Ask a Poet

[Angeline]

Have a question for a poet? Maybe you're wondering about a specific poem of theirs or just have a general question about their influences or how they write. Maybe you just have a general question about poetry and want to get some opinions. This thread is the place to do it. There's no guarantee you'll get the answer you want from the poet you want when you want it, but you can ask! And if I know this place like I think I do, you'll get plenty of answers. One thing we poets do have in abundance is opinions. We never seem to run out of those.

So go on. Just ask. You know you want to.

 

[butters]

okay, i'll go first then

this is a general question directed at you poets with college/uni education that relates particularly to creative writing:

were there particular poems/poets you can pinpoint that, when you read them for the first time in the course of your studies, gave you a real moment of 'wow, so that's how it's done!'? did you feel a change come about in the way you wrote due to this landmark event, or was any effect more subtle and slow to make itself felt?

 

[Angeline]

okay, i'll go first then

this is a general question directed at you poets with college/uni education that relates particularly to creative writing:

were there particular poems/poets you can pinpoint that, when you read them for the first time in the course of your studies, gave you a real moment of 'wow, so that's how it's done!'? did you feel a change come about in the way you wrote due to this landmark event, or was any effect more subtle and slow to make itself felt?

When I was in college I was studying English literature and my interests were really in the 19-century novel. I had written poems since childhood but in college I was more into writing literary criticism (well the way I wanted to do it). I figured I'd end up teaching and doing the traditional lit crit publishing route. Anyway I found this book in the college library of poems by women from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. I was taking a Women's lit class that semester and was probably thinking I might be able to use it for some project.

In the book I read this poem and I was, as my buddy darkmaas would say, "gobsmacked." I made a copy of that poem and kept it in my wallet for 18 years until it fell apart. There's something about it that is so essentially feminine and honest (not contrived) to me. I felt like I made a real connection with the poet just by reading it. I think the way she, Forugh Farrokhzad, writes has influenced me all these years, not only because it made me want to write more poetry but also because I think it gave me a sense of what my writer's voice could be.

Other poems and poets moved me but I've always felt she shook something loose in me and got me writing more seriously. Emmis! (That's Yiddish for "true story"!).

How about you?

 

[Desejo]

I did my undergraduate degree in English and History, but I never focused on poetry and generally disliked it. To the point that anything italicized in books I just skipped. To this day I have to stop myself from doing that. I had less of an issue reading dedicated books of poetry. I loved Leaves of Grass in high school (pretty normal, I think) and brought and read a few volumes of poetry while in college (Seamus Heaney, Allan Ginsberg, Robert Lowell).

It was only when I tried my hand at poetry that the "wow" factor kicked in. As much from poets here as in known poets.

 

[todski28]

Hey

So I am breaking my cherry in terms of actually posting in the forum. I only just now found out it exised. I barely passed my final year of high school and so many of the poems on here I can barely grasp. Is there a ways and means of building up a poetic repetoire so instead of scratching my head in confusion, I can actually glean some kind of meaning from it?

(if any one says read more poetry idiot I will accept that as an obvious answer lol)

 

[bogusagain]

(if any one says read more poetry idiot I will accept that as an obvious answer lol)

It is an obvious answer in such a context of course but not a positive one.

Not all poems have a meaning in the sense I think you mean or they are not always fully comprehensive to the reader. You need to view poetry more as a sculpture or painting or music, you have to absorb it and interpret it yourself. A poem is (mostly) not instructive but one side of a dialog, the reader being to other halve. If readers don't want to engage in the dialog, the poem has failed.

So what is attractive about a poem that can't be understood? Well, if you are captured by the inventiveness and music of the language, you will find you intuitive engage and add meaning to a poem. If readers are seeing a different meaning in the poem that the writer intended, the problem is with the writer but I doubt many writers work like that, they put a poem into the world and depending on how readers engage with the poem will consider it a success or not by that criteria. Though not always of course.

An inventive and original poem can be misunderstood and dismissed as a poem for not conforming to convention. Many people have a strict idea of what poetry is and should be, many people don't. My own personal view is 'just do it' and see if it works. All art forms change over time and to try and cover it in aspic will kill it. And for me, many publishers and academics have done their best to kill poetry by having a strict view of what poetry is.

Now I'll say, read more poetry but remember, just because a poem is in a book, doesn't mean it is a good poem or worthy of being published, I've got bookshelves of junk and wonder why I ever bought it and often see better poems on the internet, which of course, has its own mountain ranges of junk.

 

[todski28]

That clarifies my own thoughts a bit

Thank you bogusagain. I don't know any forms or conventions. I didn't know what a stanza or line break was in terms or writing poetry until I read the poetry instructional thread so no fear of me trying to mould it lol. I guess as I get more exposure to poetry in general I will get a broader appreciation for the craft, with less thoughts of trying to discern a definitive meaning.

 

[Angeline]

Thank you bogusagain. I don't know any forms or conventions. I didn't know what a stanza or line break was in terms or writing poetry until I read the poetry instructional thread so no fear of me trying to mould it lol. I guess as I get more exposure to poetry in general I will get a broader appreciation for the craft, with less thoughts of trying to discern a definitive meaning.

Hi Todski and welcome to the forum. Sorry to say it is true that the more you read, the better you understand poems. But like Bogus said, some poetry won't be to your taste and some really won't be worth your time.

Many poems may appear to be in another language (sort of) in that you can't understand why the poet might use certain words or not have complete sentences or even what appears to be correct use of language. It's like a code that is hard to break. I think one trick to breaking the code is to recognize that for most poets, a poem is not like non-poetry (e.g., fiction, newsarticles, etc.) For one thing, most poems are short in comparison even to a short story, so the poet has a lot less space in which to say what they want to say. To do that instead of telling a reader this happened then that happened, they will instead try to show you with images and metaphors, mainly, but also with other devices maybe rhyme or alliteration and so on. So, for example, instead of saying "It was a gloomy day" (which would be just telling you and not poetic), they'll try to come up with images that give you the sensation of feeling gloom (like a dark house, a storm approaching, etc.). You read a poem about a gloomy day and you come away from it (if it's an effective poem) with a feeling of gloom. Maybe they never even used the word, but you got the feeling from the images or pace or tone of the poem. If you read Edgar Allen Poe's Annabel Lee, there is nothing in it that tells you as a reader to be sad or that the poet is obsessed, but you read the poem and you definitely experience the poet's despair and obsession. A good poem makes you feel things even if you don't entirely understand why.

The main thing is to find poems you like now and when you read them, try to figure out what is is about them that you like. You don't need to know the poetic terms for that, just why is it working for you? The more you do that, the more you will begin to get a feel for what appeals to you and why poetry works.

And if you are of a mind to do so, you can try your own hand at writing poems. If you do that here and want support, well you'll find that, too. And the more you write, the more you'll understand.

 

[Tzara]

okay, i'll go first then

this is a general question directed at you poets with college/uni education that relates particularly to creative writing:

were there particular poems/poets you can pinpoint that, when you read them for the first time in the course of your studies, gave you a real moment of 'wow, so that's how it's done!'? did you feel a change come about in the way you wrote due to this landmark event, or was any effect more subtle and slow to make itself felt?

I was a psychology major in college, though I did take a couple of literature courses that included some poetry. The one poet that made much impression on me was Yeats, especially his earlier poems like "The Song of Wandering Aengus" and "He Reproves the Curlew," and which are probably the only two poems I have ever managed to memorize.

There are certain poems and, less frequently, poets that particularly appeal to me and which I study. Almost any of the poems from James Wright's The Branch Will Not Break, for example, for their use of concrete imagery and the lyricism of the writing. Shelley's "Ozymandias," for its use of caesura. The beginning of "Kubla Khan" or "The Waste Land" for rhythm. Some of William Carlos Williams' poems for how he uses line breaks. Pound's "The River Merchant's Wife: A Letter," especially compared to the Li Po poem on which it is based (it's usually called an "adaptation" or something like that, instead of a translation).

I think what strikes one is likely different for different poets. For example, you (and, apparently, Desejo) quite like Whitman, who is a poet I really can't read--he just drags on and on for me. Bogus doesn't like Yeats. 1201 has expressed at least a lack of enthusiasm for Yeats and actual distaste for Sharon Olds.

We likely would all pick different flavors of ice cream, as well.

 

[todski28]

I kinda wish I had found the forum first now. I have submitted seventeen poems so far but they are in my opinion below average, compared to what I have seen and also by what I personally hope to write in the future. This is just the beginning of my writing process so I will happily own them as my first steps down the road of progression. Thanks for the link to Annabel lee. I think the poem you linked earlier in this thread was another example of the show don't tell concept you are describing.

 

[Tzara]

So I am breaking my cherry in terms of actually posting in the forum. I only just now found out it exised. I barely passed my final year of high school and so many of the poems on here I can barely grasp. Is there a ways and means of building up a poetic repetoire so instead of scratching my head in confusion, I can actually glean some kind of meaning from it?

(if any one says read more poetry idiot I will accept that as an obvious answer lol)

One of the reasons I started to try and write poetry was that I hoped that that would help me understand poetry better. It does, but perhaps not as much as I would have hoped.

When you read a poem, especially a poem by a recognized poet, think about why the author chose the particular words they chose, as opposed to other, similar, words. Think about why the line breaks are placed where they are. There are several things the poet may be trying to do with line breaks--control the tempo of the poem, for example, or emphasize the ending word of the line or the starting word of the next line. Think about the sound of the words--are they melodious or cacophonous? Does the sound or rhythm of the poem help convey the image or message of the poem?

I've also found it helpful to read books that are essentially instructional books about writing poems. The authors usually discuss topics like the questions I just listed and give and explain examples of these effects. I've enjoyed the following:

• Kim Addonizio and Dorianne Laux: The Poet's Companion
• Kenneth Koch: Making Your Own Days
• Ted Kooser: The Poetry Home Repair Manual

I would expect most libraries to have these books, or at least one of them.

And, yeah. Read more poetry. It really does help.

 

[Angeline]

I kinda wish I had found the forum first now. I have submitted seventeen poems so far but they are in my opinion below average, compared to what I have seen and also by what I personally hope to write in the future. This is just the beginning of my writing process so I will happily own them as my first steps down the road of progression. Thanks for the link to Annabel lee. I think the poem you linked earlier in this thread was another example of the show don't tell concept you are describing.

We're an odd little corner of the cyberverse, but there are some very good poets writing here and, like I said, we try to support each other and help each other learn. So feel free to join in, start threads, do challenges, interact. I don't think anyone here considers him- or herself to not be in need of growth: we're all somewhere on the learning curve.

Tzara's reading list is good. There are also some great resources you can explore online. This place is one of my favorites, but I'm sure others here can recommend other sites as well. And if you have more questions, well this is the thread.

 

[WilliamButlerYeats]

Angeline, what was the name of the longer poem you did with ee where you had the second bit and it said something something snapdragons? I searched many poems on your page but couldn't find it.

And WB's finest poem is:


WOULD I could cast a sail on the water
Where many a king has gone
And many a king’s daughter,
And alight at the comely trees and the lawn,
The playing upon pipes and the dancing,
And learn that the best thing is
To change my loves while dancing
And pay but a kiss for a kiss.

I would find by the edge of that water
The collar-bone of a hare
Worn thin by the lapping of water,
And pierce it through with a gimlet and stare
At the old bitter world where they marry in churches,
And laugh over the untroubled water
At all who marry in churches,
Through the white thin bone of a hare.

 

[Angeline]

Angeline, what was the name of the longer poem you did with ee where you had the second bit and it said something something snapdragons? I searched many poems on your page but couldn't find it.

And WB's finest poem is:


WOULD I could cast a sail on the water
Where many a king has gone
And many a king’s daughter,
And alight at the comely trees and the lawn,
The playing upon pipes and the dancing,
And learn that the best thing is
To change my loves while dancing
And pay but a kiss for a kiss.

I would find by the edge of that water
The collar-bone of a hare
Worn thin by the lapping of water,
And pierce it through with a gimlet and stare
At the old bitter world where they marry in churches,
And laugh over the untroubled water
At all who marry in churches,
Through the white thin bone of a hare.

WB! You sound remarkable considering your age and er death. I disagree with you about your best poem, but that's ok.

The poem you were looking for is called A Morning Outing on May 1. I read it recently and thought "not bad." And I remember those Maine outings very well. And we still have as much fun together, going on ten years now.

 

[bflagsst]

I have a question that's foremost on my mind in my personal history of writing poetry. Poets, how do you deal with religion/spirituality in your poetry, specifically if you'd label yourself agnostic/non-believer? The bulk of eastern and western metaphor is imbued with religiosity, as poets we have to work with what came before us.

 

[Tzara]

I have a question that's foremost on my mind in my personal history of writing poetry. Poets, how do you deal with religion/spirituality in your poetry, specifically if you'd label yourself agnostic/non-believer? The bulk of eastern and western metaphor is imbued with religiosity, as poets we have to work with what came before us.

I'm going to be a bit brief here, in my response, as I have that interview thread to deal with. But this is a good question.

I'm a non-believer. Technically, I'm agnostic, but it would probably be more accurate to label me as atheist.

I treat the Christian religion (or any religion) the same way I would treat Grecian or Roman myth: i.e. as wonderful, rich, very human stories that speak achingly well about human truth.

But my appreciation for this painting no more makes me a pagan than this one would make me Christian.

And yet I love them both.

 

[greenmountaineer]

I am a believer, but not in a way so often characterized in western civilization, ie, revealed truth. I see the universe as a wonderful question mark. People much smarter than I am have been wrestling with this question for centuries.

I do like to pose the question, "What makes you so sure?" whether it's Christopher Hitchins, the recently deceased atheist, or the so-called "church fathers" who threatened to ex-communicate Galileo.

More often than not, however, spirituality is a dimension of my writing, not the centerpiece for the reasons you suggest in your post if I read it correctly. Iconic religious references permeate our culture as they do all cultures. It's very tempting to weave a larger theme from a religious symbol, whether it's rosary beads, Seder, or a whirling dervish's dance.

 

[bogusagain]

More often than not, however, spirituality is a dimension of my writing, not the centerpiece for the reasons you suggest in your post if I read it correctly. Iconic religious references permeate our culture as they do all cultures. It's very tempting to weave a larger theme from a religious symbol, whether it's rosary beads, Seder, or a whirling dervish's dance.

What actually is spirituality? People often use the term but no one has ever explained what it is to me, not in a meaningful sense beyond a dictionary dfinition. It just seems to me what people call spirituality is just the same thing as consciousness.

One theory as to why humans started to believe there is a god is because we are hardwired to project intent on things as a form of survival mechanism. ie. when we see something with four legs, strips and sharp teeth, our brain doesn't rationally work out it is a tiger, that would take too long, our brain automatically assumes it's a tiger and projects intent onto it and tells us to run. It is one of the reasons why we might often mistake a shadow for a burglar but never mistake a burglar for a shadow. It is also a reason why we find it so easy to give inanimate things, such as a favourite car, a name.

The fact is, we have evolved to inhabit a niche in the universe, we are aware we are not sensing everything, that there is something beyond ourselves and our instincts are to give that beyond ourselves intent, simply because of the side effect of being hardwired to project intent.

My own personal feelings are, and Tzara can speak for himself, is that until there is evidence to the contrary, it is impossible for me to believe a god exists. Evidence means being able to replicate observations through objective measures, as in the scientific method. The other reason why I don't believe in god is that if there is a god, where did god come from. If god has always existed or came out of nothing, so can everything else without a god.

 

[Angeline]

What actually is spirituality? People often use the term but no one has ever explained what it is to me, not in a meaningful sense beyond a dictionary dfinition. It just seems to me what people call spirituality is just the same thing as consciousness.

One theory as to why humans started to believe there is a god is because we are hardwired to project intent on things as a form of survival mechanism. ie. when we see something with four legs, strips and sharp teeth, our brain doesn't rationally work out it is a tiger, that would take too long, our brain automatically assumes it's a tiger and projects intent onto it and tells us to run. It is one of the reasons why we might often mistake a shadow for a burglar but never mistake a burglar for a shadow. It is also a reason why we find it so easy to give inanimate things, such as a favourite car, a name.

The fact is, we have evolved to inhabit a niche in the universe, we are aware we are not sensing everything, that there is something beyond ourselves and our instincts are to give that beyond ourselves intent, simply because of the side effect of being hardwired to project intent.

My own personal feelings are, and Tzara can speak for himself, is that until there is evidence to the contrary, it is impossible for me to believe a god exists. Evidence means being able to replicate observations through objective measures, as in the scientific method. The other reason why I don't believe in god is that if there is a god, where did god come from. If god has always existed or came out of nothing, so can everything else without a god.

Hmmm. I thought the question was how one dealt with one's beliefs in poetry, not whether one's beliefs are or aren't valid. But I will say that having spent a good part of my career working with statisticians and other social scientists, the scientific method ain't all it's cracked up to be. Humans have a way of mucking up the observation process and you can really make numbers say pretty much what you want, depending on what you emphasize when you "explain" what they mean. So even the most rigid controls still result in experiments having an anecdotal element. And anecdotal is not so scientific. I'm not saying I don't believe in science. I am not one of those people who thinks Adam and Eve were riding dinosaurs around the Garden of Eden (though it might make for an interesting poem), but I also know that any human observation is partial and flawed. I see what I want to see and so do you.

Now it probably won't surprise you after that when I say I am a believer. I am a believer is certain types of order in the universe but God, I believe, is love. God resides in the expression of love and one's capacity to give and receive it. So if I say I am spiritual, that is what I mean. I believe in the spirit of love. And I think that belief naturally finds its way into a lot of my poems, just the way many of our other beliefs do--some of which may be more obvious to readers even than the poet.

As far as the argument that one needs to have it proven that something exists, well you breathe right? Can you see, hear or smell oxygen? Taste or touch it? No? Why do you believe it's real? Because some old fuck of a chemistry teacher said so? Because you read it in a book? Yes we're breathing but how do we absolutely know why? You think we don't take that on faith? It's really a matter of perception imho. I haven't seen anything to prove God does not exist either although I do think the concept of old man in the sky is silly but that's also just my opinion.

 

[bogusagain]

As far as the argument that one needs to have it proven that something exists, well you breathe right? Can you see, hear or smell oxygen?

Oxygen no, air yes. The Greeks speculated what air was and how we sensed it and observation of our anatomy supports the idea air exists, even if we didn't know what it was.

Taste or touch it? No? Why do you believe it's real?

Because taste is a sense and I am aware of taste. I can also test the four different tastes on my tongue and I am aware that smell adds to taste. One doesn't have to see something to be aware it exists.

Because some old fuck of a chemistry teacher said so? Because you read it in a book? Yes we're breathing but how do we absolutely know why? .

Surely in this debate, the why is irrelvant. You can't tell me why god exists. If knowing the why gives meaning, then you need to know why god exists, in order to give god meaning to yourself.

from my perspective, nothing has to have meaning, it just is because that is the way things evolved.

You think we don't take that on faith? It's really a matter of perception imho. I haven't seen anything to prove God does not exist either although I do think the concept of old man in the sky is silly but that's also just my opinion.

You can't prove that something doesn't exist. You can engage in sophistry but you can't prove it sothe idea is irrelevant. However, if god exists, you should, in theory, be able to prove it.

As Alan Sokal, the American physicist said the the French philosopher, (I papraphrase) if you want to prove the world doesn't exist when you close your eyes, jump off a very tall building and prove it.

In three hundred years of science, religion has retreated because religion has always proved wrong and has retreated, much to the chagrin of relgious hierarchies. However, scientist don't talk about truth, they put their hypotheses forward, create experiments which can be replicated and invite their theories to be shot down because a theory proved wrong can be as valuable as a theory proved right. Scientists are aware that observations aren't objective and change according to the subjectivity of the observer. That doesn't stop observations being recorded and compared.

I suspect there aren't many people in the world outside the taliban who would do away with the technology and insights science has given us. However, an omniscient omnipotent god is a contradiction in terms, especially if you add in the loving god part.

 

[GuiltyPleasure]

Religion is an each-to-his-own situation ino. My favourite poet Lorna Crozier quite often has religious themes to her poetry.

"Hunter's introduction discusses the poet's major themes, with particular attention to her feminist approach to biblical myth and her fascination with absence and silence as sites for imaginative revision."

Always unexpected and often wryly funny. I am thoroughly atheist btw.

 

[Angeline]

Oxygen no, air yes. The Greeks speculated what air was and how we sensed it and observation of our anatomy supports the idea air exists, even if we didn't know what it was.

Yes, and what I said was oxygen. I can taste differences in the air when I'm near the sea or mountains or even after a hard rain. But I'm not tasting oxygen. And we know what the Greeks believed because we read about it. We weren't there. And unless we were part of some modern replication of what they observed, we are taking on faith that it's true. There were times when people took it on faith that the Earth was flat and there was such a thing as phlogiston.


Because taste is a sense and I am aware of taste. I can also test the four different tastes on my tongue and I am aware that smell adds to taste. One doesn't have to see something to be aware it exists.

That was also my point.



Surely in this debate, the why is irrelvant. You can't tell me why god exists. If knowing the why gives meaning, then you need to know why god exists, in order to give god meaning to yourself.

from my perspective, nothing has to have meaning, it just is because that is the way things evolved.


I agree that "why" is irrelevant. But the point I was trying to make is that I don't need to know why to accept something as real. Yes, gravity is real. We know from experience (our own or simple experiments we conduct as students) that in many cases, if x happens y will result. But we don't have personal experience of all sorts of things things yet still accept potential outcomes as real. We just don't stop and think of it as such because we're more habituated to it than we consciously realize. And our perceptions are based on experience and environment. Think of the blind men and the elephant. People experience things differently, even in the face of immutable givens.


You can't prove that something doesn't exist. You can engage in sophistry but you can't prove it so the idea is irrelevant. However, if god exists, you should, in theory, be able to prove it.

As Alan Sokal, the American physicist said the the French philosopher, (I papraphrase) if you want to prove the world doesn't exist when you close your eyes, jump off a very tall building and prove it.

In three hundred years of science, religion has retreated because religion has always proved wrong and has retreated, much to the chagrin of relgious hierarchies. However, scientist don't talk about truth, they put their hypotheses forward, create experiments which can be replicated and invite their theories to be shot down because a theory proved wrong can be as valuable as a theory proved right. Scientists are aware that observations aren't objective and change according to the subjectivity of the observer. That doesn't stop observations being recorded and compared.


In a perfect world scientists do what you say. It's not a perfect world. And while I'm not saying there aren't many scientists who work within the constructs of the scientific method, I am saying that "results" get tweaked and reinterpreted every day, usually in the interests of whoever is supporting the study. Maybe I'm cynical, but I've seen a lot of that. And the average person who reads whatever interpretation of a study is put out, usually in a press release or some type of news article takes on faith that what they read is so. Unfortunately. Relatively few people question what they read or hear.

I suspect there aren't many people in the world outside the taliban who would do away with the technology and insights science has given us. However, an omniscient omnipotent god is a contradiction in terms, especially if you add in the loving god part.

You know Bogus, we are not so far apart. I loathe organized religion and believe it is the main reason people are so at odds in the world. I also believe, as Tzara suggested, that credos based on religion are fiction, rich literary sources that offer icons and narratives that poets (and other artists) can draw on to create. And I don't see God as omniscient or omnipotent. To do that I'd have to think of God as a being of some kind and I don't. As I said, I see God as a potential within humans, not some outside source directing them.

You may disagree with that. Many people would, but it works for me.

 

[bogusagain]

You know Bogus, we are not so far apart. I loathe organized religion and believe it is the main reason people are so at odds in the world. I also believe, as Tzara suggested, that credos based on religion are fiction, rich literary sources that offer icons and narratives that poets (and other artists) can draw on to create. And I don't see God as omniscient or omnipotent. To do that I'd have to think of God as a being of some kind and I don't. As I said, I see God as a potential within humans, not some outside source directing them.

You may disagree with that. Many people would, but it works for me.

I'm not arguing Ange, I'm debating. There is a difference!

The problem with the internet and heavy subjects, is the dead word on the page without vocal inflection doesn't communicate mood and intent.

 

[Angeline]

I'm not arguing Ange, I'm debating. There is a difference!

The problem with the internet and heavy subjects, is the dead word on the page without vocal inflection doesn't communicate mood and intent.

True. At least we didn't get onto politics. I'm even worse about that lol.

 

[greenmountaineer]

Re: spirituality, God, etc., I just don't know. I know there are atheists and believers who have been compassionate or assholes, both. I think that's all that really matters. As to blflagsst's original post, this edited poem of a previous one submitted to Lit pretty much sums up my feeling about it:


Dithyramb

Though I don't know why the universe spins
with science I know I'll always know how.

In science there isn't an I and a Thou,
nor are there angels dancing on pins.

I can make robots that play violins,
grow vast timberlands from twigs on a bough,

though I don't know why the universe spins.
With science I know I'll always know how,

so why would I make up devils or jinns,
why kill the buddha or follow the tao?

Though there's no silk in the ear of a sow
I can make purses or I can clone twins.

With science I know I'll always know,
though I don't know why the universe spins.