Poetry, prose, metre, stuff, to keep the other thread clean

[Tsotha]

As reader wouldn't you be curious why she is so sad over a broken vessel, why she is worthy of remembrance in form of statue and also poetry?

The first four lines do nothing but set the scene of a sad milkmaid crying over her broken urn:

One day a girl with an urn
Let it drop on the boulder beneath her.
Sadly she sits and alone,
Uselessly holding the pieces.

The next four lines are a play on the fact that we're actually talking about a statue, so "she" isn't really crying, and the liquid isn't really flowing:

But see! What marvel is this?
For the water pours yet from her vessel.
There she continues today,
Her gaze on this endless spring.

I'd say it is obvious why she is sad, since the poem doesn't commit enough words toward asking me to consider it further. As it is, the milkmaid isn't a "symbol" (for me) — it's a reference, something that I need to go look up.

The title is the only thing in the poem that points toward meaning. So now I have to go on a treasure hunt to find out what statue the poem is talking about, what milkmaid it represents, what the fable is about, and where in the world the statue stands. Thank "god" for the world wide web and search engines. This finally allows me to consider whether the statue of a humble milkmaid crying over spilt milk is:

1. a general comment on pride, borrowing directly from La Fontaine's fable — not very smart or interesting.
   
2. a comment on depression, considering line 6: "the water pours yet from her vessel", but she is sad nonetheless, she can't stop being sad even though things are actually fine (the water is still flowing).
   
3. a clever piece of social criticism standing right under the emperor's nose.

And now it's a symbol, reaching beyond the literal.

There isn't enough in the poem itself that makes it a symbol for me. It isn't self-contained, it doesn't expand on the elements it presents, it just throws a reference in there and relies on me having the background it needs. Not that it matters. The success of the poem isn't measured by whether *I* found it meaningful, but by whether the poet's intended audience did.

It's not limited work if a metaphor refers to popular information. I can write a limited poem that refers to regional NY Catskill icons: John Burroughs, Slide Mtn, Washington Irving's History of New York characters, Shon-gum prisoners etc. and have it only appeal to people with a peculiar poetic interest in the history and literature of the region. As in, like a dozen people.

If you are writing about the Catskill icons, then there is nothing that can be done about it. The poem's subject is something that is in itself of interest to a specific group of people.

If, however, you're writing about something that is relevant to all human beings (love, hate fame, pride, whatever) and you're using the Catskill icons as a metaphor for the general idea that you're trying to develop, then you're choosing to limit the poem to a specific group of people.

And I meant "limited" in the sense that you've restricted your audience, not that it is a "bad" poem. I suppose it could be argued that, by limiting the audience, you can use symbols that are more meaningful, that resonate more with your readers, resulting in a "better" poem (for that specific audience) than you'd get without relying on references.

EDIT: There is a poem by greenmountaineer called "Starving Artist". It's a poem about (drum roll) starving artists. However, it refers to a real world starving artist. Is it a better poem by having the reference, or could/should it have been avoided? Is the reference just a placeholder for something that could have been expanded in the poem itself, or is it truly a symbol, something that holds so much meaning that it couldn't be written otherwise? Just another thing to consider...

 

[twelveoone]

EDIT: There is a poem by greenmountaineer called "Starving Artist". It's a poem about (drum roll) starving artists. However, it refers to a real world starving artist. Is it a better poem by having the reference, or could/should it have been avoided? Is the reference just a placeholder for something that could have been expanded in the poem itself, or is it truly a symbol, something that holds so much meaning that it couldn't be written otherwise? Just another thing to consider...

The poem is about Delmore Schwartz, you don't even need to know that, if you do, all the better. That is the "local". Any starving artist is the "general." Most of Frost's poems are "local" but at the time "universal".
Notice use of "time". The word "radio" in the 1950's carried more "weight" than now. i.e. "Boombox" is largely a defunct word, now. You need training to read Shakespeare, more for Chaucer.
What you are thinking is: does a specific reference kill a poem? Yes, if the reference relies on it. However if the poem is sufficiently strong, the reader will find out what the reference means. There is a poem by Tzara, it is the level three thread (damned if I'm going to go look for it) I don't think many people got it. (Well, I got enough of it...) My general comment, don't take 'em off the page too much or too often, they might not come back.
And it is because of this invaluable advise (duh, stating what should be obvious) is why I get in trouble around here.
But, I'm always glad to be of cranky assistance.

 

[twelveoone]

As reader wouldn't you be curious why she is so sad over a broken vessel,

and have it only appeal to people with a peculiar poetic interest in the history and literature of the region. As in, like a dozen people.

well since vaso is spanish cliche for vagina, I'd be a little sad also

As in, like a dozen people...
Well unless you have a generation of pot smokers and write like Rod Mckuen, or Oprah heads and are Maya Angelou (who had all that Hallmark training) a dozen people seems like top of the scale to me.

Perhaps, I'm being cynical.

 

[Tsotha]

The poem is about Delmore Schwartz, you don't even need to know that, if you do, all the better. That is the "local". Any starving artist is the "general." Most of Frost's poems are "local" but at the time "universal".
Notice use of "time". The word "radio" in the 1950's carried more "weight" than now. i.e. "Boombox" is largely a defunct word, now. You need training to read Shakespeare, more for Chaucer.
What you are thinking is: does a specific reference kill a poem? Yes, if the reference relies on it. However if the poem is sufficiently strong, the reader will find out what the reference means. There is a poem by Tzara, it is the level three thread (damned if I'm going to go look for it) I don't think many people got it. (Well, I got enough of it...) My general comment, don't take 'em off the page too much or too often, they might not come back.
And it is because of this invaluable advise (duh, stating what should be obvious) is why I get in trouble around here.
But, I'm always glad to be of cranky assistance.

Level three.

I agree with both the comment you left on GM's poem and the one above, by the way. The poem *is* stronger once you know who Delmore Schwartz is. However, I felt that the other references weren't as helpful (to me), particularly on stanze 1 and 2. Lines 4 and 5 confused the hell out of me (derp). I'm just saying, it's always good to consider the effect of what you're writing, and references are just another thing to consider.

 

[butters]

well since vaso is spanish cliche for vagina, I'd be a little sad also

As in, like a dozen people...
Well unless you have a generation of pot smokers and write like Rod Mckuen, or Oprah heads and are Maya Angelou (who had all that Hallmark training) a dozen people seems like top of the scale to me.

Perhaps, I'm being cynical.

spanish vagina - olé(?)

sorry

 

[twelveoone]

spanish vagina - olé(?)

sorry

Well if Tazz was the thinking sort, that is what he would have came up with.
Ern, my vagina broke
Jack Springheels must be about.

 

[twelveoone]

Level three.

I agree with both the comment you left on GM's poem and the one above, by the way. The poem *is* stronger once you know who Delmore Schwartz is. However, I felt that the other references weren't as helpful (to me), particularly on stanze 1 and 2. Lines 4 and 5 confused the hell out of me (derp). I'm just saying, it's always good to consider the effect of what you're writing, and references are just another thing to consider.

...Juliet
...Juliet
Is not really needed, any name would have done, you don't know what I did here?
Part of it is what Emp refers to as artistic misdirection, by use of a reference.
in my case use of it is not purely a red herring or an inflated balloon.

it's always good to consider the effect of what you're writing
yep, because the writer if good will play tricks on you, and you the reader if good should know that.

 

[Tsotha]

...Juliet
...Juliet
Is not really needed, any name would have done, you don't know what I did here?

For one meaning, any name would have done. For another, that exact one was required.

yep, because the writer if good will play tricks on you, and you the reader if good should know that.

Being aware of something (as a reader) doesn't mean you can understand it.

 

[Tsotha]

What you are thinking is: does a specific reference kill a poem? Yes, if the reference relies on it. However if the poem is sufficiently strong, the reader will find out what the reference means.

This is what I meant by "self-contained". A poem that presents a symbol and develops it, connecting the different "characters" / "elements" in the poem, creating relationships which help define meaning beyond the literal, slowly revealing a meaning for those who are paying attention.

A reference by itself operates a bit like a cliché, in my opinion. You're using a placeholder for the words you should actually have written. Depending on how the poem is constructed, however, you might reach the end having some idea of what the reference was all about. Indeed, in GM's poem, I didn't need to know who Del was — by the end of it, I knew he was one such starving artist.

 

[twelveoone]

This is what I meant by "self-contained". A poem that presents a symbol and develops it, connecting the different "characters" / "elements" in the poem, creating relationships which help define meaning beyond the literal, slowly revealing a meaning for those who are paying attention.

A reference by itself operates a bit like a cliché, in my opinion. You're using a placeholder for the words you should actually have written. Depending on how the poem is constructed, however, you might reach the end having some idea of what the reference was all about. Indeed, in GM's poem, I didn't need to know who Del was — by the end of it, I knew he was one such starving artist.

very good thinking, but in this case think of it more as a footnote.

 

[Epmd607]

The first four lines do nothing but set the scene of a sad milkmaid crying over her broken urn:

One day a girl with an urn
Let it drop on the boulder beneath her.
Sadly she sits and alone,
Uselessly holding the pieces.

The next four lines are a play on the fact that we're actually talking about a statue, so "she" isn't really crying, and the liquid isn't really flowing:

But see! What marvel is this?
For the water pours yet from her vessel.
There she continues today,
Her gaze on this endless spring.

I'd say it is obvious why she is sad, since the poem doesn't commit enough words toward asking me to consider it further. As it is, the milkmaid isn't a "symbol" (for me) — it's a reference, something that I need to go look up.

The title is the only thing in the poem that points toward meaning. So now I have to go on a treasure hunt to find out what statue the poem is talking about, what milkmaid it represents, what the fable is about, and where in the world the statue stands. Thank "god" for the world wide web and search engines. This finally allows me to consider whether the statue of a humble milkmaid crying over spilt milk is:

1. a general comment on pride, borrowing directly from La Fontaine's fable — not very smart or interesting.
   
2. a comment on depression, considering line 6: "the water pours yet from her vessel", but she is sad nonetheless, she can't stop being sad even though things are actually fine (the water is still flowing).
   
3. a clever piece of social criticism standing right under the emperor's nose.

And now it's a symbol, reaching beyond the literal.

There isn't enough in the poem itself that makes it a symbol for me. It isn't self-contained, it doesn't expand on the elements it presents, it just throws a reference in there and relies on me having the background it needs. Not that it matters. The success of the poem isn't measured by whether *I* found it meaningful, but by whether the poet's intended audience did.



If you are writing about the Catskill icons, then there is nothing that can be done about it. The poem's subject is something that is in itself of interest to a specific group of people.

If, however, you're writing about something that is relevant to all human beings (love, hate fame, pride, whatever) and you're using the Catskill icons as a metaphor for the general idea that you're trying to develop, then you're choosing to limit the poem to a specific group of people.

And I meant "limited" in the sense that you've restricted your audience, not that it is a "bad" poem. I suppose it could be argued that, by limiting the audience, you can use symbols that are more meaningful, that resonate more with your readers, resulting in a "better" poem (for that specific audience) than you'd get without relying on references.

EDIT: There is a poem by greenmountaineer called "Starving Artist". It's a poem about (drum roll) starving artists. However, it refers to a real world starving artist. Is it a better poem by having the reference, or could/should it have been avoided? Is the reference just a placeholder for something that could have been expanded in the poem itself, or is it truly a symbol, something that holds so much meaning that it couldn't be written otherwise? Just another thing to consider...

Don't think of the poem as containing enough information that you can or can't get something out of it as is, that wasn't my point of bringing it up. The reason the statue has been put in a museum is so more people can visit it, the reason the statue is so popular is because of its relationship to a popular song - which happens to contain a few verses from Pushkin.

I don't know why Pushkin wrote his few lines, his reasons or intentions etc. The poem, song and statue have significance for a great number of people - just not most people of the world. It's an example of how some symbols aren't meant to be internationalized or how some poetry can have value while having a fairly specific(in this case, Russian, audience).

You can say 'this poem doesn't appeal to me but I can understand why it might appeal to others', it's a healthy attitude. But this isn't about aesthetics, it's about you having grown up in a different culture and not having the tools necessary to take meaning from the information encoded.

The poem contains three items of Russian cultural heritage(Pushkin, statue, song) and the statue itself likely refers to fables that we share with Russians and Europeans. We just don't have the same cultural information as easily accessible, we aren't living near St. Petersburg, so all we know is Pushkin wrote the poem and that the poem refers to a statue and that the statue may or may not refer to myth or fable.

Howl is a fairly dated poem, very dated when it refers to Ginsberg-specific problems, 40's and 50's cultural attitudes, uses slang that is fairly foreign to 21st Century under-40 readers. It's just not completely foreign, there is plenty of familiar history, road signs and symbols leftover to connect with.

There's Ralph Waldo Emerson the ultimate boring internationalist, populist symbolist whatever. His poetry completely inaccessible and foreign to someone who has found points of contact in Walt Whitman or Elizabeth Barrett. It's a tug of war between confession and universalism.

 

[twelveoone]

Time
Space
Attitude

did you ever think I may be ahead of the curve, epmd?
a gravitational lens so to speak

aye tis the black spot

tis not a spot, tis a hole
Argh

 

[greenmountaineer]

This is what I meant by "self-contained". A poem that presents a symbol and develops it, connecting the different "characters" / "elements" in the poem, creating relationships which help define meaning beyond the literal, slowly revealing a meaning for those who are paying attention.

A reference by itself operates a bit like a cliché, in my opinion. You're using a placeholder for the words you should actually have written. Depending on how the poem is constructed, however, you might reach the end having some idea of what the reference was all about. Indeed, in GM's poem, I didn't need to know who Del was — by the end of it, I knew he was one such starving artist.

Level three.

I agree with both the comment you left on GM's poem and the one above, by the way. The poem *is* stronger once you know who Delmore Schwartz is. However, I felt that the other references weren't as helpful (to me), particularly on stanze 1 and 2. Lines 4 and 5 confused the hell out of me (derp). I'm just saying, it's always good to consider the effect of what you're writing, and references are just another thing to consider.

I've taken what you and 1201 have written about "Starving Artist" and have re-drafted it because I fundamentally agree with your points. I'm reminded of something Billy Collins once wrote (I'm expecting a smartass comment about Billy Collins from 1201 at this point. LOL). I'm paraphrasing here, but essentially it was "Be descriptive to set the image(s) in the reader's mind, and then go on your metaphorical journey." I didn't do that in "Starving Artist."

I may re-submit the poem in the "30 Edits in 30" Challenge in which case feel free to comment because the feedback is thought provoking. I truly believe that a good poem can come on the first try from your muse, but much more often than not a good poem is the result of continuous improvement.

 

[twelveoone]

I truly believe that a good poem can come on the first try from your muse, but much more often than not a good poem is the result of continuous improvement.

If it does you better think about it for a month...
As for a smartass comment about Billy Collins...maybe in a month.