Long poems. Angeline's question.

[Senna Jawa]

I have promised an answer but I am procrastinating and delaying. Both for subjective and objective reasons. I don't know the literature well enough to be confident when I talk about the existing poems; and I don't have energy these days to produce poems which would illustrate relevant points.

But there are also objective reasons for my delay. Angeline's question was: can (should) longer poems be as pure as the two classical Basho's famous crow and frog haiku?

At the present time her own answer seems to fall somewhere between the following statements (Ange, please, correct me if I am misrepresenting you):

1. it's perfectly fine for a long poem to use means and devices which are not welcome in a haiku;
2. it is not possible to write a long, meaningful poem in a purely concrete style of the two famous Basho's haiku.

These answer is so obvious and common sense that the simplest thing would be to agree. I am not in a hurry to do so, though. Here are my reasons:

when I discuss issues, say poetic issues, I want the notions and statements to be not just perfect and true in an abstract sense, but also and first of all to be useful.

Consider for instance, for the sake of illustration, the notion of the "modern poem" versus "archaic". To me those notions have only secondary value of limited usefulness. The more important notion is "time transcendence".

I feel that Angeline's(?) answers have only limited value for the working poets. I am even afraid that in authors' practice they may be easily interpreted as a license for poor poetry.

So yes, I mostly agree with the above answers but I consider such a state of the discussion to be unsatisfactory. Instead of stopping at these answers I'd like to look at the notion of simplicity and concreteness not in an absolute way but in a relative way, which takes into account the subject and the length of the poem. It is only fair, because a greater length introduces issues which are absent in shorter poems. Also, poetry, in different poems, is supposed to address different topics and different scenes. But situations which explicitly involve people and their daily affairs have a different level of concreteness from the scenes which do not involve people (not directly).

Thus in the direct, absolute sense, I agree with Angeline, but in the more important sense I want to tell poets: even in the long poems, which explicitly involve people, and all kind of aspects of their life and activities, you still need to be as pure as Basho in his two famous haiku, in a relative sense, or art least you should strive at such purity with all your might.

***

A marginal digression: I am sure that it is possible to write good, longer poems, which would be pure. But that would be just a very narrow, acrobatic genre, which belongs to circus. It would not be too important for our discussion. Under no circumstances one could say that these must be the only poems to write, that other poems are no good. The odds are that among longer poems those overly pure poems would be inferior to the best impure poems, I am sure of it, it's only natural.

***

This post is only an introduction. I didn't make anything clear at this stage. I will try to write more, perhaps in short posts, a bit at the time.

 

[Angeline]

I have promised an answer but I am procrastinating and delaying. Both for subjective and objective reasons. I don't know the literature well enough to be confident when I talk about the existing poems; and I don't have energy these days to produce poems which would illustrate relevant points.

But there are also objective reasons for my delay. Angeline's question was: can (should) longer poems be as pure as the two classical Basho's famous crow and frog haiku?

At the present time her own answer seems to fall somewhere between the following statements (Ange, please, correct me if I am misrepresenting you):

1. it's perfectly fine for a long poem to use means and devices which are not welcome in a haiku;
2. it is not possible to write a long, meaningful poem in a purely concrete style of the two famous Basho's haiku.

These answer is so obvious and common sense that the simplest thing would be to agree. I am not in a hurry to do so, though. Here are my reasons:

when I discuss issues, say poetic issues, I want the notions and statements to be not just perfect and true in an abstract sense, but also and first of all to be useful.

Consider for instance, for the sake of illustration, the notion of the "modern poem" versus "archaic". To me those notions have only secondary value of limited usefulness. The more important notion is "time transcendence".

I feel that Angeline's(?) answers have only limited value for the working poets. I am even afraid that in authors' practice they may be easily interpreted as a license for poor poetry.

So yes, I mostly agree with the above answers but I consider such a state of the discussion to be unsatisfactory. Instead of stopping at these answers I'd like to look at the notion of simplicity and concreteness not in an absolute way but in a relative way, which takes into account the subject and the length of the poem. It is only fair, because a greater length introduces issues which are absent in shorter poems. Also, poetry, in different poems, is supposed to address different topics and different scenes. But situations which explicitly involve people and their daily affairs have a different level of concreteness from the scenes which do not involve people (not directly).

Thus in the direct, absolute sense, I agree with Angeline, but in the more important sense I want to tell poets: even in the long poems, which explicitly involve people, and all kind of aspects of their life and activities, you still need to be as pure as Basho in his two famous haiku, in a relative sense, or art least you should strive at such purity with all your might.

***

A marginal digression: I am sure that it is possible to write good, longer poems, which would be pure. But that would be just a very narrow, acrobatic genre, which belongs to circus. It would not be too important for our discussion. Under no circumstances one could say that these must be the only poems to write, that other poems are no good. The odds are that among longer poems those overly pure poems would be inferior to the best impure poems, I am sure of it, it's only natural.

***

This post is only an introduction. I didn't make anything clear at this stage. I will try to write more, perhaps in short posts, a bit at the time.

Yes, I think those statements are pretty much what I was saying.

It's hard for me to conceive that haiku respresents the totality of "what works" in poetry. However I have that understanding with fairly limited knowledge of haiku.

On the second point, I would be happy to be proved wrong. But I agree with you it's very difficult to conceive of a five or six-strophe poem that is as concrete as the examples you provided. And even if you could find one, who knows what kind of impact it would have or how "effective" it would be. Maybe the kind of writing you've shown must, by definition, be limited to relatively few lines.

I feel like I'm talking in circles lol. I think that means I should go to sleep.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Yes, I think those statements are pretty much what I was saying.

And we agree. However, I don't want to stop at this, I want study your question and also the related questions in greater depth, and I'd like to arrive at conclusions which can serve usefully the "working poets".

I faced your question over the years many times, it was unavoidable. In particular I have observed that (more in the past than these days) the haiku authors would often abandon their principles when they were writing longer poems (and they would often end up with junk). This time your question has forced me to stop and meet the challenge head on, for which I am grateful to you.

It's good to go to the roots of haiku, meaning the Chinese poetry. One should also check the skald poetry, some of the poems by Mandelstam, certainly by Brodsky, some by Herbert (widely available in English translations). Unfortunately there are no good translations of Leśmian, while his poetry is very important also in the context of this thread.

(I am not a pro, hence it'd be the easiest for me to use my own poems for illustrations, but I will avoid such a trap).

Best regards,

 

[twelveoone]

And we agree.

It's good to go to the roots of haiku, meaning the Chinese poetry.

You may want to recheck this, and surprise me with a further qualification.
And you may want to recheck Basho's relationship with the haiku's tradition, he was a bit of a rebel, say?

Now I'll surprise the both of you, excellent points Senna, excellent question Angeline.

Now a rather bold statement, anything said, has an equal counter arguement, A present, "surface tension" reminded me of it:

Projection

nothing absorbed
being reflected upon
as if I'm not here

Total abstraction, almost disappears,
except for the
smile
Regards
1201

 

[Senna Jawa]

Before I will get to the core of the issue, let me clear the terrain a bit.

It's hard for me to conceive that haiku represents the totality of "what works" in poetry.

I have never said anything like this. On the contrary, after presenting the crow and frog Basho haiku in "The poetry way" thread, I have written there:

I hope that now you see one of the powerful dimensions of poetry.
​

Look again: ...one of the....

Indeed, I myself proposed on several forums, including this one, a project with a goal to go beyond haiku, where haiku like poetry would be buried under a thick layer of kennings. I also wrote twice (or more?) along that line.

Furthermore, the total body of haiku is not like these particular two. Especially Basho haiku in general is not like this. Why, Basho has been called "psychological" or "subjective" (while Buson was supposedly the objective one).

But when you encounter a "powerful dimension", then even if it is only one of the poetry dimension, don't dismiss it, and make sure that it is present in your poem--just present, not necessarily exclusively, like in the crow and frog haiku.

Regards,

 

[Angeline]

Good morning.

Here is a poem by Joseph Brodsky:

Seven Strophes

I was but what you'd brush
with your palm, what your leaning
brow would hunch to in evening's
raven-black hush.

I was but what your gaze
in that dark could distinguish:
a dim shape to begin with,
later - features, a face.

It was you, on my right,
on my left, with your heated
sighs, who molded my helix
whispering at my side.

It was you by that black
window's trembling tulle pattern
who laid in my raw cavern
a voice calling you back.

I was practically blind.
You, appearing, then hiding,
gave me my sight and heightened
it. Thus some leave behind

a trace. Thus they make worlds.
Thus, having done so, at random
wastefully they abandon
their work to its whirls.

Thus, prey to speeds
of light, heat, cold, or darkness,
a sphere in space without markers
spins and spins.

I've known of this poem (and liked it a lot) for a few years. When you started this thread I thought of it (but was too lazy to track it down until now). I don't really think it comes close to either of your haiku examples, Senna, but it's a very lean poem. It's very interesting for this discussion, I think, because even though it about an abstract (love), most every image or reference is based on something specific and real. (I got tired of using "concrete." I feel like I am talking about cement, which is not the image I want for this discussion at all!)

 

[bogusbrig]

Much as I can appreciate haikus, though a Japanese girlfriend of mine said they don't translate well into English (they apparently lose their poetry according to her), I just love the music of language. I always remember at school my teacher reading Beowulf in Anglo-Saxon and though I couldn't understand it, the musical power of the language just mesmerised me. After reading it in modern English, all other poetry just seemed sort of anemic. I just wish I could write with such power on contemporary subject matter and zeitgeist and keep people's attention like the teacher kept mine..


Now Beowulf bode in the burg of the Scyldings,
leader beloved, and long he ruled
in fame with all folk, since his father had gone
away from the world, till awoke an heir,
haughty Healfdene, who held through life,
sage and sturdy, the Scyldings glad.
Then, one after one, there woke to him,
to the chieftain of clansmen, children four:
Heorogar, then Hrothgar, then Halga brave;
and I heard that -- was -- 's queen,
the Heathoscylfing's helpmate dear.
To Hrothgar was given such glory of war,
such honor of combat, that all his kin
obeyed him gladly till great grew his band
of youthful comrades. It came in his mind
to bid his henchmen a hall uprear,
ia master mead-house, mightier far
than ever was seen by the sons of earth,
and within it, then, to old and young
he would all allot that the Lord had sent him,
save only the land and the lives of his men.
Wide, I heard, was the work commanded,
for many a tribe this mid-earth round,
to fashion the folkstead. It fell, as he ordered,
in rapid achievement that ready it stood there,
of halls the noblest: Heorot {1a} he named it
whose message had might in many a land.
Not reckless of promise, the rings he dealt,
treasure at banquet: there towered the hall,
high, gabled wide, the hot surge waiting
of furious flame. {1b} Nor far was that day
when father and son-in-law stood in feud
for warfare and hatred that woke again. {1c}
With envy and anger an evil spirit
endured the dole in his dark abode,
that he heard each day the din of revel
high in the hall: there harps rang out,
clear song of the singer. He sang who knew {1d}
tales of the early time of man,
how the Almighty made the earth,
fairest fields enfolded by water,
set, triumphant, sun and moon
for a light to lighten the land-dwellers,
and braided bright the breast of earth
with limbs and leaves, made life for all
of mortal beings that breathe and move.
So lived the clansmen in cheer and revel
a winsome life, till one began
to fashion evils, that field of hell.
Grendel this monster grim was called,
march-riever {1e} mighty, in moorland living,
in fen and fastness; fief of the giants
the hapless wight a while had kept
since the Creator his exile doomed.
On kin of Cain was the killing avenged
by sovran God for slaughtered Abel.
Ill fared his feud, {1f} and far was he driven,
for the slaughter's sake, from sight of men.
Of Cain awoke all that woful breed,
Etins {1g} and elves and evil-spirits,
as well as the giants that warred with God
weary while: but their wage was paid them!

 

[Angeline]

Much as I can appreciate haikus, though a Japanese girlfriend of mine said they don't translate well into English (they apparently lose their poetry according to her), I just love the music of language. I always remember at school my teacher reading Beowulf in Anglo-Saxon and though I couldn't understand it, the musical power of the language just mesmerised me. After reading it in modern English, all other poetry just seemed sort of anemic. I just wish I could write with such power on contemporary subject matter and zeitgeist and keep people's attention like the teacher kept mine..


Now Beowulf bode in the burg of the Scyldings,
leader beloved, and long he ruled
in fame with all folk, since his father had gone
away from the world, till awoke an heir,
haughty Healfdene, who held through life,
sage and sturdy, the Scyldings glad.
Then, one after one, there woke to him,
to the chieftain of clansmen, children four:
Heorogar, then Hrothgar, then Halga brave;
and I heard that -- was -- 's queen,
the Heathoscylfing's helpmate dear.
To Hrothgar was given such glory of war,
such honor of combat, that all his kin
obeyed him gladly till great grew his band
of youthful comrades. It came in his mind
to bid his henchmen a hall uprear,
ia master mead-house, mightier far
than ever was seen by the sons of earth,
and within it, then, to old and young
he would all allot that the Lord had sent him,
save only the land and the lives of his men.
Wide, I heard, was the work commanded,
for many a tribe this mid-earth round,
to fashion the folkstead. It fell, as he ordered,
in rapid achievement that ready it stood there,
of halls the noblest: Heorot {1a} he named it
whose message had might in many a land.
Not reckless of promise, the rings he dealt,
treasure at banquet: there towered the hall,
high, gabled wide, the hot surge waiting
of furious flame. {1b} Nor far was that day
when father and son-in-law stood in feud
for warfare and hatred that woke again. {1c}
With envy and anger an evil spirit
endured the dole in his dark abode,
that he heard each day the din of revel
high in the hall: there harps rang out,
clear song of the singer. He sang who knew {1d}
tales of the early time of man,
how the Almighty made the earth,
fairest fields enfolded by water,
set, triumphant, sun and moon
for a light to lighten the land-dwellers,
and braided bright the breast of earth
with limbs and leaves, made life for all
of mortal beings that breathe and move.
So lived the clansmen in cheer and revel
a winsome life, till one began
to fashion evils, that field of hell.
Grendel this monster grim was called,
march-riever {1e} mighty, in moorland living,
in fen and fastness; fief of the giants
the hapless wight a while had kept
since the Creator his exile doomed.
On kin of Cain was the killing avenged
by sovran God for slaughtered Abel.
Ill fared his feud, {1f} and far was he driven,
for the slaughter's sake, from sight of men.
Of Cain awoke all that woful breed,
Etins {1g} and elves and evil-spirits,
as well as the giants that warred with God
weary while: but their wage was paid them!

Have you heard about my Beowulf board game? I made it in college. I'm starting to think there may actually be a market for it. You, Bijou. That's two already!

 

[champagne1982]

Have you heard about my Beowulf board game? I made it in college. I'm starting to think there may actually be a market for it. You, Bijou. That's two already!

Hot on the heels of the release of Beowulf, the animated movie, you may find a wider market waits.

 

[Angeline]

Hot on the heels of the release of Beowulf, the animated movie, you may find a wider market waits.

I've thought about that. My game has a high fun threshold unless you're really into the literary aspects of it. I need Angelina Jolie. And she can bring Brad along.

 

[bogusbrig]

Have you heard about my Beowulf board game? I made it in college. I'm starting to think there may actually be a market for it. You, Bijou. That's two already!

I haven't heard about your game, I'll look out for your game in the shop , I'm sure there is a market so make money while you can.

I have several friends who are Beowulf fans, one who will read any translation, even mine, even though I'm incapable of translating it so you could count on two or three more. Hmm. though I guess we would all play the same game.

 

[twelveoone]

I hope that now you see one of the powerful dimensions of poetry.
[/indent]Look again: ...one of the....

Indeed, I myself proposed on several forums, including this one, a project with a goal to go beyond haiku, where haiku like poetry would be buried under a thick layer of kennings. I also wrote twice (or more?) along that line.

Furthermore, the total body of haiku is not like these particular two. Especially Basho haiku in general is not like this. Why, Basho has been called "psychological" or "subjective" (while Buson was supposedly the objective one).

But when you encounter a "powerful dimension", then even if it is only one of the poetry dimension, don't dismiss it, and make sure that it is present in your poem--just present, not necessarily exclusively, like in the crow and frog haiku.

Regards,

The powerful dimesion you refer to is known as VOID - Japanese five element theory. Again a problem with translation, ah so. Take another look at my projection self absorbed one, without too much of a stretch, it is what happens there, one of the reasons it has that structure.

 

[twelveoone]

I have promised an answer but I am procrastinating and delaying. Both for subjective and objective reasons. I don't know the literature well enough to be confident when I talk about the existing poems; and I don't have energy these days to produce poems which would illustrate relevant points.

But there are also objective reasons for my delay. Angeline's question was: can (should) longer poems be as pure as the two classical Basho's famous crow and frog haiku?

At the present time her own answer seems to fall somewhere between the following statements (Ange, please, correct me if I am misrepresenting you):

1. it's perfectly fine for a long poem to use means and devices which are not welcome in a haiku;
2. it is not possible to write a long, meaningful poem in a purely concrete style of the two famous Basho's haiku.

I feel that Angeline's(?) answers have only limited value for the working poets. I am even afraid that in authors' practice they may be easily interpreted as a license for poor poetry.

So yes, I mostly agree with the above answers but I consider such a state of the discussion to be unsatisfactory. Instead of stopping at these answers I'd like to look at the notion of simplicity and concreteness not in an absolute way but in a relative way, which takes into account the subject and the length of the poem. It is only fair, because a greater length introduces issues which are absent in shorter poems. Also, poetry, in different poems, is supposed to address different topics and different scenes. But situations which explicitly involve people and their daily affairs have a different level of concreteness from the scenes which do not involve people (not directly).

Thus in the direct, absolute sense, I agree with Angeline, but in the more important sense I want to tell poets: even in the long poems, which explicitly involve people, and all kind of aspects of their life and activities, you still need to be as pure as Basho in his two famous haiku, in a relative sense, or art least you should strive at such purity with all your might.

***

A marginal digression: I am sure that it is possible to write good, longer poems, which would be pure. But that would be just a very narrow, acrobatic genre, which belongs to circus. It would not be too important for our discussion. Under no circumstances one could say that these must be the only poems to write, that other poems are no good. The odds are that among longer poems those overly pure poems would be inferior to the best impure poems, I am sure of it, it's only natural.

***

This post is only an introduction. I didn't make anything clear at this stage. I will try to write more, perhaps in short posts, a bit at the time.

Interesting semantic trick - use of the word pure, since we are talking about concrete pehaps a substition should be poured

and you all disappoint me, I half expected at least someone to be all over that statement about Angeline's answers about other devices being of limited use, I would have thought otherwise. What you seem to be offering seems even more limiting to any new poet coming here.
Pragmatics.
A heavily ironic statement coming form the likes of me, but
Pragmatics.
In short, the most easily grasped things about poetry are use of emotive language, rhythm (either metric, or alliterative or even sprung))and rhyme, all of which she uses rather well, not some esoteric concept of a powerful diimesion. Because learning is a stepping process.
Either way can be easily interpreted as a license for poor poetry. Ironic because I removed most of my poetry in fear that it could generate someone trying to duplicate some of the stunts that I pulled.
So once again
Pragmatics
so far what you have shown me is nothing but an interesting cul de sac, that I have explored and taken one step further.

A more valuble discussion would have been the effects of concrete vs abstract
or the use and effects of language in poetry:
Referential vs Emotive
Walpole's taxometry
Sense (used here as the word is what it is, a brick is a brick)
Feeling
Tone
Intention

I bring this up because a smiling used car saleman could be easily duped by some of your missives.