posted by schemer at 12:01 PM
Monday, March 14, 2005
ABOUT SCHEMES AND GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION
Previous Posts
Your writing here. Submit: projectschemes@hotmail.co.uk
ABOUT SCHEMES AND GUIDELINES FOR SUBMISSION
Previous Posts
6 Comments:
This poem was really amusing, I've read lonely hearts (Wendy Cope) and it reminded me of that. It didn't have the expected closure though, i thought the last lines would have been extra funny.
Hi,
I agree with Richard that there didn't seem to be much closure. There didn't seem to be much development of theme either - it was more a witty list of humourous lonely-hearts adds, rather than making any particular point (not that a poem has to, but it would be nice). I'm sorry if I seem antagonistic - and the poem could well be meant ironically, somehow - but as one of those nerds I find things like this a bit difficult to read. ALthouhg many of the stereotypes are true, we are not ALL as crazy as that. Still, I do like the way your poem has the differing levels of fantasy - from the people who just use the 'Buffy' etc things as descriptions of things they like to the people who really seem to believe the fantasies, and this does show an awareness of what I said earlier about there being variety among our nerds, differing levels of insanity.
Jax,
While not making particular reference to this poem, I have to disagree with your remarks about closure and poems "having a point". I prefer poetry that always eludes closure, resists teleology (sorry to those who know me- I sound like a certain slacks-wearing lecturer circa 2003, Postmodernism MA seminar). I'm with Mallarme- poems should be all suggestion, no statement. It's perhaps a dated notion but that deferral is what makes Eliot and Pound more enjoyable reading than, say, Rab Burns. How does "closure" work, anyway.
Incidentally, there was a nice (in a sentimental way) poem in the TLS yesterday- I forget who wrote it. The poet had more or less transcribed his father's Victoria Cross commendation and parenthesised it with a statement that argued that the commendation was poetry in itself. To perform a very facile manouevre, I would argue that it's everywhere...
cheers,
J x
That is true that 'closure' - i.e. a definite, clear meaning isn't necessarily good - the really good poems are the ones that you can reread many times, and always have to search for meaning in. I think perhaps what I was feeling was more that (to reverse what I actually said, and to use your words) there was too much closure - or, rather, I didn't see many deep meanings - it wasn't a poem that you could reread many times, chew over an interesting idea etc - it just seemed to me like a piss-take, although I do want to emphasise I have only read it once, and quickly, and I did then sense that there were some nuances to the poem. - That's what I meant by there needing to be a 'point' - I didn't mean so much closure, as just something interesting, or preferably some things, to think about - depth.
Aye, true, but the language disclosed by the dating columns on a Saturday morning (and I refer particularly to the Guardian) have been pure poetry on more than one occasion. Do we need to search for "deep meanings" though? What about concrete/sound poetry, "tone" poems or colour poems? For me they have a similar aesthetic value. Check out some of the stuff at the link below:
http://www.ubu.com/artist_index.html
Sorry to everyone if this is becoming a "philosophy of poetry" debate...
Jx
Hi,
Poetry debate continued...
I agree that image/tone poems can be nice, and I do think it is a personal preference thing. Myself, I would put more emphasis on meaning and, taking it into a prose debate, while I can enjoy tales that are well-written but have no plot, and ones that are badly written but have a good plot (they draw me in), the ones I really enjoy are the ones that have BOTH - plot and good writing style.
Post a Comment
<< Home