about the past

[Senna Jawa]

 



                    smoke's still in the air--
                  my mortal ancestors burned
                          by the SuperRace




Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
      1990-10-10

 

[Rybka]

Question

 



                    smoke's still in the air--
                  my mortal ancestors burned
                          by the SuperRace




Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
      1990-10-10

Do you have immortal ancestors?

Regards,                     Rybka

 

[Angeline]

Cheap flights to Europe
How can I walk on their bones?
the fear of landing

 

[Senna Jawa]

Re: Question

Do you have immortal ancestors?

Regards,                     Rybka

Music requires ear for music.
Poetry requires ear for poetry.


Regards,

 

[Rybka]

Tone Deaf?

Music requires ear for music.
Poetry requires ear for poetry.

Regards,

You can't have it all ways, always, S.J.

You often complain about "extra" words; those unneeded to advance the poem. I wouldn't call you a strict minimalist, but your writings do tend to be stark and pared to the bare.

Admit it, the poem does not need "mortal", nor the apostrophe s in the first line for that matter!

How about:
smoke still in the air--
my ancestors
burned by the SuperRace


Regards,                 Rybka

 

[Suzi]

 



                    smoke's still in the air--
                  my mortal ancestors burned
                          by the SuperRace




Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
      1990-10-10

he has a point about the mortal thing.....of course they were mortal if they could be burned! By the way, my condolences

 

[Senna Jawa]

Re: Tone Deaf?

 



                    smoke's still in the air--
                  my mortal ancestors burned
                          by the SuperRace




Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
      1990-10-10

Admit it, the poem does not need "mortal"

The last line of my poem does not say "Germans" nor "Nazis". It said something more universal, and more to the point politically: SuperRace. But for the sake of this discussion let's concentrate on the extra meaning and emotion which "superRace" brings. Repulsive as it is, it represents extra (brutal) strength, it represents power, invincibility. This extra poetic weight (negative but poetic) is balanced in the second line. We do not have a plane "Nazis" in the third line. The difference between "Nazis" and "SuperRace" in line 3 is balanced by the difference betrweeen plain "ancestors" and "mortal ancestors", i.e. by word "mortal". The poem speaks about "my ancestors" but also more universally about the "mortals" as opposed to the invincible SuperRace. Word "mortal" forces a reader to feel the fragility (in a counterbnalnce to power and force) of human beings.

We get balance with respect to the meaning and in the emotional dimension. We have more weight on both ends of the balance beam with

        "mortal ancestors" v. "SuperRace".

than with

        "ancestors" v. "Nazis"

The latter would result in a poorer poem. And an unbalanced variation (as suggested by Rybka) would be artistically defective, like a bike with one tire flat and one overblown.

Admit it, the poem does not need [...] the apostrophe s in the first line [...]

How about:
smoke still in the air--
my ancestors
burned by the SuperRace

[/B]

Without the apostrophe the meaning is different and it makes less sense. We would get that the smoke is not moving, that it stays still. The original says that there is still some (unseen, as we know) residue of the smoke from half a century before. (BTW, it's true, our every breath everywhere on the Earth contains many atoms of those burned people). The original first line is delicate, fragile, in a harmony with the word "mortal" in line two.

I hope that you had fun botching up my poem, Rybka. It's ok.

One more comment. One could say that that we know that at the time Nazis had the power, etc. And we know that Nazis were racists. Thus one could say that "SuperRace" does not bring anything extra. Here, Rybka, you can see the difference between the ordinary logic and the poetic logic. In poetry what counts is the literal, direct sense of the words. Nazis just formed a political party. One would need to know this. Then one would need to invoke the rest of the horrible story. World "Nazis" in itself has very little meaning (it refers to "nationalistic"). But word "SuperRace" directly says what it says, while "Nazis" directly says nothing. The two expressions are close in their meaning but are a world apart poetically.

(In addition to the above considerations, the original has a special melody/scanning which would be lost if "mortal" was removed).

Regards,

 

[Rybka]

Re: Re: Tone Deaf?

 



                    smoke's still in the air--
                  my mortal ancestors burned
                          by the SuperRace




Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
      1990-10-10

The last line of my poem does not say "Germans" nor "Nazis". It said something more universal, and more to the point politically: SuperRace. But for the sake of this discussion let's concentrate on the extra meaning and emotion which "superRace" brings. Repulsive as it is, it represents extra (brutal) strength, it represents power, invincibility. This extra poetic weight (negative but poetic) is balanced in the second line. We do not have a plane "Nazis" in the third line. The difference between "Nazis" and "SuperRace" in line 3 is balanced by the difference betrweeen plain "ancestors" and "mortal ancestors", i.e. by word "mortal". The poem speaks about "my ancestors" but also more universally about the "mortals" as opposed to the invincible SuperRace. Word "mortal" forces a reader to feel the fragility (in a counterbnalnce to power and force) of human beings.

Granted that the Übermann was a racial concept and as such "immortal", whereas burned ancestors are mortal by definition in context. But you do not say "mortal ancestors" vs "immortal SuperRace". To me, it is your structure that seems unbalanced. - Also I never suggested changing "SuperRace" to Nazi nor German. I am aware of the difference.

The latter would result in a poorer poem. And an unbalanced variation (as suggested by Rybka) would be artistically defective, like a bike with one tire flat and one overblown.

Again, to my ear, it is your version that sounds slightly strained.

Without the apostrophe the meaning is different and it makes less sense. We would get that the smoke is not moving, that it stays still. The original says that there is still some (unseen, as we know) residue of the smoke from half a century before. (BTW, it's true, our every breath everywhere on the Earth contains many atoms of those burned people). The original first line is delicate, fragile, in a harmony with the word "mortal" in line two.

Even with the verb contraction I read "still" both ways, just as I do without it.

I hope that you had fun botching up my poem, Rybka. It's ok.

It was not my intention to botch anything up. I made what I meant to be civil and serious suggestions.

One more comment. One could say that that we know that at the time Nazis had the power, etc. And we know that Nazis were racists. Thus one could say that "SuperRace" does not bring anything extra. Here, Rybka, you can see the difference between the ordinary logic and the poetic logic. In poetry what counts is the literal, direct sense of the words. Nazis just formed a political party. One would need to know this. Then one would need to invoke the rest of the horrible story. World "Nazis" in itself has very little meaning (it refers to "nationalistic"). But word "SuperRace" directly says what it says, while "Nazis" directly says nothing. The two expressions are close in their meaning but are a world apart poetically.

It sounds like you may be equating "poetic logic" and "emotional content"?
By "poetic logic" do you mean the reasoning behind selecting one word over another? I sometimes feel that you use more of a computer code writing logic/mentality in much of your work, which may not be a bad thing at all, but it still is only one possible approach/style.

Certainly I know the difference between "contextual" inferences and Aristotelian logic (or non-Aristotelian logic for that matter. - I've always liked a little "maybe" with my "yes" and "no, and I don't care what parallel lines are doing when I can't seem them!

(In addition to the above considerations, the original has a special melody/scanning which would be lost if "mortal" was removed).

I must be tone deaf. It just does not resonate for me.

Regards,                 Rybka

 

[Senna Jawa]

Re: Re: Re: Tone Deaf?

I never suggested changing "SuperRace" to Nazi nor German.

I never suggested that you suggested. I was only explaining the inner workings of the poem in order to place "mortal" properly within my piece.

On the other hand and even in the opposite direction, I did say that if you were to remove "mortal" then for the sake of balance you should also subtract something from line 3, to get brightness or its lack on both ends

Even with the verb contraction I read "still" both ways, just as I do without it.

Maybe. Perhaps it is a question of proportions (what proportion of the audience, and of a proportion/fractrion within each reader).

It sounds like you may be equating "poetic logic" and "emotional content"?

It may be related to other things as well. One may think about the old stories which explain the world (including some stories for children). They are illogical (and not scientific) but they have their logic. This is a complex topic. BTW, illogicality and logical noise (in the "boolean" sense) are among poetic devices. I used to enjoy them in my poems rather often. (Most of the time I would do it in a subtle way, you wouldn't even notice, like a discrete ingredient in a dish, which makes dish feel fresher or sharper/hotter, more interesting). Such a device helps to keep your readers on their toes.

Also "unhinging an open door" (saying something very obvious--breaking in when the door is open anyway) is a device both in the domain of humor and can be a poetic device. This is what I did with my "mortal". It is "illogical" (suprflous) but it indicates the lirical subject's (narrator's) emotional connection with his ancestors, it amplifies the human dimension, so relevant to this poem.

The quote below was in relation to the melody of the phrase (while it applies to the whole discussion. It does NOT mean that Rybka is indeed tone deaf, it is just a way to say things):

I must be tone deaf. It just does not resonate for me.

        Rain


                the gray curtain hangs from the sky

                don't be sad
                in your pad
                get back
                to the book you've left
                on the beach



wlodzimierz holsztynski ©
1992-05-17


Rybka, we had a good discussion. Now it is time to agree to disagree. At some point past the basics, the questions have to be left open.

Best regards,

 

[Rybka]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tone Deaf?

I never suggested that you suggested. I was only explaining the inner workings of the poem in order to place "mortal" properly within my piece.

Granted only the author can have the final word on his/her work. However, I, as the reader, do not feel everything that you do because, of course, our life experiences are completely different, as well as our skills and talents. In the instance of this poem, which I like even more every time I read it, I have a far greater emotional distance than you, as well as different insight into the use of words. - It "sounds" better to me in a more minimalistic form. - Just "De gustibus..." no offence meant.

On the other hand and even in the opposite direction, I did say that if you were to remove "mortal" then for the sake of balance you should also subtract something from line 3, to get brightness or its lack on both ends maybe. Perhaps it is a question of proportions (what proportion of the audience, and of a proportion/fraction within each reader).It may be related to other things as well. One may think about the old stories which explain the world (including some stories for children). They are illogical (and not scientific) but they have their logic. This is a complex topic.

Perhaps it is my "psychic distance", that makes me see the poem as you wrote it to have an "over-weighted" third line?

BTW, illogicality and logical noise (in the "Boolean" sense) are among poetic devices. I used to enjoy them in my poems rather often.

Can you please expand to great length on this topic? I find it very fascinating!

Also "unhinging an open door" (saying something very obvious--breaking in when the door is open anyway) is a device both in the domain of humor and can be a poetic device. This is what I did with my "mortal". It is "illogical" (superflous) but it indicates the lyrical subject's (narrator's) emotional connection with his ancestors, it amplifies the human dimension, so relevant to this poem.

It is perhaps a major component of humor, with which I have recently been playing.
Question: As a poem, are the author's "connections" always relevant to the "stand alone as a work of merit" aspect of the piece?

The quote below was in relation to the melody of the phrase (while it applies to the whole discussion. It does NOT mean that Rybka is indeed tone deaf, it is just a way to say things):

Understood. I was just trying to say that I do not "hear" this poem as you do.

        Rain


                the gray curtain hangs from the sky

                don't be sad
                in your pad
                get back
                to the book you've left
                on the beach



wlodzimierz holsztynski ©
1992-05-17

I have like this poem from the first time I read it.

Rybka, we had a good discussion. Now it is time to agree to disagree. At some point past the basics, the questions have to be left open.

Once again I agree! And I am most glad that you used the noun "discussion" rather that "argument" or "dispute", although, "informal debate" would have also been acceptable.


Regards,                 Rybka

PS: I corrected a few typos in the quotes. I hope you do not mind.

 

[Senna Jawa]

author's understanding

Only the author can have the final word on his/her work

This means that nobody's statement can hurt her/his poem as much as the author's statement. No, I don't believe that the author's word has to be final.

Sometimes people say that certain great things in a work just happened without their author meaning them. But I wouild never take any artistic credit from an author away for her/his work. On the other hand the human/artist brain can be disconnected (Dostoyevski is a prime example. Perhaps Balzac is another). The conscious part of the artit's brain might not understand or might not be able to express what the artistic part does.

Several times authors told me that I saw more than they did or something extra in their poem (e.g. the integration of effects from different parts of their poem). The credit still belonged to them.

An author might be an "ordinaryu folk" in everyday life but subconsciiously migh feel the trend of the time, and in her/his poem might be a prophet. An artist will reflect all the signs neglected by other people.

Of course, artistically, the author's opinion about her/his work can be as wrong as it goes! On the other hand one should take seriously words of great artists (or of the great masters in any activity). Of course.

Regards,

 

[Senna Jawa]

"Rain"

I have like this poem from the first time I read it.

It is a simple poem which has gentle humor to it. You may also treat words "get back / to ..." not literally. Then a new dimension opens. It is still a simple poem.

I am glad that you liked it .

Regards,

 

[Senna Jawa]

                Cheap flights to Europe
                How can I walk on their bones?
                the fear of landing

Angeline, somehow your nice haiku got lost in the whirl of this thread.

Your text evokes strong emotions, while outside this thread it would be somewhat obscure. As a rule, haiku do not have titles. But exceptions are allowed. Furthermore, many classical haiku come from diaries (haiku journeys). The reading public and critics take advantage of the context to understand and interpret those haiku. Thus I would say that in this case, if you were to present your haiku outside of our thread, you are allowed to prepend your haiku with a carefully selected title, a title which would take nothing from the poetic impact of the poem, while it would direct a reader in the intended direction.

If you don't mind, you may ask participants of this forum to make suggestions, so that you adopt one.

Two great, heroic uprisings took place in Warsaw during WWII. The first one was The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. It was the first resistance action on this scale in the occupied by the Germans (Nazis) Europe. The Germans burned the whole Jewish quarter of Warsaw. Often together with people inside. Jews would jump onto the street from the second-third and higher floor windows onto the streets (children, women, older people), perhaps with blankets and sheets, and Germans would have fun shooting at, as they called them, "parachuters". Jewish fighters would leave the burning houses to come back after the fire diminished, and when Germans would show up within a few steps, only then they would shoot at them to kill with every single bullet. Jews had very little ammunition, each bullet was priceless to them. They had but one pistol per seven or more fighters.

Hundreds of thousands of people got murdered there by Nazis during the short but so long period of time from October of 1941 till liquidation in May of 1943. Virtually no Jews survived Warsaw Ghetto but for a few scores of Jewish fighters. They joined the next, still much larger uprising, called by Polish National Army (Armia Krajowa or AK).

Warsaw, a city which before WWII had a population over one million, a city which was already damaged during the September of 1939 military campain, a part of which was demolished during the Ghetto Uprising, got systematically and totally destroyed during the Warsaw Uprising. Over 90% of houses were burned by Germans. The remaining buildings were often dangerous to live in after the war was over, they were full of holes from bullets, the staircases were broken, not functional, isolated apartments on higher floors in ruined houses were like bird nests... Ruins were everywhere. That's where I was raised. When one wing of a new building was completed, people were moving in without waiting for the rest to be finished (with the technology of those days it took long to build an apartment building). In one of my poems (in Polish) I wrote:

    I grew in the buildings
    which grew with me
    in their corsets of scaffolds

Indeed, I had this experience twice.

After WWII the Jewish part of the city was impossible to clean up. The ruins were leveled, and the new houses (apartment buildings, kindergartens, restaurants, movie theaters...) were built straight on the ruins, one floor above the ground. Even after years a bone would surface here or there. An entire quarter of a big city was raised one floor nearer the heavens, on the Jewish coffin.