Bflag's Pleasures of Criticism

If you think you're writing a poem outside of any tradition you probably aren't, fucking Foehn has done it though.

Well you asked for it, it's almost like I wrote it, I know this shit.

Your ball.

Epmd607 said:

It's my position, and seemingly the view of every poet who isn't 1201, that the spoken and written english language do have the elements of prosody that make metrical feet legible to the author of beowulf same as the authors on new poems page at literotica.

The reason poetry exists is probably because it's easier remembering language with rhythm ordered by stress patterns. It only takes a moderate study of poetry to see how well English grammar translates to the page to the reader. There are openings for interpretation when reading, but it's not some uncanny valley that 1201 and possibly Derrida would have you believe. Every grammar favors certain stress patterns in spoken language which can be manipulated on the page through simple act of being well read one can access such information almost immediately.

To respond to Tsotha in brief: half, internal, full rhyme, assonance, alliteration etc. There's a number of tools besides syllable and stress patterns that make poetry something different than prose. By neglecting the poetic tools and techniques we lose special traditions over time that we ought to preserve and expand on through our own creativity and care.

Click to expand...

patterns and macropatterns -
1201 the uncanny valley

a few things
this was very cursory on foehn's poem, I did not mention the probable effects and he has other things going on.

this employs a very similar structure and tactics I used in I, the Shadow.

I fully expect 90% will either ignore, vilify or otherwise claim I'm full of shit, the other 9% will see and begin to use it and forget it ever came from me.

The last 1. Ah well, fuck me.

bflagsst said:

It's some heavy stuff, man. Foehn is giving us a theory of ideas, it's a description of platonic realism coupled with the availability of interpersonal love, zealotry, adulation.

Click to expand...

Hold it here, mate, and let us have a closer look at you as a critic. I think you play with stuff (ideas) that you have no clue about them. Plato is the founder of idealism, then were the Christians(Eastern church fathers, Saint Augustin, Thomas Aquinas, various fascist leaders etc) and Hegel came last as the cherry in the pie. Please refer me to an instance, a writing, a diatribe or even a joke worth its value where Plato is mentioned as a realist.

rino said:

Hold it here, mate, and let us have a closer look at you as a critic. I think you play with stuff (ideas) that you have no clue about them. Plato is the founder of idealism, then were the Christians(Eastern church fathers, Saint Augustin, Thomas Aquinas, various fascist leaders etc) and Hegel came last as the cherry in the pie. Please refer me to an instance, a writing, a diatribe or even a joke worth its value where Plato is mentioned as a realist.

Click to expand...

Bishop Berkeley is the founder of philosophic idealism. Dont confuse realism with platonic realism with idealism and then question me about my poetry credentials. If im talking of theory of forms/ideas and you dont know what that is you should probably look that up before making any statements contrary. Whereas im not credentialed to talk about poetry i am credentialed to talk about these ideas so far as a degree in philosophy will get me.

OK I just threw something out. I did it on the fly. This and more can be diagrammed
all foehn does, I do. I think I just answered a question that you and a few others have been bothered with: How does he get away with the shit he writes?
I've been telling you (mass you) for years, internal structure supports, outward form packages.
From time to time, I've even tried to show you this:
"that works really well save for a few missteps of phrasing and a near complete disregard for any poetic tool or tradition. If you think you're writing a poem outside of any tradition you probably aren't, fucking Foehn has done it though."

Foehn is using framing and repeated figures. Disruptions. I doubt he was fully conscious of what he was doing.

If foehn had thrown this into something traditional, I doubt it would have had the power or the control it has now.

Is what I just showed you flawed?

I'm not going to rehash the great metric fallacies Epmd607 referred too, because you know and I know there have been problems with it since the days it was implemented. i.e. it is NOT just on/off.

twelveoone said:

OK I just threw something out. I did it on the fly. This and more can be diagrammed
all foehn does, I do. I think I just answered a question that you and a few others have been bothered with: How does he get away with the shit he writes?
I've been telling you (mass you) for years, internal structure supports, outward form packages.
From time to time, I've even tried to show you this:
"that works really well save for a few missteps of phrasing and a near complete disregard for any poetic tool or tradition. If you think you're writing a poem outside of any tradition you probably aren't, fucking Foehn has done it though."

Foehn is using framing and repeated figures. Disruptions. I doubt he was fully conscious of what he was doing.

If foehn had thrown this into something traditional, I doubt it would have had the power or the control it has now.

Is what I just showed you flawed?

I'm not going to rehash the great metric fallacies Epmd607 referred too, because you know and I know there have been problems with it since the days it was implemented. i.e. it is NOT just on/off.

Click to expand...

The Lit oeuvre of Foehn reads like someone who has no idea Robert Herrick or Robert Browning ever existed. It's as if he grew up reading and listening to contemporary poets and has little knowledge of the predecessors of his favorite authors. If that was the case he shouldn't be a very special poet, but he is. He may have studied his contemporaries closely, and for the most part he's just like them, but from time to time he's doing this really unique thing that I have trouble approaching, but can easily appreciate.

Is Hannah Loves Horses a better poem than 1201 Repose or thie moment (iiii)? No, Foehn is too ignorant to be more than an oddity. Is Hanna Love Horses incredibly accessible to learned and ignorant poets alike? Yes. There are simple mistakes in the poem, the 'like her' break downs are awkward along with a few other lazy line breaks. The poem is smooth, gets oddly philosophic and strange then ends in a neat little way. I can't get at that thing of the myriad of meaning, so I keep re-reading.

bflagsst said:

My main criticism would be that the indexing is too good and it makes the poem more clinical and impersonal than it could have been even broken in parts and trimmed a bit. That the indexing even comes close to making it seem dishonest because of how articulate it is whereas there isn't that personal individual memory from time to time of life before illness and indexing of diagnosis to draw me back into what is believable as reader. You tried at the end, but it's too generic when compared against the wall of detail from the previous zillion lines.

Click to expand...

bflagsst said:

It's some heavy stuff, man. Foehn is giving us a theory of ideas, it's a description of platonic realism coupled with the availability of interpersonal love, zealotry, adulation.

Click to expand...

bflagsst said:

You read this poem and it's something written for someone else who actually exists or has existed and you believe in a zealotry for horses and for the narrator's adoration of Hannah and her complete being in this world. Think about how rare it is to come across a poem that reads like it's actually about real people living real human lives and not just complete fictions interacting.

Click to expand...

bias control bflagsst - just pointing it out

pelegrino's is more of a rhetorical question
The part of Trix's you object to is the dehumanizing part

unless there are certain aspects of relationships portrayed, you are going to have difficulty with it

Which is fine, it is Marketing 101, but as far as poetry, more so, subjective taste.
A shame, Demure doesn't come around, all well within the "poetic" but nearly all so wonderfully alone.

bflagsst said:

learned and ignorant poets

Click to expand...

even the best poets write shite
but their poetry is learned shite
shite recognised by the learned
poets who know the best and label
their shite, the best shite



Like music, it's all subjective. The Sex Pistols didn't give a shit about Mozart because Mozart represented the oppressive establishment. Why would anyone from an oppressed background be interested in the art of artists who fawned at the feet of the oppressive establishment for a few coins. Art is more than learned technique, it is also intent.

bflagsst said:

Bishop Berkeley is the founder of philosophic idealism. Dont confuse realism with platonic realism with idealism and then question me about my poetry credentials. If im talking of theory of forms/ideas and you dont know what that is you should probably look that up before making any statements contrary. Whereas im not credentialed to talk about poetry i am credentialed to talk about these ideas so far as a degree in philosophy will get me.

Click to expand...

George Berkeley is the founder of philosophical idealism as far as you've been tought in your philosophy degree (which I'd tell you what to do with, but you probably guessed already).
Otherwise its beginnings in philosophy are traced back to Neo-Platonist such as those I referred to and also Indian polytheists. Berkeley simply revived it some 300 years ago in his anti materialist fanatic madness that rejected all material world as non existent.
Platonic realism is a term coined by thinkers with idealist tendencies, that is all, and it does not carry any objective value for people who have a materialist turn of thought. At all events it was not coined by Plato or expanded upon in his philosophy (he had more sense that guy when he was dealing with ideas).
I'm also talking of theory of forms and you don’t know what that is and you should probably look it up (do another degree perhaps, something where form is applied so that you can grasp it more easily).
Last but not least: Don’t quote me as "rino", I object to it. You can use my whole name or abbreviate it to "Pel" as other people do.

Bit the dust

pelegrino said:

George Berkeley is the founder of philosophical idealism as far as you've been tought in your philosophy degree (which I'd tell you what to do with, but you probably guessed already).
Otherwise its beginnings in philosophy are traced back to Neo-Platonist such as those I referred to and also Indian polytheists. Berkeley simply revived it some 300 years ago in his anti materialist fanatic madness that rejected all material world as non existent.
Platonic realism is a term coined by thinkers with idealist tendencies, that is all, and it does not carry any objective value for people who have a materialist turn of thought. At all events it was not coined by Plato or expanded upon in his philosophy (he had more sense that guy when he was dealing with ideas).
I'm also talking of theory of forms and you don’t know what that is and you should probably look it up (do another degree perhaps, something where form is applied so that you can grasp it more easily).
Last but not least: Don’t quote me as "rino", I object to it. You can use my whole name or abbreviate it to "Pel" as other people do.

Click to expand...

Pellegrino, you're full of shit...Indian polytheists to Bishop Berkeley, lulz. Quote what I said and try and undermine it, or post a poem for criticism or sod off. Wikipedia exists.

"Platonic realism is a philosophical term usually used to refer to the idea of realism regarding the existence of universals or abstract objects after the Greek philosopher Plato (c. 427–c. 347 BC), a student of Socrates. As universals were considered by Plato to be ideal forms, this stance is confusingly also called Platonic idealism. This should not be confused with Idealism, as presented by philosophers such as George Berkeley: as Platonic abstractions are not spatial, temporal, or mental they are not compatible with the later Idealism's emphasis on mental existence.

[Where I was referring to the form of horse in Foehn's poem, the horses not being horses, the thing becoming something much more than it is, the object of horse represented by millions, kazillions of horses...]

"Plato's Forms include numbers and geometrical figures, making them a theory of mathematical realism; they also include the Form of the Good, making them in addition a theory of ethical realism.
Plato expounded his own articulation of realism regarding the existence of universals in his dialogue The Republic and elsewhere, notably in the Phaedo, the Phaedrus, the Meno and the Parmenides."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realism

twelveoone said:

bias control bflagsst - just pointing it out

pelegrino's is more of a rhetorical question
The part of Trix's you object to is the dehumanizing part

unless there are certain aspects of relationships portrayed, you are going to have difficulty with it

Which is fine, it is Marketing 101, but as far as poetry, more so, subjective taste.
A shame, Demure doesn't come around, all well within the "poetic" but nearly all so wonderfully alone.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm bias toward the confession, biography, religious experience. But I accept the universal statement, the unmoved mover of mythologic metaphor. You have Ben Johson A Farewell to the World:
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/a-farewell-to-the-world-2/

side by side with Edge by Sylvia Plath: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/178970

But what we're born for, we must bear:
Our frail condition it is such
That what to all may happen here,
If 't chance to me, I must not grutch.

........

The woman is perfected.
Her dead

Body wears the smile of accomplishment,
The illusion of a Greek necessity

Flows in the scrolls of her toga,
Her bare

Feet seem to be saying:
We have come so far, it is over.


Ben Jonson is free to say a little something about the universal human spirit, Ms. Plath is shackled inside the clinic of the universal human spirit. I don't know that Ben's strategy would be all that fruitful in 2014. How does that apply to Trixy's poem which has many biographic details? I don't know yet. But Trix opened the poem as biographic confession, should close as one with such detail, somehow, who knows. Impersonal indexing, personal, impersonal, personal; some combo is out there I think.

bflagsst said:

Pellegrino, you're full of shit...Indian polytheists to Bishop Berkeley, lulz. Quote what I said and try and undermine it, or post a poem for criticism or sod off. Wikipedia exists.

"Platonic realism is a philosophical term usually used to refer to the idea of realism regarding the existence of universals or abstract objects after the Greek philosopher Plato (c. 427–c. 347 BC), a student of Socrates. As universals were considered by Plato to be ideal forms, this stance is confusingly also called Platonic idealism. This should not be confused with Idealism, as presented by philosophers such as George Berkeley: as Platonic abstractions are not spatial, temporal, or mental they are not compatible with the later Idealism's emphasis on mental existence.

[Where I was referring to the form of horse in Foehn's poem, the horses not being horses, the thing becoming something much more than it is, the object of horse represented by millions, kazillions of horses...]

"Plato's Forms include numbers and geometrical figures, making them a theory of mathematical realism; they also include the Form of the Good, making them in addition a theory of ethical realism.
Plato expounded his own articulation of realism regarding the existence of universals in his dialogue The Republic and elsewhere, notably in the Phaedo, the Phaedrus, the Meno and the Parmenides."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realism

Click to expand...

I don't have to read wikipedia for my knowledge, I leave that sport to authorities like you, and you seemed to have learnt your poem well from it since you recite it so correctly.
However, wikipedia articles are only wikipedist opinions. In modern real philosophy, all that which you described as "Plato's realism" is in fact Plato's Establishing of Idealism, including the Socratic dialogues to which you refer and in which it is not easy to know where Socrates finishes and where Plato begins. However that may be, I think that Parmenides' question (his "monist" sphere) still looms unanswered by materialists and idealists alike (I do know classical Greek and I do know what I'm reading) I'm not persuaded at all by the argumentation whether it is Plato, Socrates or Zeno that utters it .

That is how materialist philosophy views it. Further more, his (Plato's) existence of universals is illogical as these universals (many horses in your example) existing in the real (material) world don't add up to his idea of an immaterial (not existing) universal idea of it, and there the old guy got stuck and he told us that it exists arbitrarily (he could not accept that he was wrong, like you). The same fault has been made by all subsequent idealists.
Anyhow I'm not here to discuss Plato's ideas, but your "student of philosophy-universals expert" approach to them.
I am full of shit, of course, but not full of wikipedia shit, so stop reciting to me from it and do your own serious research. Don't ever tell me again to sod off, just ignore me if you don't like me.
As for submitting my writings to your critique, well I may, but that is only for seer entertainment value.

I leave you now, cause I can see you have more serious business than to reply to my posts. You took it upon your shoulders, you deal with it.
Have a Happy "Platonic realism" time, or whatever you call it.

Shits, no giggles

bflagsst said:

Is Hannah Loves Horses a better poem than 1201 Repose or thie moment (iiii)? No, Foehn is too ignorant to be more than an oddity. Is Hanna Love Horses incredibly accessible to learned and ignorant poets alike? Yes. There are simple mistakes in the poem, the 'like her' break downs are awkward along with a few other lazy line breaks. The poem is smooth, gets oddly philosophic and strange then ends in a neat little way. I can't get at that thing of the myriad of meaning, so I keep re-reading.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what foehn studied.
Let's address some other things: Hanna Love Horses should be rather accessible and overcoming resistance to perceived quirks i.e. "kazillions", his material is set in a powerful structure. He has the edge, a child that loved horses dies is certainly more touching than a shadow that walks away from a shell.
These "like her" I wouldn't touch, there are three and form an important part of psychological impressment, coupled with the fact he is running them against a series of patterns, here is the stanza:


Hanna loves horses that aren't horses.
She loves them because of what they want to be.
She loves them because of form:
because they are smart, like her,
feeling, like her,
explorers, yet obedient,
like her.

First line of the stanza is that anomalous line I mentioned it is qualified - not, 2 line
qualified - not yet, 3 line not qualified but abstract. He has an inverse mirroring structure with the nouns preceding the "like her", the last one is qualified - yet. The structure is diminished (smaller).
Through this, again
Hanna loves, (now pronoun) She loves, She loves horses because they are Like Her, like is a funny word, if it slips into another usage even for a microsecond you have a another diminishment - and he is setting you up for it: 3x Love 3x like.
tip of the iceberg.
without even considering the context, he has something strong that is being lost.
I would not touch a thing.
My mouth dropped open when I saw this.

Pellllegrino, you're uneducated and hate knowledge with a passion. Are there any worse qualities? C'mon send me some of your pseudo Joycean novelties.

bflagsst said:

Pellllegrino, you're uneducated and hate knowledge with a passion. Are there any worse qualities? C'mon send me some of your pseudo Joycean novelties.

Click to expand...

Philosophy isn't knowledge, it's speculation.

the French intellectual
philosophized upon
the rareified nature of being

and the insubstantial nature of matter
deconstructing the world to a point
he had all but contrived
his disappearance
up his own semi-colon

the American physicist
pointed out
even French intellectuals
should they jump off a very tall building
would be subject to G
R
A
A
A
A
VITY!!

and as the french intellectual
passed the sixth floor window
accelerating at a rate of :-
g=9.81 (metres/sec)/sec

he would have time enough
for his life to pass before his eyes
and to reflect upon the nature of being
and how hard the ground can be
when approaching it at 30 miles per hou.....A
A
A
A
A
R
G
H
SPLAT!!!!!

bogusagain said:

Philosophy isn't knowledge, it's speculation.

Click to expand...

So is the poetry bullshit, let him do it.
So far he looks to be about 50%, which isn't bad.
Because this also will get into what is knowledge and probably a pointless cowbell discussion also.

bflagsst said:

Pellllegrino, you're uneducated and hate knowledge with a passion. Are there any worse qualities? C'mon send me some of your pseudo Joycean novelties.

Click to expand...

You're not just a novelty,
you are a world premiere,
you do know where,
you're also a bad joke
without a punch line,
an egg without a yolk,
a hopeless philistine.

(there, dear, I hope you have no more complaints)

pelegrino said:

You're not just a novelty,
you are a world premiere,
you do know where,
you're also a bad joke
without a punch line,
an egg without a yolk,
a hopeless philistine.

(there, dear, I hope you have no more complaints)

Click to expand...

C'mon don't make me stand it for one of my many archenemies. Let it go, both you guys are personalizing it.

ps. Needs more cowbell

Poopygrino;60102315]You're not just a novelty,
you are a world premiere,
you do know where,
you're also a bad joke
without a punch line,
an egg without a yolk,
a hopeless philistine.

(there, dear, I hope you have no more complaints) [/QUOTE]

This is the doggerel I'm talking about, 1201. If he wasn't some hack Stealers Wheel to my Bobby Dylan I'd be raging right now and everyone would get a laugh at my expense. It takes work to be a hacky poet, even a hacky doggerel text box message board poet.

If I wanted to read the cantos of ezra pound I doubt I'd waste my time reading Pellegrino.

Universal impersonal
Ben Jonson's

Universal personal
Sylvia's Edge

Trixy's poem

Confessional impersonal
The poem with domestic violence linked above, narrating memory mixed with shared human experience

Confessional biography
the "I" telling you details of their inner history

I'M not sure where trix poem will end up, but Hanna and her horses doesn't fit in this scheme.

Balderdash

bflagsst said:

Poopygrino;60102315]You're not just a novelty,
you are a world premiere,
you do know where,
you're also a bad joke
without a punch line,
an egg without a yolk,
a hopeless philistine.

(there, dear, I hope you have no more complaints)

Click to expand...

This is the doggerel I'm talking about, 1201. If he wasn't some hack Stealers Wheel to my Bobby Dylan I'd be raging right now and everyone would get a laugh at my expense. It takes work to be a hacky poet, even a hacky doggerel text box message board poet.

If I wanted to read the cantos of ezra pound I doubt I'd waste my time reading Pellegrino.[/QUOTE]

bflagsst,
I have asked you nicely to use the words Pelegrino or Pel when you refer to me because I object to anything else and I see that still you are been objectionable.
Are you prepared to comply with my request?