The Notebook Thread

[Tzara]

I keep being told I should keep a notebook. Some creative writing classes have even forced me to keep one. Usually for those, I have made up the contents.

I’m going to try to do otherwise here. Feel free to make your own notebook, or comment on mine.

 

[Tzara]

06/02/2013

I write a lot of poems I simply throw away. Even the ones I keep (often only temporarily), I’m not at all sure about, even ones I wrote years ago.

Writing seems to be as much about destruction as construction.

You birth things and then, shortly thereafter, slit their weak little throats. It’s a form of kindness, actually. They are not meant to live.

It can be a kind of awful process, though—birth, slit, blood, birth, slit, etc.

 

[The_Fool]

I keep a thread on Lit that is basically a repository thread. It serves as storage for blurts good and bad, edited and unedited as well as phrases that strike me. I am on my third thread. The first was just stuff that eventually was posted (and removed) on lit. The second was the basis for my hubris book. The third one is. I keep saying I am going to do another book. Been saying that for about a year. Give me another year and it might get done.

 

[Tzara]

06/03/2013

I was reading some things on the Internet about Robert Bly's invented form, the ramage (a form, incidentally, I don't really understand), and came across this statement from the introduction to his collection Turkish Pears in August:

Every poem, of course, has to have images and ideas and some sort of troubled speaker.​

The images and ideas parts seem straightforward enough, but "some sort of troubled speaker"?

It's an interesting idea, one I hadn't thought about before. I've run across the idea that a poem, like a story, requires conflict and development, but "troubled speaker" seems a bit odd on the face of it. I mean, what troubles the speaker of Williams' "The Red Wheelbarrow"?

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.​

For that matter, what conflict or development happens in the course of the poem? Is this not a poem by Bly's standard?

 

[bogusagain]

[/indent]For that matter, what conflict or development happens in the course of the poem? Is this not a poem by Bly's standard?

Doesn't this amount to an aesthetics versus function, aesthetics versus didacticism type of argument? The art for art's sake tradition against the tradition of communicating articulated ideas, art for pleasure as opposed to art to convey intellectual ideas.

Yes, I understand intellectual ideas are every bit in the architecture of aesthetic work as didactic work or functional work but not in what is conveyed to the reader, that is purely aesthetics, beauty to induce pleasure.

Personally while I can enjoy purely aesthetic poetry, too much can feel a bit like over indulging in a rich meal, indigestion follows and the wish I'd never had the damn meal in the first place. After all, what was it all for, purely self indulgence? Though that is just me.

Oh and of course, there is the spectrum between the two extremes.

 

[theognis]

I was reading some things on the Internet about Robert Bly's invented form, the ramage (a form, incidentally, I don't really understand), and came across this statement from the introduction to his collection Turkish Pears in August:

Every poem, of course, has to have images and ideas and some sort of troubled speaker.​

The images and ideas parts seem straightforward enough, but "some sort of troubled speaker"?

It's an interesting idea, one I hadn't thought about before. I've run across the idea that a poem, like a story, requires conflict and development, but "troubled speaker" seems a bit odd on the face of it. I mean, what troubles the speaker of Williams' "The Red Wheelbarrow"?

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.​

For that matter, what conflict or development happens in the course of the poem? Is this not a poem by Bly's standard?

I think much of the beauty and genius of good poetry is in what's left unspoken. If a poem is really good, the reader is prompted, even commanded, to become his or her own speaker, and to fill in empty spaces with his or her own ideas, images, troubles, conflict, development, etc., until the poem is complete.

 

[Tzara]

Doesn't this amount to an aesthetics versus function, aesthetics versus didacticism type of argument? The art for art's sake tradition against the tradition of communicating articulated ideas, art for pleasure as opposed to art to convey intellectual ideas.

Yes, I understand intellectual ideas are every bit in the architecture of aesthetic work as didactic work or functional work but not in what is conveyed to the reader, that is purely aesthetics, beauty to induce pleasure.

Personally while I can enjoy purely aesthetic poetry, too much can feel a bit like over indulging in a rich meal, indigestion follows and the wish I'd never had the damn meal in the first place. After all, what was it all for, purely self indulgence? Though that is just me.

Oh and of course, there is the spectrum between the two extremes.

I'm not sure I follow you, bogus. Are you complaining about Bly's position or the Williams poem?

I would liken the WCW poem to minimalist art. Art as much about the structure of its medium as much as anything. Like a Robert Ryman painting. To "properly" view a Ryman painting, you have to be thinking about the basics of the medium of painting itself. So, I would argue, with many of WCW's poems.

The problem I have with Bly is that his statement implies that all poems must have a certain approach (the "troubled speaker"). Why not have a "rapturous speaker" or something? Or, as I think some Asian poetry has, an "indifferent and objective" speaker?



Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you. I've been thinking about art recently, particularly Ryman and Agnes Martin, and that's probably making my thinking fuzzier even than it normally is.

 

[Tzara]

I think much of the beauty and genius of good poetry is in what's left unspoken. If a poem is really good, the reader is prompted, even commanded, to become his or her own speaker, and to fill in empty spaces with his or her own ideas, images, troubles, conflict, development, etc., until the poem is complete.

To some degree, yes, that's probably the case. But the poem has to guide the reader to that understanding. A poem that says everything completely on its surface is not so much a poem as an encyclopedia article. But a poem that leaves too much to the reader is a Rorschach inkblot--a projective test.

That abdicates authorial responsibility, I think.

 

[Tzara]

06/04/13

I was thinking more today about that "troubled speaker" comment of Bly's, both just because and because bogus and theognis kind of addressed it in comments.

I've actually used that kind of tack often in my own poems. I didn't do a survey or anything, but I think that's a technique I've used frequently--usually some kind of sad sack narrator who isn't getting any and is hang dog about it. Not, actually, my life, but my self-image.

At least that part of self-image I'd wear on a T-shirt, or write a poem about.

I don't really know Walt Whitman's poetry, but he seems to me to be likely an "untroubled," even ecstatic speaker.

I think I'm struggling with what poetry should "be about" right now, and that's why that statement bothered me so much.

OK. So much for that. Time to watch the Mariners blow another game.

 

[theognis]

To some degree, yes, that's probably the case. But the poem has to guide the reader to that understanding. A poem that says everything completely on its surface is not so much a poem as an encyclopedia article. But a poem that leaves too much to the reader is a Rorschach inkblot--a projective test.

That abdicates authorial responsibility, I think.

That's the genius part. Finding the correct balance between saying too much, and saying too little.

 

[bogusagain]

I'm not sure I follow you, bogus. Are you complaining about Bly's position or the Williams poem?

I think Bly is holding an ideological position, whether he realises it or not, for him aesthetics is not enough, the poem has to function as a voice in dialog.

I would go along with you and say the WCW poem is minimalist, in so far it is what it is, the aesthetics are the function so to speak.

I think the weakness of westerners writing in this style, is that western letters don't have symbolism of Chinese and Japanese. etc. characters. Japanese poems might sound deadpan to western ears but they tend to refer back to the characters the poem is written in, sort of asexual double entendres so they are multi-layered.

(It helps having a daughter studying Japanese, she is my font of knowledge so if she is wrong, I know I am wasting good money on her education)

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you. I've been thinking about art recently, particularly Ryman and Agnes Martin, and that's probably making my thinking fuzzier even than it normally is.[/QUOTE]

My old art lecturer used to say, minimal art, maximum explanation. Obviously he wasn't too enamoured with minimal art. Personally I like its quiet, low key nature, it feels comfortable and soothing in a world with probably too much imagery.

Speaking of art

 

[darkmaas]

bogusagain said:

in a world with probably too much imagery.

This struck me as brilliant. Imagery is omnipresent and relatively easy. That's why my daughter doesn't understand the excitement over 15th century masters. I was attributing it to a lack of religious reference making the allusions undecipherable, but I was no doubt over-thinking. The images are clunky to someone with Photoshop at their fingertips.

Off topic ... sorry Tz

::

 

[bflagsst]

Posting in Tzara's notebook for posterity.

 

[Tzara]

That's the genius part. Finding the correct balance between saying too much, and saying too little.

I suppose that's why I'm me and not T.S. Eliot reincarnate.

Well, that and my inelegant syntax and banal subjects.

Trifles, of course. Trifles.

 

[Tzara]

I think the weakness of westerners writing in this style, is that western letters don't have symbolism of Chinese and Japanese. etc. characters. Japanese poems might sound deadpan to western ears but they tend to refer back to the characters the poem is written in, sort of asexual double entendres so they are multi-layered.

Allen Ginsberg created something he called "American Sentences" that was an attempt to try and produce something like the effect of a Japanese haiku.

I'm not sure he was successful in that.

My old art lecturer used to say, minimal art, maximum explanation. Obviously he wasn't too enamoured with minimal art. Personally I like its quiet, low key nature, it feels comfortable and soothing in a world with probably too much imagery.

Well, your lecturer had a point, in that minimal art often requires explanation to be meaningful.

I like it because it can be very clean, untethered from tradition. It is simply "something to look at."

Speaking of art

I really like that "Evolution" series, though I can't view it in a clear resolution. The images are not big enough for me to really appreciate the artwork.

 

[Tzara]

Imagery is omnipresent and relatively easy. That's why my daughter doesn't understand the excitement over 15th century masters. I was attributing it to a lack of religious reference making the allusions undecipherable, but I was no doubt over-thinking. The images are clunky to someone with Photoshop at their fingertips.

Your daughter (I'm guessing, somewhere between 20 and 40?) is young. When I was young, I was only interested in "contemporary art," which mostly meant in my case, art from the 60's and, perhaps a little bit, the 70's. Pop Art and Minimalism, in other words.

As I've gotten older, I've begun to appreciate older art. (And, yes, I see that "older" juxtaposed to that "older.") One of the key experiences for me was an exhibit at the Experience Music Project here in Seattle. Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft and super-rich person) had an art exhibit that paired modern works from his collection with older works from his collection.

The first pairing, as you walked in the door, was of a major, important Lichtenstein painting (not this one, but one very similar to it) with a Renoir. A small Renoir. As I remember, a woman's face.

Now, I love Lichtenstein. Love him. But that Renoir kicked his ass. Kicked his ass right out of the gallery like he shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence when one was talking about art. It was no contest.

It was basically the same throughout the exhibit. I don't really remember what paintings were hung, but generally the older painting just obliterated the later painting. Made them look, if anything, silly.

That's kind of how I feel sometimes, trying to write poetry. I'm not Coleridge. I'm not Eliot. I'm just some dimwit who likes to play with language,

And I'm hoping that's enough. It's enough for me, anyway.

Off topic ... sorry Tz

::

Well, first of all, the thread is intended to be a notebook for anyone who wants to write notebookish things. So you qualify on that. And, in any case, you're (and anyone) always welcome to post whatever you think on any of my threads.

 

[Tzara]

Posting in Tzara's notebook for posterity.

What? Are you signing my guestbook?

 

[theognis]

I suppose that's why I'm me and not T.S. Eliot reincarnate.

Well, that and my inelegant syntax and banal subjects.

Trifles, of course. Trifles.

You're far from alone, of course. Most of us are lucky if we are able to recognize genius when we see it, and can only dream of anything more.

I disagree with your second sentence, by the way.

 

[Tzara]

06/06/2013

M and I spent yesterday at the Bloedel Reserve. It was a beautiful day--quiet (despite the busload of middle-school kids who mostly behaved well), and we got a good look at a hooded merganser and her brood at the pond in front of the Bloedel residence.

I asked M to take a picture of the Zen garden, in front of the guest house, which is where Theodore Roethke died (it was at one point a swimming pool; he drowned).

I do love Zen gardens, the little pseudo-pools they rake about rocks. They are, in their way, quite as lovely as the most elaborate English garden.

 

[Tzara]

You're far from alone, of course. Most of us are lucky if we are able to recognize genius when we see it, and can only dream of anything more.

I disagree with your second sentence, by the way.

Well, thank you, theognis, if I'm interpreting your comment correctly.

In any case, we write (I think) because we enjoy it. Whether we are good or bad. It'd, of course, better to be good, and what we all strive for, but if we're bad, we always trying to be better.

What writing is about, I think.

 

[theognis]

Well, thank you, theognis, if I'm interpreting your comment correctly.

In any case, we write (I think) because we enjoy it. Whether we are good or bad. It'd, of course, better to be good, and what we all strive for, but if we're bad, we always trying to be better.

What writing is about, I think.

Your interpretation of my comment is correct.

Let me add this to your notebook:


“Any fool can make something complicated. It takes a genius to make it simple.”

― Woody Guthrie

 

[bogusagain]

Now, I love Lichtenstein. Love him. But that Renoir kicked his ass. Kicked his ass right out of the gallery like he shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence when one was talking about art. It was no contest.

The National Gallery in London juxtaposed Francis Bacon's Pope with Velasquez's Pope Innocent X. There was just no competition, every weakness in Bacon's painting ability was exposed. I almost felt sorry for the Bacon but couldn't quite bring myself to be sorry.

That said, contemporary art has a different function to traditional art, though I haven't quite articulated an hypothesis yet. To me Dieter Roth is one of the greats of 20t century art, though isn't that well known because he shunned the commercial art world for the most part.

 

[theognis]

I'm glad to see there are others here who have no difficulty in elevating a Renoir over a Lichtenstein, or a Velázquez over a Bacon. I realize it isn't really fair to compare them, but if a museum insists on doing so, I think the difference is glaringly, painfully obvious.

 

[GuiltyPleasure]

I loved that film. *sigh*

 

[The_Fool]

Where are the words of your muse? Single out the inspiration.