Mind's Eye

[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.

[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.

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,

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.