tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post6861135150531391503..comments2023-10-03T11:41:21.191+01:00Comments on The Truth About Lies: Do you break, jam or snip?Jim Murdochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-2164647548522777602008-09-11T22:22:00.000+01:002008-09-11T22:22:00.000+01:00Thanks for the comment, Claire. It is strange afte...Thanks for the comment, <B>Claire</B>. It <I>is</I> strange after all these years it still stings. <BR/><BR/>As for the "feels right" factor...yeah, it took a long time to work that out of my system. The problem is that when I was young I didn't know my own feeling about anything. Why should my poetic sense be refined when none of my others were?Jim Murdochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-86122491559206270602008-09-11T11:55:00.000+01:002008-09-11T11:55:00.000+01:00Jim... really interesting. Thanks for linking. I...Jim... really interesting. Thanks for linking. I think young writers begin with the "this feels right" mentality and then slowly grow into a voice and style that works, as you have. This was a really interesting insight into that process of growth.<BR/><BR/>I'm absolutely shocked that an editor reformatted your poem without first seeking your permission. I'd never dream of doing that in my magazine. How bizarre.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-55317610400902783452008-07-09T20:47:00.000+01:002008-07-09T20:47:00.000+01:00Thanks for that comment, Glenn, and you're right, ...Thanks for that comment, <B>Glenn</B>, and you're right, we do get caught up in our own cleverness and lose track of what we were on about in the first place. Debate is good but only up to a point. <BR/><BR/>As for tennis, I pretty much took Saturday and Sunday afternoon off at the weekend and watched the two Wimbledon finals. Yes, poetry in motion, usually around the 120mph mark.Jim Murdochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-22893138301245768292008-07-09T20:38:00.000+01:002008-07-09T20:38:00.000+01:00As regards knowing "the rules" I am put in mind of...As regards knowing "the rules" I am put in mind of a famous analogy by Robert Frost: "Writing free verse is like playing tennis with the net down."<BR/><BR/>Witty, eh? <BR/><BR/>But I gradually came to a realization about what bugs me about the analogy, that is, the danger of metaphor. Construct a clever metaphor and one ends up arguing about the metaphor rather than the actual, in this case one argues whether playing tennis without a net is playing tennis as though one were arguing about whether writing free verse is writing verse when in fact, as I am now prepared to trot out, provided anyone gives me the opportunity (or I make one):<BR/><BR/>"I don't play tennis."<BR/><BR/>Poetry isn't tennis. <BR/><BR/>Which is not to say tennis can't be poetry?Glenn Ingersollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674475308395975995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-56969644216866844612008-07-07T23:38:00.000+01:002008-07-07T23:38:00.000+01:0038 posts over four days ... shame this topic didn'...38 posts over four days ... shame this topic didn't spark much conversation. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-29530101574017335042008-07-07T19:45:00.000+01:002008-07-07T19:45:00.000+01:00Yes Rachel, you're totally right there. I think be...Yes <B>Rachel</B>, you're totally right there. I think being Scottish helps too. Put on any airs and graces in any of the schools I went to and you'd get a kicking or, at best, the worst slagging of your life. I remember in secondary school they discovered poor Chinese boy was a ballet dancer. Luckily for him he got shifted to a private school.<BR/><BR/>And <B>Art</B>, humour is such a fascinating subject. I may need to blog about it one day. The thing one needs to do is root around and find out what's hot and what's not. A lot of the comedy shows I grew up loving, like <I>On the Buses</I> and <I>Love They Neighbour</I> I've seen episodes from years later and the humour is abysmal, sexist and racist <I>in extremis</I>. They the years have not been kind to it. <BR/><BR/>I'm glad you discovered <I>The Goon Show</I>. So many people think modern humour started with Monty Python's Flying Circus but their acknowledged debt to Spike Milligan is enormous. A lot of Milligan's humour is just plain silly but then a lot of the Python's stuff was too, it's not as if they could do no wrong. <BR/><BR/>What is frustrating is that we don't always get to hear about what's worth hearing. Our respective countries buy in what they think will bring audiences. Do you realise that apart from a couple of clips on YouTube, all I know of George Carlin's work is his part as 'Rufus' in the <I>Bill and Ted</I> movies? <BR/><BR/>Izzard is my daughter's favourite comedian and I love him too. I'm glad <I>The Riches</I> has helped him get better known in America, although, like Billy Connolly before him (in <I>Head of the Class</I>) what you're getting there is Izzard-lite. That was all my son-in-law knew of Billy Connolly until I sent him a couple of CDs.<BR/><BR/>If you like intelligent humour then you should really check out <A HREF="http://www.demetrimartin.com/" REL="nofollow">Demetri Martin</A> who won the Perrier Comedy Award in 2003. He has a talent for palindromes.Jim Murdochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-50352852989590716792008-07-07T15:59:00.000+01:002008-07-07T15:59:00.000+01:00You're absolutely spot-on about people taking them...You're absolutely spot-on about people taking themselves too seriously. (Surely poets never do that! Ahem.) Rachel is probably also spot=on about the humor, too. Being able to laugh at oneself keeps one humble. Pretension may be an inability to laugh at oneself, but it also contains hints of arrogance and ego-inflation, laced in with the mistaken belief that one has somehow deluded one's audience into buying into it all. The Emperor's New Clothes, indeed. Rephrased, I think pretentiousness is more than self-smug humorlessness, I think it contains the belief that the readers are hicks and rubes, and can be fooled. P.T. Barnum had some words to say about that, though.<BR/><BR/>I grew up watching the Pythons on late-night public television in Michigan, the only hour they dared air it back then, and the show completely changed my world because it gave me permission to enjoy INTELLIGENT humor. Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned lots of Brit humor is sophomoric. (Which is still better than most US humor, which is just childish.) When I find the rare exception, I never let it go. The Pythons were the first of that type that I discovered in my lifetime. I discovered the Goon Show and Kids in the Hall a bit later. Two of my other favorites remain Tom Lehrer and Anna Russell. Eddy Izzard rocks.<BR/><BR/>The problem with a lot of humor is that it's desperate, and unintelligent. It talks down, and it brings the level of general smarts in the room down. even smart comedians talk only about the stupid things they've done or seen. Most humor these days, it often seems, is about the put-down or the insult or the jab. The best humor does the opposite, and usually has.Art Durkeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463180236975988432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-55457940205012010262008-07-07T15:40:00.000+01:002008-07-07T15:40:00.000+01:00I think pretentiousness is yet ANOTHER of those pe...I think pretentiousness is yet ANOTHER of those pesky areas where it really is largely a matter of taste and the argument will just never end.<BR/><BR/>I think that you Jim, like me, have humour (particularly British TV humour) as a big part of your background and this means we have a very low tolerance for pretentiousness. I know I am in a continual process of trying to be open-minded about all the arts but it's hard when so, SO often I can see or hear Monty Python or French & Saunders or The Two Ronnies in my head saying 'oh, go on...look how ridiculous that looks/sounds/is'. Overall..if I had to choose...I'd keep the comedy. Boom boom!<BR/>xRachel Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11803852725693518924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-38442761334187102672008-07-07T12:53:00.000+01:002008-07-07T12:53:00.000+01:00Thank you for that, Davide. Stray is a poem I'll a...Thank you for that, <B>Davide</B>. <I>Stray</I> is a poem I'll always have a soft spot for. It was my 453rd poem. I have a red binder sitting beside me as I write this which contains all my adult poems and it beings with #453. The last one I finished was #998. Once I get to #1000 I think I'll do a blog looking at my development over the years. I'm not sure if I'll pick every hundredth poem or one out of every hundred. We'll have to see.<BR/><BR/>And, <B>Art</B>, back for more, eh? You know someone is being pretentious in exactly the same way as you know someone is being a dick. It has nothing to do with content and everything to do with presentation. The best criterion to judge would be, I think, if they take themselves too seriously; that's a dead giveaway. I'd like to think that, although cursed with cleverness I'm also willing to extract the Michael from myself whenever possible.<BR/><BR/>I think your point about craft is well stated and one I agree with. Poetry is as much of a craft as it is an art. Just think of those ghastly office blocks that were thrown up in the sixties and seventies, functional, yes, but such eyesores. This, as I've said before, is why I will probably never write a sonnet in my life because I would have to force my words into an unnatural shape. The poem I am working on at the moment rocks back and forth between two and five syllables. It has no name but that is the shape of that piece – and, so far, I've never had to change a single word to make that shape work. Structure and content in perfect balance. Well, that's the plan. We'll see how good it is when I'm finished with it.Jim Murdochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-21280254222543438282008-07-07T05:43:00.000+01:002008-07-07T05:43:00.000+01:00Well, but that's what I said:Read, read, read, rea...Well, but that's what I said:<BR/><BR/>Read, read, read, read, read some more, read, write a little, read, read, and read.<BR/><BR/>That's still the best apprenticeship in poetry ever invented, ands till the best way to learn.<BR/><BR/>It's funny about pretentiousness, though. It's something that I've been seeing a lot, lately, one poet calling another pretentious. The problem is, that's hard to define, and rather subjective as an assessment. Sometimes it seems that someone accuses me of pretension whenever I express a reasoned, thought-out, logically-consistent opinion. LOL <BR/><BR/>There has always been an anti-intellectual streak about these sort of discussions about the arts: one opinion has always been "feelings, nothing more than feelings. . . ." and it's an anti-craft, anti-intellectual opinion. <BR/><BR/>My position has always been that craft is necessary, but it's in the service of the art, and never its master. To restate the problem with the "learn the rules first" position, it tends to create a situation in which craft dominates every other aspect of the art. It's the opposite of the "feelings" position, of course: intellect rather than feelings. <BR/><BR/>Of course, the real problem is when either of those positions comes to dominate, thereby unbalancing the whole system. One needs craft AND one needs feelings. It's all about balance.Art Durkeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463180236975988432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-12183892821926651962008-07-06T19:18:00.000+01:002008-07-06T19:18:00.000+01:00I really enjoyed the poem and to me it doesn't see...I really enjoyed the poem and to me it doesn't seem something written by someone so young, I actually enjoyed the very first version appearing in the post.<BR/>Best wishes, DavideTommaso Gervasuttihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17137499390434949734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-40186051435190474022008-07-05T11:21:00.000+01:002008-07-05T11:21:00.000+01:00Thank you for that, Rachel. I'll get to it in few...Thank you for that, Rachel. I'll get to it in few minutes. Remember, I'm old school - you don't get points just for getting your name right or turning up on the right day. And you lose marks for bad spelling, poor punctuation and untidy presentation.Jim Murdochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-61658725342373759262008-07-05T10:47:00.000+01:002008-07-05T10:47:00.000+01:00Rules assignment completed and ready for inspectio...Rules assignment completed and ready for inspection. Sir!<BR/>Well...sort of...Rachel Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11803852725693518924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-66140005103183334192008-07-05T10:09:00.000+01:002008-07-05T10:09:00.000+01:00Thanks for the comment Smallworld. Really this is ...Thanks for the comment <B>Smallworld</B>. Really this is the crux of the whole article, what criteria we use that makes sense to us. I look at so many poems and wonder what was going through the poet's head when he or she laid out their poem. I keep assuming there's a reason and if I look at it long enough the reason will open up to me but it never does and to be honest I never think about it much these days. It's something I work around whereas I believe the line break should be there to assist the reader. Poets have all the punctuation marks available to prosers (even if half of them think they can do without them) AND they have the line break and yet I'm still none the wiser.<BR/><BR/>It's been said that poetry is not engineering. I have a wife who is both an engineer and a poet, in fact her poems are far more in-you-face poetic than any of mine dripping with metaphors and ambiguity. There are techniques to writing in the exact same way as there are techniques to composing music or carving a statue; these things don't happen by magic. There <I>is</I> engineering at work in poetry. A sentence is a construct containing at least a noun and a verb and even if a poem is not written using standard grammatical structure our brain looks for the sentences within in to try and make sense of it, at least mine does.<BR/><BR/>You break the lines in your poems where it makes sense to you. I would like to understand that sense. I believe it should be communicable from one poet to another. Remember, a poem – a "machine made out of words" as William Carlos Williams famously called it – is meant to be read by another. Surely we want to make live easy for that reader, or at least not so hard he gives up and picks up a newspaper.<BR/><BR/>As for editors, <B>Jena</B>, I think it's good for a poet to step back from his work and be made to look at it with fresh eyes. Every single poem that gets included in my canon, at least every poem over the past eleven years, has been rubber-stamped by my wife who <I>has</I> on occasion suggested a rethink of a line here and there, something that I didn't catch because I was caught up in the moment. And that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.<BR/><BR/>I have had an editor write to me and suggest a word change before and he was right. I had not said what I meant to say. Oftentimes we talk about our poems as if they were our children but they're not, they're products of our imagination. If I lost my daughter (who has edited herself quite a bit over the years) I'd be devastated. If I lost a poem I'd shrug and write one to fill the gap.<BR/><BR/>And, talking about kids, <B>John</B>, glad to hear from you. Don't fret for a second. More than most I'd appreciate your feedback on what has turned out to be quite an emotive topic. From the very first poem of yours I read, the one about the fox, I have enjoyed your work thoroughly. It's somewhat ironic that you're a school teacher because your poetry reminds me of school. The teacher would pass between the rows, gown flailing behind her and we'd groan as the sheets containing some poem or other would land on our desks, then she'd read it, then she'd start quizzing us about the piece and I could never understand how there could be the answers to so many questions in one grotty little poem. But there you go.<BR/><BR/>Please feel free to let me have your two bob's worth whenever you get round to it. Much as I enjoy your work I'm still often at a loss as to why you structure your pieces the way you do. I think, considering how much I have read about poetry over the years, it is the one topic that gets the least attention, certainly as far as modern poetics goes.Jim Murdochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-71070258011095268892008-07-05T08:21:00.000+01:002008-07-05T08:21:00.000+01:00A fascinating discussion following another fine pi...A fascinating discussion following another fine piece of JM pondering. This breathless note, Jim, will add nothing to the debate. I've cut and pasted everything into Word and - kids + general domestic chaos permitting - I shall read it carefully over the next few days. But, of course, by the time I'm ready for my two bob's worth, the world will have turned and you'll have pondered anew. <BR/><BR/>Frustrating as ever. But keep them coming, Jim, and I'll have to continue to stumble along in the dust behind!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-50391438466175056202008-07-05T08:08:00.000+01:002008-07-05T08:08:00.000+01:00Editors should refrain as much as possible to "edi...Editors should refrain as much as possible to "edit" works of art. <BR/><BR/>Poetry is also a work of art. Where would the uniqueness of each art be, if all the work presented to the editor would comply with his/her knowledge of the proper format? <BR/><BR/>Creative writing should not be as rigid as formal writing. That is why it is called creative writing.<BR/><BR/>And poetry is creative writing. <BR/><BR/>Poets/writers always appreciate it when their original work has still retained its quiddity even after proof reading. I have observed this within the interim of my stint.<BR/><BR/>Your poem is "snappy" and meaningful. The reader can interpret it several ways. It's simple but has lots to say.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for sharing.Jena Islehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16609925272840089993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-91448156132268592462008-07-05T03:12:00.000+01:002008-07-05T03:12:00.000+01:00Really interesting post. I am always very consciou...Really interesting post. I am always very conscious about where I break lines, based solely on where it makes sense to ME. I figure that if it makes sense to me, the reader will get it. It's the ear thing. I hear the break; I break. I see the break on the page and might have to manipulate some.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-74718699606806017182008-07-04T23:40:00.000+01:002008-07-04T23:40:00.000+01:00Thanks for that comment Meander. I'm sure the edit...Thanks for that comment <B>Meander</B>. I'm sure the editor did too.Jim Murdochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-90398085656752261032008-07-04T22:41:00.000+01:002008-07-04T22:41:00.000+01:00You have such in depth posts and even more insight...You have such in depth posts and even more insightful comments. One could learn so much here.<BR/><BR/>As a simple reader, I do like how the editor changed your poem, it is more forceful and reads much better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-44833505118412648262008-07-04T13:24:00.000+01:002008-07-04T13:24:00.000+01:00Dave, I like the point Robinson makes about flaws....<B>Dave</B>, I like the point Robinson makes about flaws. Very often I've found myself with a couple of awkward lines that, with a bit of work, set off a decent poem. It's like where an artist takes a blob on ink on a page or I've seen it done with a blemish in a wall and they make the odd-looking mark a part of a caricature or something like that.<BR/><BR/>The point about rules we've pretty much covered but, just like I did above, I think it might not be a bad exercise for a poet to sit down and list what his or her guidelines are. I made my list off the cuff. I'm sure with a bit of time I could refine it but it's not bad.<BR/><BR/>Freedom usually comes at a price. It's perverse I know. Rules provide structure. Structure is a good thing. I live in one. I feel secure in one.<BR/><BR/>And <B>Rachel</B>, like I just said to Dave, I think it would be a good thing to sit down and write your own "rules" if just for the exercise.<BR/><BR/>All this discussion inspired a poem which seems like a decent enough place to leave off these comments to be honest:<BR/><BR/><B>The Skeleton of a Poem</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>da DUM<BR/>da DUM DUM, DUM DUM,<BR/>DUM DUM da DUM<BR/><BR/>da da DUM DUM<BR/>DUM<BR/>da da DUM DUM<BR/><BR/>da DUM<BR/>da da DUM DUM DUM<BR/>da DUM DUM DUM<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Thursday, 03 July 2008Jim Murdochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-33902647221873609542008-07-04T13:16:00.000+01:002008-07-04T13:16:00.000+01:00Oh heck..I've just seen a typo in what I put earli...Oh heck..I've just seen a typo in what I put earlier...it should read 'now communicating with each other...noisy business' instead of 'no communicating'. Quite a different result! <BR/><BR/>But it's OK...I'm not the only one...<BR/><BR/>Interesting guidelines Jim! It says a lot about one stuff like that...what one thinks is important...why one feels like Judi Dench when one talks about what one does (and doesn't do).<BR/><BR/>I'm going to have a go at doing my own rule-type-things this week. I'm not sure we'll have many in common...maybe 6 (a bit) and 9 (probably most of all).Rachel Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11803852725693518924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-56291392063695350742008-07-04T12:00:00.000+01:002008-07-04T12:00:00.000+01:00Robert, interesting anecdote. It reminds me of som...<B>Robert</B>, interesting anecdote. It reminds me of something Philip Larkin said during an interview (which I may have quoted on this bog before but no matter).<BR/><BR/>INTERVIEWER<BR/>You mention Auden, Thomas, Yeats, and Hardy as early influences in your introduction to the second edition of <I>The North Ship</I>. What in particular did you learn from your study of these four?<BR/><BR/>LARKIN<BR/>Oh, for Christ’s sake, one doesn’t <I>study</I> poets! You read them, and think, That’s marvellous, how is it done, could I do it? And that’s how you learn. At the end of it you can’t say, That’s Yeats, that’s Auden, because they’ve gone, they’re like scaffolding that’s been taken down. Thomas was a dead end. What effects? Yeats and Auden, the management of lines, the formal distancing of emotion. Hardy, well . . . not to be afraid of the obvious. All those wonderful dicta about poetry—“the poet should touch our hearts by showing his own,” “the poet takes note of nothing that he cannot feel,” “the emotion of all the ages and the thought of his own”—Hardy knew what it was all about.<BR/><BR/><B>Art</B>, I know you weren't directing the point about rules to me personally but I'm going to answer it personally. I believe that too many new poets know too little about what's gone on before them. They're too keen to get on with their own stuff that they don't take the time to read anything more than what is being written by their contemporaries. I was one of them and I'm still nowhere near as well read as people reading my blogs might imagine.<BR/><BR/>I did what Larkin recommended, even though I was oblivious to the existence of the interview at that time, I got books out of the library, all the big names, and I read what they'd written and kept asking myself, Why is this great poetry? I kept looking for books that explained what they were doing but poets are awfully reluctant to explain themselves. A few, like the Imagists, were kind enough to provide a list that the common man could understand but most just waffled on and on without making any sense and I'm afraid, being Scottish (it's part of our heritage), we <I>know</I> when someone's full o' crap. I have no time for pretentiousness.<BR/><BR/>So, what's a guy to do? I decided to make up my own… guidelines, because they weren't rules. I've never sat down and made a list of them but, let's have a go:<BR/><BR/>1. A poem should be short, i.e. less than a page<BR/>2. A poem should be written in proper English<BR/>3. A poem should make sense, i.e. it should mean something<BR/>4. A poem should only deal with one thing at a time<BR/>5. No subject is taboo<BR/>6. Poetic language (metaphors, puns, oxymorons etc.) should be used sparsely<BR/>7. Esoteric references should be avoided or explained<BR/>8. A poem should be structured<BR/>9. A poem's structure is determined by its content<BR/>10. A poem's structure should not detract from its content<BR/><BR/>These are, as I've said, guidelines. Poems that adhere to these please me. But I see no reason to impose these on other people. That said, poems that I come across that don't adhere to these guidelines usually displease me.<BR/><BR/><B>Rachel</B>, I was very young when that editor reformatted my poem – we're talking over thirty years ago – but it did leave a bad taste in my mouth mainly because I wasn't <I>asked</I>. Likely I would have agreed because I was so desperate to see the poem in print but I'm not so desperate these days. <BR/><BR/>I'm actually pleased to see you talk about your reasons for using capitals at the start of each line. This is really what I'm on about, that new poets have reasons behind their actions. Feelings are untrustworthy. You're quite right, the loss of capitals is a fashion thing, as is the abandonment of punctuation, but where you break your lines is another thing completely. <BR/><BR/>Poetry is language encoded. The reader is required to decode what he finds on the page. To do so he needs to know what the code is. This is why I get so frustrated with E. E. Cummings because I don't know what his rules are. I don't care that he uses non standard punctuation as long as I'm told what means what.<BR/><BR/>It's like some modern music. I saw a piece by Berio once for the descant recorder which required the performer to do some odd things like not blow into the thing or make noises and to communicate this Berio had devised new notation which was explained at the bottom of the page. Fine, make up your own rules but don't leave the reader in the dark. <BR/><BR/>I got talking to a guy on Zoetrope a while ago about his use of indents and he very kindly explained how he used them. Basically the indents indicated a breath. Once I saw what he was doing his poems became easier to read. There was more to it than that but the point was he was doing what he was doing for a reason. I was just too thick to decode the thing on my own. And I'm too thick most of the time, or lazy or something. At least with a sonnet you know what to expect and you know if it's a bad sonnet or a good one. It's so much harder to judge a poem these days.Jim Murdochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-24497740678463360632008-07-04T11:57:00.000+01:002008-07-04T11:57:00.000+01:00An awful lot to get hold of there, Jim. Basically ...An awful lot to get hold of there, Jim. Basically I think I am with Rachel: I want to work towards my own rules - and break those. When someone says "stick to the rules" I want to ask "Which ones?" for there are so many sets. As I hinted in my current post, I think I am tending towards the "unit of breath", for example, which is nothing new, having been enshrined in the rules for punctuation in the eighteenth century. (Different rules for different ages, different purpose, different societies.)<BR/>Shame you didn't stand up to your first editor, but I think I would have done as you did at a similar stage of my development.<BR/>Coincidentally, I came to your post immediately after reading a review by Peter Robinson in which he talks of "how the flaw, the awkward moment" can be what gives a poem its grace and authenticity. But then he asks: "what is there in the awkward, clumsy moment that lets them give a poem grace and authenticity on one occasion, but wrecks it on another?" He also muses that "it is an open question whether faults of technique stick out sore-thumb-fashion more in free or regular verse. I am not suggesting there were faults of technique in your verse! Quite the contrary, for he concludes that; "fine writers transform what could be thought flaws into significant characteristics, giving formal devices unique thematic significances." I whole-heartedly agree with that, which is why I think we should always stick to our guns rather than the rules.Dave Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08430484174826768488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-58792763052566051482008-07-04T08:55:00.000+01:002008-07-04T08:55:00.000+01:00'A place for both' - exactly. With no one way bein...'A place for both' - exactly. With no one way being automatically better than the other.<BR/><BR/>As for the 'editor' who reformatted your poem...I think that is outrageous behaviour personally. If an editor doesn't think a poem is right then they just shouldn't include it. They're not high school (or primary school) teachers correcting homework assignments! I get my capital letters at the beginnings of lines 'corrected' sometimes ('changed to fit in with a house style') and I really don't like it. I know the current fashion is not to start every line with a capital but it is my style, my choice. I don't have a long theoretical explanation for it but here are a few components of the decision...it looks right to me, I've never been one for fashions in other areas of life, I like a big bold start to every line, I do like a bit of a proclamation (bring out the bugles!). They take the capitals away and it doesn't look like mine any more...it looks kind of wimpy, too well-behaved, too 'yes ma'am you're all right...do with me what you will'! So if someone changes the letters once I question it and then just don't send to that editor again. It's a big old world - there are plenty of others.<BR/><BR/>As for free verse - I like to try out all kinds of forms....some traditional, some not. It's all using our own personal version of the language in different ways. We're all just working our way towards the best poems we can manage. We won't even necessarily recognise them ourselves...no matter how clever we are (and aren't we all the cleverest kids in the class...no communicating with each other...noisy business...).<BR/><BR/>p.s.Seeing as you have arranged your poem so many ways...I'm with the wife - couplets work well in this case for me. But it's your decision in the end! We don't have much control in our lives...controlling our lines and breaks and capital letters is something we should be allowed (whether our decisions are wise or foolhardy). I know Sorlil's on holiday but the quote on the top of her page about trying and failing...that's a good one. And Jim...it's Beckett!<BR/>xRachel Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11803852725693518924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-90180290492698653112008-07-04T04:59:00.000+01:002008-07-04T04:59:00.000+01:00Actually, what bugs me is not the condition of rul...Actually, what bugs me is not the condition of rules, or rule-making, but the insistence of the pedants that everyone MUST know the rules. What they really mean is THEIR rules. Most people who talk about rules are trying to convince you that their rules are the right rules, no matter what they say.<BR/><BR/>It's not the existence of rules, it's the fact that someone is telling me what to do, how to be, how to think, how to act. In other words, they are trying to put themselves in a parental relationship relative to everyone else—who they basically regard as children.<BR/><BR/>If someone presented poetic craft as guidelines rather than rules, and acknowledged that they are arbitrary, being what they are because of the accident of history and tradition, then we could talk. But the voices I most often hear state the "you got to know the rules" argument don't even seem able to break out of their own cultural conditioning far enough to realize that the possibility of alternative realities exist. They usually build their case on underlying assumptions about the nature of reality that are local, parochial, and self-serving. I grew up in a foreign country, I speak several languages, and I'll say up front that most poets I've met who argue about this with me don't share that international background. LOL Having a sense of the wider context of world creativity and culture really does change one's perspective.<BR/><BR/>If just one of these pedants could acknowledge that some poets really don't know the rules before they break them, we could talk about it, and get at the truth. But most of them won't even admit to the possibility. *shrug*Art Durkeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463180236975988432noreply@blogger.com