musing -- 2006-03-19

[Senna Jawa]

--


musing

shaver in my hand
my face in the mirror
and i think

when i walk tonight
should i wear a hat?

from ural to san francisco
all my life i migrate west
and my hair -- south

another half a century from now
and i will not need socks

​

wh,
2006-03-19

 

[Rybka]

I like it and experience the hair part (as well as the unmentioned chest migration in the same direction).

I do wonder about the "and" in the last line. To my New England schooled ears it would sound better without it, or with it more mundanely moved up one line and to the beginning. ~ I realize you are particular with each word and its placement in the structure of your poems, so why is that one there?

 

[Guest]

Works for me. Must be a Euro thingy.

 

[wildsweetone]

letting loose and musing too...

She can paint her fingernails
but does anyone realise
what the paint covers?

The impurities underneath
are hidden in the glossy pink
coating; the bad diet,
the stress, the nerves
swollen and pulsing
with guilt from the dna scraped
off the back of the bloke
she played and it jams
under her nails like the permanent
smoker's stain on her fingers
and the crows claws at her eyes.


(might come back to this tomorrow)

 

[flyguy69]

********

 

[annaswirls]

sj -- one of my favorite of yours.
yes, it is the every day motions that identify us, where we are going, in life, not just town to town
this poem gave me the chills, they settled into a low hum

personal preference, I would lose the ands

 

[Senna Jawa]

musing

Thank you WSO for co-musing. Let others join too! Hop in!

Thank you for the comments about ands. When torn between two versions I am for the simpler one. Thus I will change the original version, as Anna has suggested (with one, perhaps essential, extra moment; Rybka, I could explain the last "and" but it's not important anymore, not necessary, unless you insist ).


******



musing

shaver in my hand
my face in the mirror

i think

when i walk tonight
should i wear a hat?

from ural to san francisco
all my life i migrate west
my hair -- south

another half a century from now
i will not need socks

​

wh,
2006-03-19


******

Yes, it's much better now. The composition is now amplified (migrations, directions, then the walking+socks combination). Thank you, guys!

Senna Jawa
​

 

[annaswirls]

Senna, I think you need to keep the I think up with the first two lines, or else it is stranded without a clue as to if it belongs to the face in the mirror, or it could be


"I think, when I walk tonight, should I wear a hat?"


you could consider taking out the I think all together, as thinking is required to come up with a question...or you could put the "and" back in to tie it back to the first strophe



or put the question in italics or otherwise set apart from the I think...

Thank you WSO for co-musing. Let others join too! Hop in!

Thank you for the comments about ands. When torn between two versions I am for the simpler one. Thus I will change the original version, as Anna has suggested (with one, perhaps essential, extra moment; Rybka, I could explain the last "and" but it's not important anymore, not necessary, unless you insist ).


******



musing

shaver in my hand
my face in the mirror

i think

when i walk tonight
should i wear a hat?

from ural to san francisco
all my life i migrate west
my hair -- south

another half a century from now
i will not need socks

​

wh,
2006-03-19


******

Yes, it's much better now. The composition is now amplified (migrations, directions, then the walking+socks combination). Thank you, guys!

Senna Jawa
​

 

[Senna Jawa]

Senna, I think you need to keep the I think up with the first two lines, or else it is stranded without a clue as to if it belongs to the face in the mirror, or it could be


"I think, when I walk tonight, should I wear a hat?"

Super!!! What you consider a disadvantage is just what it should be. Read anew. Perhaps, when you erase the whole memory of dealing with "musing" up to now, you'll see how natural the present version is (it has happened thanks to your input ).

you could consider taking out the I think all together, as thinking is required to come up with a question...or you could put the "and" back in to tie it back to the first strophe

Thank you, Anna.

This time I got the final version. It's perfect.

Best regards,

Senna Jawa
​

 

[Tzara]

Senna Jawa, hello.

I am going to do something that is probably unwise and rewrite your poem. For your comment, should you choose to comment.

Here is yours, the last version that I've seen:

musing

shaver in my hand
my face in the mirror

i think

when i walk tonight
should i wear a hat?

from ural to san francisco
all my life i migrate west
my hair -- south

another half a century from now
i will not need socks

​

You, of course, know why you have written it the way you have.

Here's my "copy":


musing

shaver in hand
face in mirror

I think

tonight should I wear a hat?

from the Urals to San Francisco
I migrate west

hair migrates south

another half-century,
no socks



​

Feel free to excoriate me. I always fall for Fool's Mate.

 

[Senna Jawa]

Feel free to excoriate me.

Hi Tzara, I'll oblige you.

Wait, let me check first "excoriate" in a dictionary!

****

In Russian we have "Ural" (singular form; the most common usage by far, and it sounds great) and "Uralskye Gory" ("Ural Mountains", plural -- a much less common usage, a less interesting mouthful, while perhaps it's an official term/name).

Mountains are often named in plural, like Alps and Himalayas. Is it necessary to use "the Urals" in English? Then I'll switch, despite my personal preference for the simple "Ural" (as in: Ural and Siberia go always together in the Russian mind, "same thing" they say).

*****

The "my/my" combination in my poem is not a routine repetition. Each "my" playes a different role. For this reason they arte quietly refreshing, and I like to keep them.

*****

Tzara suggests removing "when i walk". This removes also the lonely and spatial (as in "space") mood of the poem. Tzara's version allows for, and even strongly suggests a social meeting, like going with friends to a theater or restaurant/bar. My version has cool air in it.

*****

in his variation, Tzara makes a general statement, that everybody's hair moves down. May be it's true, may be it's false. My reader's immediate reaction is "bull", while a personal statement about a single individual male is of course acceptable.

I also prefer here the tension of the immediate juxtaposition of the directions (this can be debated of course). If it were a very serious poem than perhaps the milder Tzara's version would be more artistic, cleaner. But for the sake of musing and joking, the instant contrast works better, I'd think.

*****

I wondered myself during the writing of "musing" if I need "from now" (near the end of the poem). My very first version (pre-version?) didn't have it. After hesitating for a moment I have decided to make it real easy for the readers.

Tzara suggests removing even more, and wants to replace "will not need socks"
with "no socks". Thus a reader would really have to strain to get the meaning, to
associate the hair and the socks. This would go along a common misconception that poems should not communicate directly, that a poem which is harder to understand is artistically better.

Not so, or not quite so. Certain correlations fool authors into such artistic strategy.

Actually, poems should say what they say in the clearest possible way, and the difficulties are only the necessary evil. As always, there is a margin for exceptions, e.g. when you use the difficulty itself as artistic means, but let's not go into such an exotic considerations. In this case I don't see why I should turn my simple musings into something that pretends to be more profound than it is. I like to get its mood simply and honestly, without adding to it any fake transcendence. Then I may get more of it any way, and for real.

Thank you Tzara, regards,

Senna Jawa
​

 

[wildsweetone]

of the two versions, Senna's and Tzara's, i like the first because there is 'connection' between me and the writer. i'm included in the first stanza because he is saying it's his face in the mirror, not just any face. i think because of that, it has a more personal touch. the specific-ness of the words have me front and centre and eager to read more of his confidences.

whereas with Tzara's version, it's like i stand back waiting to see what the face in the mirror means or wants to say, but without feeling particularly connected.

that probably makes no sense to anyone, i can't figure another way to say it.

 

[Quick-n-Dirty]

Mountains are often named in plural, like Alps and Himalayas. Is it necessary to use "the Urals" in English? Then I'll switch, despite my personal preference for the simple "Ural" (as in: Ural and Siberia go always together in the Russian mind, "same thing" they say).

I don't think it's nessecary to pluralize it. Seems to have more to do with the prosodics of the particular name than a grammatical rule. Himalaya is often referred to in singular. Atlas likewise. Moreso, I think the singular form gives it a bit of connotation. It becomes not just a bunch of mountains ("the Urals" short for the "the Ural Mountains"), but a word embodying a region and history.


Edit: Sorry, it's Liar here. Wrong login...

 

[Tzara]

Hi Tzara, I'll oblige you.

Thank you.

In Russian we have "Ural" (singular form; the most common usage by far, and it sounds great) and "Uralskye Gory" ("Ural Mountains", plural—a much less common usage, a less interesting mouthful, while perhaps it's an official term/name).

Mountains are often named in plural, like Alps and Himalayas. Is it necessary to use "the Urals" in English? Then I'll switch, despite my personal preference for the simple "Ural" (as in: Ural and Siberia go always together in the Russian mind, "same thing" they say).

My experience of English usage is, as may be obvious, American. I would not say "Cascade" or "Rocky," for example. I would instead say "the Cascades" or "the Rockies" in referring to mountain ranges. My presumption was that your original reference was to the Ural Mountains, which, at least to my hearing, would play best as "the Urals." Your usage (or intent) may be different, of course.

The "my/my" combination in my poem is not a routine repetition. Each "my" playes a different role. For this reason they are quietly refreshing, and I like to keep them.

Obviously, the poem is your poem. Your use of pronouns here, though, is lost on me. I do not see your purpose. Your comment on this would be interesting.

Tzara suggests removing "when i walk". This removes also the lonely and spatial (as in "space") mood of the poem. Tzara's version allows for, and even strongly suggests a social meeting, like going with friends to a theater or restaurant/bar. My version has cool air in it.

I am quite interested in this, as my own sense is that little (in terms of sense, not words) has been removed. I do not see the missing sense. To go from

when i walk tonight
should i wear a hat?​

to

tonight should I wear a hat?​

seems to me a subtle semantic difference. "When I walk" is removed, of course. The time frame is removed. The line break is different. But is sense removed? I am curious. I don't see the aesthetic difference.

But, hey, I am a dunce.

in his variation, Tzara makes a general statement, that everybody's hair moves down. Maybe it's true, maybe it's false. My reader's immediate reaction is "bull", while a personal statement about a single individual male is of course acceptable.

Actually, I do not. My version (which is a different poem than yours, of course), says

I migrate west

hair migrates south​

Surely the subject "I" carries across the strophe break to link "my" (narrator's) migration west to the migration of (narrator's) hair south.

I also prefer here the tension of the immediate juxtaposition of the directions (this can be debated of course). If it were a very serious poem then perhaps the milder Tzara's version would be more artistic, cleaner. But for the sake of musing and joking, the instant contrast works better, I'd think.

I wondered myself during the writing of "musing" if I need "from now" (near the end of the poem). My very first version (pre-version?) didn't have it. After hesitating for a moment I have decided to make it real easy for the readers.

Tzara suggests removing even more, and wants to replace "will not need socks"
with "no socks". Thus a reader would really have to strain to get the meaning, to
associate the hair and the socks. This would go along a common misconception that poems should not communicate directly, that a poem which is harder to understand is artistically better.

It is pointless to argue this, of course. I believe that "no socks" is as clear as "i will not need socks" but that, of course, is up to the reader's understanding.

I will say that I was initially confused by your poem. My first thought was that you meant that as one aged, hair would continuously recede. So I was thinking, you get older and even the hair on your legs and feet goes away.

Not my experience, of course. Merely what I first read from your poem.

Did I say I was a dunce?

Actually, poems should say what they say in the clearest possible way, and the difficulties are only the necessary evil. As always, there is a margin for exceptions, e.g. when you use the difficulty itself as artistic means, but let's not go into such an exotic considerations. In this case I don't see why I should turn my simple musings into something that pretends to be more profound than it is. I like to get its mood simply and honestly, without adding to it any fake transcendence. Then I may get more of it any way, and for real.

As I said earlier, Senna Jawa, your poem is your poem and I appreciate it as such. My "poem" (or my variation on your original) is, at best, a riff (jazz variation) on yours or, more likely, a corrupt version of your thought.

It is all intellectual exercise. I like thinking about poems. (It is easier than writing them.) Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. It's the thinking that is interesting.

Regards,

tz

 

[Senna Jawa]

Ural v. the Urals -- the dictionary party (Websters et al) suppports totally the plural party and ignores the singular party. Thus it's going to be "the Urals". Thank you to everybody for their comments. Now the poem looks as follows:

******************************




musing

shaver in my hand
my face in the mirror

i think

when i walk tonight
should i wear a hat?

from the urals to san francisco
all my life i migrate west
my hair -- south

another half a century from now
i will not need socks
​

wh,
2006-03-19




**************************


my/my -- the first "my" does not, and second does relate to something that migrates. It is "i migrate" and my hair migrates, but not "my i migrates" and neither "my life migrates". This skewness avoids instant boredom and routine. (It's ok with me if you don't buy my explanation).

Tsara comments: To go from

when i walk tonight
should i wear a hat?
​

to

tonight should I wear a hat?
​

seems to me a subtle semantic difference. "When I walk" is removed, of course. The time frame is removed. The line break is different. But is sense removed? I am curious. I don't see the aesthetic difference.

I'll repeat my argument in slightly different words. The original phrase "when i walk tonight" presents a lonely activity. The Tzara's shorter version suggests that the "Lirical Subject" is concerned with a social situation, like he is worried about looking proper when meeting his company.

*****

I am surprised about Tzara's reading of the hair migrating South. It means literally what it says. There used to be a lot of hair up there, North, on the top of the head. As the man gets older, the hair moves from the top of his head and shows up more on his face, possibly even more South. By extrapolation, the poem jokes that when the hair moves South all the way to the feet then there will be no need for socks (because hair will keep feet warm without socks).

This hair migration is in the poem in harmony with the shaver in the hand, with looking into the mirror, with the question about the hat (which he may need because he has lost his hair, so that he might be cold during the walk -- once again we see that the "walk" is essential for the poem, makes it organic/integrated).

the urals -- lack of hair -- night walk -- socks

is all about coldness or chilliness. It is also a lonely poem, whgich goes hand in hand with its cool spirit. Tzara's change (removing walking) would damage this delicate, discretely provided mood.

******

And one more remark, just in case, about the isolated line "i think". I really like it this way. It connects to the previoust text (the first two lines of the text), and there also is an invisible colon ":" -- the rest of the poem presents that thinking. I like the space around the line "i think" -- it gives me the feeling of quiet, unhurried thinking, typical for such a situation. (Anna perhaps still disagrees, in which case we have to agree to disagree).

Thank you everybody, regards,

senna Jawa​