[Delta40]

I agree with EA and of course there is science behind poetry but it could impede that beautiful creative flow that pours out of each unique individual in the world when we get stuck in semiotics. I liked the snail too.

[Red-Headed]

I agree with EA and of course there is science behind poetry but it could impede that beautiful creative flow that pours out of each unique individual in the world when we get stuck in semiotics. I liked the snail too.

Oh no ... you're starting to sound like someone else on here. We're all stuck in semiotics. As soon as you put pen to paper or type words into your freeware word processor, you are using semiotics. All text is code, to deny this for naive concepts of 'creative flow' & 'unique individualism' is to do the art itself a disservice. A painter will learn skills to paint, whether they are a Van Gogh or a teenage graffiti artist spraying a passenger train.

"Impede the flow" ... bollocks! :lol:

[Delta40]

I don't disagree with you but if your focus is steeped in the technicalities of poetry then it may limit your writing. If I concern myself only with the aspect of my bodily functions then will I ever experience it holistically? No.

[everyadventure]

The sock puppet is wise.

[Delta40]

Sock Puppet says: I knew EA would realize I said it and not Delta40 (I keyed it in using my head!)

[Red-Headed]

I don't disagree with you but if your focus is steeped in the technicalities of poetry then it may limit your writing.

And where did I state that my focus is only steeped in technicality? It isn't, you're starting to sound like the Scottish bloke.


If I concern myself only with the aspect of my bodily functions then will I ever experience it holistically? No.

Way too much information ... :yikes:

[Red-Headed]

The sock puppet is wise.

The sock puppet may have an odd evil twin for all we know LOL!

[Delta40]

You mean this one?

http://i1108.photobucket.com/albums/h411/delta40/e89072792d932b093b180cb255c4631300d57b95_full.jpg

[Red-Headed]

"Round up the usual sock-suspects"

[Buh4Bee]

I like the Canadian geese.

[Red-Headed]

I like the Canadian geese.

I don't, they are inherently bad-tempered & not even good to eat. The flesh has the consistency of vulcanised rubber covered in Vaseline. I'd rather eat pterodactyl.

[Delta40]

You're inspiring me to write a poem about my bodily functions....

[Red-Headed]

You're inspiring me to write a poem about my bodily functions....

Let it all hang out ...

[Delta40]

I decided not to and wrote Capacity instead.

[everyadventure]

I decided not to and wrote Capacity instead.

And we are all grateful.

[tailor STATELY]

I loved this poem.


daffodils blown by the wind
now talk to the grass, is simply wonderful.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

[Red-Headed]

And we are all grateful.

:iagree:

[Red-Headed]

I loved this poem.

is simply wonderful.

Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY

Thanks.

[hallaig]

I'm no bothered about the structure. This is nice, but it fails my 'so what?' test. It's a pretty lid but there's nothing in the box.

[Red-Headed]

I'm no bothered about the structure. This is nice, but it fails my 'so what?' test. It's a pretty lid but there's nothing in the box.

Well, technically, it's just a haiku chain ending in a tanka. There isn't supposed to be anything in the box, just some haiku/senryu type imagery in a loose chain. That's the whole point. Well spotted.

[hillwalker]

And where did I state that my focus is only steeped in technicality? It isn't, you're starting to sound like the Scottish bloke.

The Scottish bloke (?) replies :

Most of the poems you have posted (apart from 'Lupine') do tend to point to the fact that you favour form and structure above all else. Even those of us who write mainly in free verse don't deny the fact that a grounding in the mechanics of poetry makes one a better poet and appreciate it more.

But if you've nothing original to write then all the fancy moves will still leave you looking rather flat-footed.


H

[Red-Headed]

The Scottish bloke (?) replies :

Most of the poems you have posted (apart from 'Lupine') do tend to point to the fact that you favour form and structure above all else.


I often write in a loose haiku-type structure, which is hardly favouring form 'above all else' then you complain about my supposed eccentricities in line-breaks & enjambement. Is that favouring structure above all else? Honestly, do you ever read what you actually write, or do you just kind of find that you fade in & out?



Even those of us who write mainly in free verse don't deny the fact that a grounding in the mechanics of poetry makes one a better poet and appreciate it more.

Now you are just contradicting yourself. There is no such thing as free verse as there will always be some form of prosody within the poem itself, otherwise all you will have is prose. Something you have recently accused me of doing in a poem. Yet another contradiction I believe.


But if you've nothing original to write then all the fancy moves will still leave you looking rather flat-footed.


H

Translation: You are not original & just talk out of your arse.

That's your rather snide opinion though isn't it? I've never claimed to be original, nor have I ever claimed to make fancy moves. Whatever they are. I'm flat footed physically anyway. I don't know about fancy moves.

Honestly, it never fails to amaze me the propensity some people have for being caustic or invidiousness.

You remind me of a neighbour I once had who would end virtually every sentence with: "I bet university graduates couldn't do that."

His other favourites about graduates were:

'They have no common sense' (see Nietzsche about 'common sense')

'They can't put shelves up.' (apparently no graduates have this skill)

'They don't understand/live in the real world.'

One day he was run over by a car. :auto::driving:

All that inerudite common sense & he still got flattened by a Range Rover. I often wonder what is written on his gravestone. I just hope the driver of the Range Rover was a graduate!

P.S. 'Lupine' is in a fairly standard stanza form.

[yuka]

Poetry IS science,

:nonod: Poetry is not science. Science, can be reproduced, but arts including poetry can not. There is little relationship between them.


Even if you think that you are not using form or prosody, inevitably you are. When you realise that ... you can truly write free

It's true, I believe. From the replies posted on your this post seems you're very fond of form and structure., because of this most writers here raised their queries and tried to provide you some constructive suggestion. you are correct with that "The term free verse is essentially a misnomer "; but I wonder, as a game, if there are much more excitation and delight to play in a formed poetry than to play in a so-called free verse?

[hillwalker]

The line-breaks I referred to were forced by your adherence to the haiku form which made it read unnaturally... hence my suggestion that form over-rode all else.

No such thing as free verse - ? - are you confusing the words 'verse' and 'lunch'?

The more accurate translation would have been - 'It's no good being an expert on form if the content is lacking originality'

... and as one post-grad to another (presumably) these proles really get on my nerves as well.


H

[Red-Headed]

The line-breaks I referred to were forced by your adherence to the haiku form which made it read unnaturally... hence my suggestion that form over-rode all else.

You have also claimed that I don't even use the correct syllable count, the form I like to use is a very loose adherence to a haiku type format. You could just as easily say the same thing about writing verse in four line stanzas. As usual, you are not really saying anything. You can't have it both ways can you?

It is a style that I have implemented for quite a while, just because it doesn't fit into your rules doesn't make it any less of a poem to me. I think that you have confused the form with the actual intent of the poem.


No such thing as free verse - ? - are you confusing the words 'verse' and 'lunch'?

OK, this is going to be a mite subjective for most people, but I just don't believe that you can have a truly 'free' verse. I have written on this earlier, so I won't elucidate, but what most people refer to as free verse usually has some inherent structure to it. To deny this is just silly.


The more accurate translation would have been - 'It's no good being an expert on form if the content is lacking originality'

Why not? I'm sure that there are many 'experts on form' who have written both original & unoriginal content in poetry. What has being an 'expert on form' got to do with what people write in their spare time or publish on the Internet or elsewhere? It can be important to be an 'expert' if you are composing a technical journal or an academic work, bearing in mind just what expertise you have I suppose. So, why is it no good being an expert on form if the content isn't original? Please enlighten us.

Some of my favourite poems of all time are about as original as the wheel. What does it matter?

I understand subtext, I know what you mean! I just don't know why you feel the need to keep proselytising about this. Just what is your point, I wonder?

When you originally stated this 'concept' I responded by pointing out that I have met well known contemporary poets who are highly educated & have studied poetry intensely. You then replied with something about your nephew & pacman cards or something. I assumed you had missed my point. I will say it in plain English. Many poets study prosody & poetical history. So what?

According to your argument this is indicative of the fact that they have all lost their souls & have no originality. How do you know? Have you met every poet in creation who has studied literature? And even if you have, what does it matter if they aren't original? Maybe they just like writing poetry? I really wish you would properly define the point you are making here. You can't though can you? Some people, who may even write poetry, may have studied poetry & poetic forms for years. Get over it.

It doesn't amount to a hill of beans in real life. I dare say there are a lot of unoriginal poets who have never studied form, prosody or poetry. That's their business, although in my opinion, they are essentially handicapping themselves by not studying this. Most poetry is hard work & constant revision, I hate to disabuse you of the notion of creative spontaneity & the alleged freedoms of the creative genius, but the vast majority of the most famous poetry ever written was painstakingly laboured over by poets who had studied almost everything they could, including poetry, poetical forms, prosody & other poets.

I personally love studying & reading poetry, both form & poetic history. What has it got to do with any poetry that I post here? If you don't like my poetry, fine, but if you are going to criticise it, do it with some intelligence & knowledge of the forms & the craft itself. It's all very well to just sit behind a keyboard making snide remarks & vindictive innuendos but have a decent argument prepared for god's sake!

At the end of the day, whether you are a so called 'expert' on form or not is essentially irrelevant, it doesn't matter if you write the most original poetry in the world, with the most poetic substance in all of created literature, because it will be inevitably subjective for the reader.

I would rather be aware of form, prosody, whatever, than not be aware. I enjoy studying poetry & literature. It has jack-diddlely to do with what I or anyone else in the cosmos actually writes.


... and as one post-grad to another (presumably) these proles really get on my nerves as well.

This isn't a matter of snobbery, intellectual or otherwise, I enjoy studying poetry, literature, language, linguistics & semiotics. I always have done. I don't need to apologise to you or anyone else for that matter. I still find it humorous that you automatically assumed that I hadn't read much poetry, based on your inferences of my writing. I think that you should stop being so snide on these forums, I'm not the only person who has noticed this. It doesn't make for a very good atmosphere of literary debate.

[Red-Headed]

:nonod: Poetry is not science. Science, can be reproduced, but arts including poetry can not. There is little relationship between them.

I disagree, poetry may not be rocket science, but it has aesthetic harmonic & cultural rules, many of which are universal. Learning to read, write & understand these can be deemed a science. Of course, it all depends on how you define art & science. I don't think that the distinction is as large as some would like to believe.


It's true, I believe. From the replies posted on your this post seems you're very fond of form and structure., because of this most writers here raised their queries and tried to provide you some constructive suggestion.

Well, if quibbling about syllable counts & asking me to let it all hang loose are constructive suggestions maybe. I'm fond of vodka & pizza, form & structure are not my favourites. Although, it appears that it doesn't matter how much that I write about how I dislike Classical prosody, this is ignored because I have written a few haiku, some haiku type-chains & a Chaucerian roundel.


you are correct with that "The term free verse is essentially a misnomer "; but I wonder, as a game, if there are much more excitation and delight to play in a formed poetry than to play in a so-called free verse?

There is no such thing as free verse. Believe me.

[hallaig]

Madam, what you need to do is inject the same passion you display for defending yourself against critiicism into your poetry. I find your poems a bit flat, but your arguments why they aren't, wonderful.

[Delta40]

I am so glad you joined Lit-Net Red because I seldom interest myself in the technicalities of poems and construct and whether or not it is a science but you command interesting discussions on each of your threads that give me food for thought and I feel as if I could actually learn more.

Thanks from one redhead to another

[hillwalker]

I am so glad you joined Lit-Net Red because I seldom interest myself in the technicalities of poems and construct and whether or not it is a science but you command interesting discussions on each of your threads that give me food for thought and I feel as if I could actually learn more.

I'm guessing that puts you in a league of your own - Red-Heads-R-Us.

Perhaps the rest of us could start a thread on here for those who actually enjoy writing poetry and for those who enjoy reading it to provide constructive criticism in response to what they have read...

and another for those who, unable to lighten up, merely want to analyse and discuss the fine technicalities. That way they can wrangle to their hearts' content without hijacking someone's work.

The constant tirades are getting rather personal as well as tiresome - count me out as of now.

H

[Red-Headed]

Madam, what you need to do is inject the same passion you display for defending yourself against critiicism into your poetry. I find your poems a bit flat, but your arguments why they aren't, wonderful.

Well, you can't be replying to me.

[Red-Headed]

Madam, what you need to do is inject the same passion you display for defending yourself against critiicism into your poetry. I find your poems a bit flat, but your arguments why they aren't, wonderful.

Well, you can't be replying to me.

Whoever you are replying to, I find your poems a bit cliched, but I wouldn't say that out loud.

[Red-Headed]

Perhaps the rest of us could start a thread on here for those who actually enjoy writing poetry and for those who enjoy reading it to provide constructive criticism in response to what they have read...

Constructive criticism? Is that the pot calling the kettle black or what?


and another for those who, unable to lighten up, merely want to analyse and discuss the fine technicalities. That way they can wrangle to their hearts' content without hijacking someone's work.

Or maybe one for people to just make pointless snide comments maybe?


The constant tirades are getting rather personal as well as tiresome - count me out as of now.

Translation: I lost the argument.

[Red-Headed]

I am so glad you joined Lit-Net Red because I seldom interest myself in the technicalities of poems and construct and whether or not it is a science but you command interesting discussions on each of your threads that give me food for thought and I feel as if I could actually learn more.

Thanks from one redhead to another

OK, thanks. There is no harm in learning. I still am.

[Jack of Hearts]

As much as one hates to repeat feedback... between you, ShadowsCool and (formerly) Biggus, this reader is running out of honest responses to offer (blame it on his pedestrian intellect).

To virtually echo the reply to your first offering: This seems, to this reader, to fall just short of effective. There are lines that seem like they're going to propel the beauty off of the page but they're consistently followed by real sandbags that kill the momentum, figuratively speaking. It's knocking on the door but it can't come in.

... but, all the same, this reader thought your use of enlambment went well with the mint jelly.





J

[yuka]

I disagree, poetry may not be rocket science, but it has aesthetic harmonic & cultural rules, many of which are universal. Learning to read, write & understand these can be deemed a science. Of course, it all depends on how you define art & science. I don't think that the distinction is as large as some would like to believe..

Well, to debate this is definitely stupid. Either art or science, both are big and empty. Even their definitions can never be clearly defined. But still I hold my point, poetry is not science. Whatever you say. :)




There is no such thing as free verse. Believe me.

I believe, but not believe you,:lol: I believe free verse is essentially a misnomer. The reason just like what you stated previously.

[Red-Headed]

As much as one hates to repeat feedback... between you, ShadowsCool and (formerly) Biggus, this reader is running out of honest responses to offer (blame it on his pedestrian intellect).

To virtually echo the reply to your first offering: This seems, to this reader, to fall just short of effective. There are lines that seem like they're going to propel the beauty off of the page but they're consistently followed by real sandbags that kill the momentum, figuratively speaking. It's knocking on the door but it can't come in.

... but, all the same, this reader thought your use of enlambment went well with the mint jelly.

Thanks, originally these were all individual haiku, I just decided to string them together & end with a tanka. I think that this is the poems' essential fault.

[Red-Headed]

Well, to debate this is definitely stupid. Either art or science, both are big and empty. Even their definitions can never be clearly defined. But still I hold my point, poetry is not science. Whatever you say. :)

I know what you mean, obviously poetry is an art form, my point was that you cannot remove the 'science' of technique & linguistics from the actual process of writing.