kennings

[Senna Jawa]

I have mentioned kennings on this forum at one time. This time I will simply give examples (and the bare minimum of theory--almost all of it)!. I am sorry that examples will be from my own poems--after skalds, kennings were not utilized in any systematic way. It would take an extra effort for me to hunt examples from poems by others.

Besides skaldic type of kennings other constructions with the same syntax "X of Y" (or "Y's X") are also called kennings. One of them, way more common in modern poetry than the true skaldic kenning, was not even isolated until I decided to do so. I call it extraction. It is important to be alert to them because even in famous poems by superb poets you may occasionally improve upon them by replacing (quite routinely!) an extraction by a skaldic kenning.

By the way, kennings, once invented, are in public domain, just use them (and create new ones too, of course). Kennings gain by popular adoption, and poetry gains because a common, higher level understanding and communication is possible.

But let us have first two-three examples of a kenning:


    the candy bars from the jukebox
    rythmically fill my ears
    the cigarette smoke
    devours my eyes...
    checking upon my future past
    bidding farewell
    to my Music's Puppet


Senna Jawa
1982-05-25


a candy bar from a jukebox is a kenning for a pop song. Pure skadic kennings are based on an analogy of two possesive relations:

    vending machine ---- jukebox
            |                 _   /   |
            |         _   /           |
            |     /                    |
        candy bar --------- song

"candy of a vending machine" and "song of a jukebox"--the two vertical columns in the diagram. The diagonal represents our kenning for the right lower corner (song).

It follows that perfect kennings come in groups of four thanks to the other diagonal -- the mirror construction, and to the customary symmetry: "X of Y" versus "Y of X". I hope to show additional meaningful examples in the future.

Here let's note that the mirror kenning: "a song from a vending machine", which stands for a (yummy!) candy, works very well too! (meaning that that candy is so good that it is music in your mouth). The upside down derived kennings: "vending machine of a song" (for jukebox) and "jukebox of a candy" (vending machine) are less attractive but still crisp and might be used occasionally. So, this was pretty much a perfect kenning. A kenning, like a simile, should be conving, while on the other hand it's strength is proportional to the distance between it's two parts, i.e. the two parts should be as much apart as possible. Songs and candy are pretty distant notions hence this is a rather strong kenning. Unfortunaltely jukebox and vending machine are more alike. This must be the reason why the upside down kenning were less attractive.

Next we have a kenning of a dancer: music's puppet. here we
have


      puppeteer ---------- music
            |                 _   /   |
            |         _   /           |
            |     /                    |
        puppet ----------- dancer


This kenning works psychologically, I hope, because music is a romantic notion while puppet is somewhat pejorative. Thus I was counting on the tension created by this contrast. Otherwise this kenning is not as strong as the other one since dancer and puppet differ less than candy and song. This shows even more drastically in the derived kennings. The mirror kenning: puppeteer's dancer, for a puppet is so uninteresting that it is almost useless. And the upside down kennings don't really work: dancer's puppeteer (for music--hm, possibly, under right circumstances it may work with force! A poem would need to prepare such a kenning), and puppet's music -- this one doesn't work for sure because it is not convincing, it has a bad luck in that "puppet's music" rather stands simply for ... music itself, perhaps a special, kind of music.
That's life, that's what makes things interesting. Nothing is granted. You still need to be an artist. Nevertheless, it is amazing how powerful kennings are.

There is one more kenning like phrase in the poem: future's past, which stands for the present time (for today). If it is any kenning at all then a degenerated one:


      today -------------- future
            |                 _   /   |
            |         _   /           |
            |     /                    |
        past -------------- today


Strange


Best regards,

 

[karmadog]

How is a kenning different from a metaphor? Aren't metaphors constructed in just the same way?

 

[Cordelia]

Senna Jawa,

I read your discussion of "kennings" and immediately recalled an undergraduate multi-variable calculus class. The professor was a genius who taught us to use mathematics in all we did. That year, I created many poems and stretched my mind's boundaries. His lectures touched on art, music, and poetry in between the logic and proofs.

I vaguely recall one lecture where the professor used a very similar technique to your description of kennings to get us to form equations with certain properties. It was a long long time ago, but the method of thinking has stayed with me.

Thank you so much for this wonderful discussion! I am off to dig up some old poetry and create some new ones. I love finding poetic exchanges that stimulate the mathematician in me.

And, karmadog, I think this is a method for creating metaphors.

Am I way off base here?

Cordelia

 

[Senna Jawa]

How is a kenning different from a metaphor? Aren't metaphors constructed in just the same way?

Metaphor, in a poem, is simply a symbol. The basis is just one "column", which here I will present horizontally:

        symbol ----> subject

E.g. an old tree or the Sun can be symbols of wisdom (most of the time only the symbol appears in the poem explicitly, and the subject is absent; just as half of a kenning construction is absent in a poem). As you see, kennings are more involved.

Metaphors and similes tend to be not as good as kennings (but good kennings are harder to come up with). In the case of metaphor the source of its weakness is the usually abstract nature of "subject" (e.g. wisdom). This forces the text locally or globally into a "story for children" mood. Artistically it is much better, no comaprison, if you can make the subject concrete: instead of "wisdom" have a wise man, let that tree stand for a man, not for wisdom. Then metaphor has a very good chance to be poetic instead of being (yawn) merely philosophical. (You don't want your poem sound like a didactic text for mentally challenged readers or for a kindergarten).

Similes are sometimes weak too for the same reason, when one (or both) of the compared objects is abstract. But even when both are concrete, a simile tends to have a problem which is absent in the case of a juxtaposition or kenning. In the case of juxtaposition or kenning every element counts. In the case of a simile half of it is ficticious hence it is not taken seriously. This means that the text then somwewhat syffers. It has a "beautiful" paper flower. Occasionally similes can be very good. I am only indicating a very common danger associated with a simile.

When a kenning becaomes well known and understood then, in the next poems, it tends to get reduced to a metaphor. Hence a confusion among experts. Let me provide an example of a reduction. I use in my poems kenning of money:

    green butterflies of my pocket

(or whoever's pocket). Once it is familiar it is enough to say "green butterflies". Then it becomes a metaphor. nevertheless, the difference between this so interrelated artistic means is clear and fundamental. Metaphors, similes, juxtapositions and kennings form a happy family, each member of which has it's own, distinct place, while juxtaposition and kennings are in general the superior two poetically.

(I have to rush. I reserve my right to edit it later ).

Best regards,

 

[karmadog]

I think there is no need to edit. That is very clear.

Thank you.

 

[_Land]

Thanks SJ

This is indeed an interesting discussion. I look forward to more examples.




_N

 

[Zhuk]

One more question please

Guru ji,

What is juxtaposition and how is it different from a kenning?

Regards,

Metaphor, in a poem, is simply a symbol. The basis is just one "column", which here I will present horizontally:

        symbol ----> subject

E.g. an old tree or the Sun can be symbols of wisdom (most of the time only the symbol appears in the poem explicitly, and the subject is absent; just as half of a kenning construction is absent in a poem). As you see, kennings are more involved.

Metaphors and similes tend to be not as good as kennings (but good kennings are harder to come up with). In the case of metaphor the source of its weakness is the usually abstract nature of "subject" (e.g. wisdom). This forces the text locally or globally into a "story for children" mood. Artistically it is much better, no comaprison, if you can make the subject concrete: instead of "wisdom" have a wise man, let that tree stand for a man, not for wisdom. Then metaphor has a very good chance to be poetic instead of being (yawn) merely philosophical. (You don't want your poem sound like a didactic text for mentally challenged readers or for a kindergarten).

Similes are sometimes weak too for the same reason, when one (or both) of the compared objects is abstract. But even when both are concrete, a simile tends to have a problem which is absent in the case of a juxtaposition or kenning. In the case of juxtaposition or kenning every element counts. In the case of a simile half of it is ficticious hence it is not taken seriously. This means that the text then somwewhat syffers. It has a "beautiful" paper flower. Occasionally similes can be very good. I am only indicating a very common danger associated with a simile.

When a kenning becaomes well known and understood then, in the next poems, it tends to get reduced to a metaphor. Hence a confusion among experts. Let me provide an example of a reduction. I use in my poems kenning of money:

    green butterflies of my pocket

(or whoever's pocket). Once it is familiar it is enough to say "green butterflies". Then it becomes a metaphor. nevertheless, the difference between this so interrelated artistic means is clear and fundamental. Metaphors, similes, juxtapositions and kennings form a happy family, each member of which has it's own, distinct place, while juxtaposition and kennings are in general the superior two poetically.

(I have to rush. I reserve my right to edit it later ).

Best regards,

 

[beths-virtue]

senna , thanks

my viking blood sings to see kennings revisited in modern poetry,
skalds and bards rejoice, Braggi is throwing a feast pass the sumble cup!



the hands control my fate
rambling around touching face
ticking by inexorably

 

[Senna Jawa]

Re: senna , thanks

my viking blood sings to see kennings revisited in modern poetry,
skalds and bards rejoice, Braggi is throwing a feast pass the sumble cup!

I'll drink to this.

the hands control my fate
rambling around touching face
ticking by inexorably

                the hands start with my face
                ramble around
                tickling inexorably


                                        beths-virtue
                                        (dramatically modified )


I hope to continue this kenning thread.

Best regards,

 

[karmadog]

I noticed something unusual when looking at your examples of kennings. If you go the opposite direction, you end up with 'song vending machine' which is a literal description of a jukebox, and in the other you end up with 'puppeteer dancer', a fairly good literal description of a puppet. With the third, less effective kenning, you end up with today today.

I wonder whether this is a test of whether you have come up with a good kenning? What do you think?

 

[Senna Jawa]

I noticed something unusual

KarmaDog, read my previous post above again! (Or perhaps you did but you remembered things only subconsciously).

when looking at your examples of kennings. If you go the opposite direction, you end up with 'song vending machine' which is a literal description of a jukebox,

I didn't know about this literal description of a jukebox, that's interesting! Otherwise, this is one of the two upside down kennings, upside down with respect to my "music's puppet". As you can read in my earlier post, above, perfect kennings come in quadruples. With any (perfect) kenning you get one mirror kenning (represented by the other diagonal) and two upside down kennings (each of them being the mirror reflection of the other). These operations, even for a superb kenning, do not have to work perfectly. Occasionally, instead of the kenning for the other corner you get a kenning for something related. E.g. classical skaldic "horse of the sea" (or of the wave or of the ocean) is a kenning of a ship (boat). But the mirror kenning "boat of the prairie" would be a kenning for a wagon rather than for a horse (this has occured in a beautiful sonnet by Mickiewicz, but as a simile, which was poorer than a kenning would be). This inexactness of the operations is life, that's a natural language for you, which makes things more interesting. (Furthermore, the upside down kenning also is classical: the road of a ship is a kenning for sea or ocean.

and in the other you end up with 'puppeteer dancer', a fairly good literal description of a puppet.

Yes, you could read it from my previous post:

    The mirror kenning: puppeteer's dancer,
    for a puppet is so uninteresting that it is
    almost useless.

Possibly, I was too harsh on this derived mirror kenning.

With the third, less effective kenning, you end up with today today.

That's why I called my third kenning degenerated.

I wonder whether this is a test of whether you have come up with a good kenning? What do you think?

It is a reasonable way to look at a kenning, it is an indication how clean it is. The goodness itself is never well defined in poetry. We just try to come up with some objective notions which help us to become experts. Pound has written:

    Criticism is not a circumscription or a set of
    prohibitions. It provides fixed points of
    departure. It may startle a dull reader into
    alertness.

And it goes not only for readers but also for authors.

Let me repeat from my previous post above that the major source of a kenning's poetic strength comes from the distance between it's columns (as long as the kenning is convincing, sharp, crisp). It is the same with the other means. It wouldn't make for an interesting simile if we said that "this bear is as strong as an elephant". And bear would make a poor metaphor for an elephant. There has to be a wide distance between the objects which are compared, our statements should be a priori unobvious, while obvious a posteriori.

My discovery of the simple fact that kennings in principles come in quadruples was a straightforward implication to the understanding of kennings (of my rectangular diagram) which was not present in the past. Thus nobody has noticed before that indeed there are mirror operations on kennings (horizontal and vertical mirror reflection). This allowed me to write poems in which both sides of the mirror were present, the kenning and the kenning's reflection.

What was intensively practiced, and of course widely noticed, was the iteration operation on kennings. Skalds would iterate on occasions even too much, rendering their poems obscure, so that some commentators in old days had warned against overdoing the iteration. I'll give examples of iterations in another postr (I hope ).

I am glad, KarmaDog that you got going about kennings.

Best regards,

 

[Zhuk]

.

.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Re: senna , thanks

my viking blood sings to see kennings revisited in modern poetry,
skalds and bards rejoice, Braggi is throwing a feast pass the sumble cup!

Thank you, b-v,

 

[Senna Jawa]

Re: One more question please

Guru ji,

What is juxtaposition and how is it different from a kenning?

Regards,

Juxtaposition is setting two different items side by side, without any extra word. In poetry juxtaposition virtually means to set side by side human affairs and Nature. Nature helps you to represent the inner state of the lirical subject of your poem.

Juxtaposition is a standard method for oriental (Chinese and haiku) and folk poetry, as well as for great poetry in general. Poets should read poems and pay attention to juxtaposition. Using juxtaposition in your poems should be your reflex.

Let me briefly compare simile (rather than kenning) and juxtaposition.

• Simile uses that nothing word "like" or "as". Juxtaposition does nothing like this.
• One half of simile is superficial for a poem. Both parts of juxtaposition are on equal foot, each has its role, equally vital for the poem.
• Similes tend to be local, juxtapositions -- global.

Best regards,

 

[karmadog]

KarmaDog, read my previous post above again! (Or perhaps you did but you remembered things only subconsciously).

That's exactly what happened. I consciously focused in on the diagram, but somewhere under that was the text.

I'm looking forward to your iterations.

 

[Zhuk]

.

.