),
Hey, first let me recover my title+text+signature+date (plus intellectual rights, copyright, and everything else which was left or right):
digressing
you greet and you part with your friends
at airports around the usa
you travel again and again
till you can't tell the heads from the tails
the lady luck's traveling too
she smiled in maryland to you
smirked in reno from every die
rolled like oranges in florida
texan crowd waves the hats at the airport
sail straight for you no more escorts
no claim pass the baggage room light
the city lights offer serendipity
wh,
1991-06-10
***
OK, now I can worry about any superfluous words and/or other shortcomings of my poor creature. Let me know--perhaps you may point me to a phrase or something (wrong flow of images? wrong mood/temperature, wrong ...?).
Enjoy, have fun (at my expense
). Otherwise, what are the advantages of one version over the other, and vice versa?A title should be a part of poetry. It should not explain things, it should not summarize the poem, etc. It should be poetry, it should have its poetic contribution to the poem.
Doesn't it sound dogmatic? Too many details, meaning details which do not serve poetry, are boring and unpoetic. But on the other hand the poetry is all about details, just about carefully selected details. It's hard to even imagine a poem without details. Otherwise we would have generic, cliched, pseudo-intellectual pseudo-poems. Thus you may still say that I did a poor job, but not on a base of a general principle--such a principle would not be valid.a walk-through explanation from you as to where i should have traveled would be a helpful road map, though it's usually preferable for me to undertake such journeys with only a compass to guide me, no A-Z of street names.
Poetry as an associative process
OK
..
it would be nice if you return to this and supply further insight, senna. i don't feel anyone is suggesting you did a poor job - you asked me to elaborate and so i did, honestly, with courtesy, and with hope of a better understanding of the write's integrity.Brevity is a default. But brevity is only a mean, not a goal on its own. The goal is poetry. Thus there are 2 questions. Is butters' version preferable with respect to rhytm, flow, ...? If yes then that's the end of the discussion, one would have to choose b's version (I still would stick to mine
i think we can agree quite happily on this score.
A detailed question: According to RhymeZone, word usa rhymes with trails, and trails with tails. Is this rhyme (near rhyme?) or non-rhyme--a consideration? Is it to the advantage or a disadvantage of the poem?
hello, again, senna.
my main issue with usa v states was more to do with beats per line: your opening line, and the third and fourth, carried a specific beat - one L2 didn't fit into neatly.
of course, you then go on to break that rhythm, but it was your own word-choice that set it up in the reader's mind originally. perhaps it was your intention to work with, and then against, the rhythm for some reason i am unable to understand.
Yes, that's great. This line is still about Texas, but it provides a Mexican flavor, so characteristic for Texas. The Texan hats (and cowboy boots), and the rest. You get the taste of the whole USA. The line about Maryland is just an association on name "Mary". But Reno in Nevada is known for gambling, and Florida and California are famous for oranges. Before you enter any of these two states by a car or plane, they check you for a possession of food, and throw out any which is not canned, especially fruits.
ah, good; well then, the mexican flavour did work - the actual phrasing, stilted pace, though? for me, it didn't come across as a supportive linguistic cue (as i might have expected if it were its purpose); it just read strangely. again, this may be to do with my ear, but i am only expanding on my thoughts as you asked. it might read differently to another reader
A title should be a part of poetry. It should not explain things, it should not summarize the poem, etc. It should be poetry, it should have its poetic contribution to the poem.
i agree with reservations, senna: explain? no. summarise? not exactly. enhance, be key that unlocks the meaning of a write, help make sense of . . . ? yes. it's something i am most conscious of when writing.
regrettably, i still fail to understand how your title does any of those things, or even understand its own poetic nuance. please, senna, accept i don't say these things to be argumentative or obtuse; i really wish to try to unlock the mystery it still remains to me, and since i can't do it on my own i am asking you as author/creator. humour me?
Doesn't it sound dogmatic? Too many details, meaning details which do not serve poetry, are boring and unpoetic. But on the other hand the poetry is all about details, just about carefully selected details. It's hard to even imagine a poem without details. Otherwise we would have generic, cliched, pseudo-intellectual pseudo-poems. Thus you may still say that I did a poor job, but not on a base of a general principle--such a principle would not be valid.
Thank you butters and whoever happened to stop by,
A contrary, great! Nice! Butters was improving my text, while you wrote something like a jazz variation.
). Rock performers enjoy irregularities but perhaps not in this case.
