Worthwhile Reading

[TheRainMan]

On Modulation

by Dr. C.E. Chaffin, Editor, The Melic Review ( http://www.melicreview.com ) . . .which has, regrettably, just published its final issue


In my efforts to critique submitted poetry, there seems to be one pervasive error among many otherwise promising poets. It is the error of over-decoration, as if the more "fresh" words one stuffs in a line, the better.

Simply put, to say "nut-brown squirrel" is better than to say "nut-brown thick-furred rain-wet squirrel." The former suffices to kindle the imagination; the latter offers so much unnecessary detail as to squelch it. I see so much of this I blame MFA programs to a degree- at some level of instruction, or imitation, poets have confused clear imagery with profligate embroidering. Often when I break their images down they dissolve into metaphorical vagaries, sometimes laughable.

I think the New Criticism was right about one thing: don't write nonsense. Beyond this, the law of parsimony applies: every adjective dilutes a noun, every adverb dilutes a verb. Modifiers must be used when the range of verbs and nouns in the language does not suffice to describe, or create, the picture one seeks. Nouns and verbs are almost always safe, provided they are appropriate to the tone and subject. Adverbs are a dangerous temptation, adjectives worse still.

If one adds more than one adjective or adverb to a line, the overall effect is usually a diminution of impact. "A red wheelbarrow glazed with rain water" uses one three- letter adjective, "red." Suppose it were, "A rusty red wheelbarrow with black tires finely glazed with fresh rain water?" Here again, the limit is the human mind. The mind can only encompass so many words in striving to build a picture of what it reads. There is a point, and it must differ between readers, where an overload of language makes one want to run to the bathroom and scream. No one who likes to read good poetry wants their images over-defined; it leaves nothing for them to do, as the pleasurable generation of images in the reader's mind is shut down by the proliferation of unnecessary words meant to assist them.

Words are a means to an end, the end being an imaginative experience. As such, they should not get in the reader's way but "make their paths straight." Very few exacting realists in the visual arts have been embraced for their technical perfection. On the contrary, it's those who get a feeling across, who imbue their subjects with life, that we embrace. This is not an easy thing to do. Most can learn how to draw passably; what is hard is to make a drawing live. The same is easily said of poetry.

I really don't know where this misconception comes from. I can't think of many contemporary writers who employ this kind of lushness in their work, but then my ignorance is vast. Perhaps someone can clue me into models of this sort of verse so I can attack them directly. I see this tendency in Shelley, Hart Crane, Dylan Thomas, even Seamus Heaney, though their best work transcends it. I see a lot of it on the web, even encouraged by editors.

The effect of such exaggerated verbiage is cartoonish. It also says of words that they aren't enough, they must be dressed up, tattooed, multiplied until the reader is overwhelmed. Psychiatry has a term for uncontrollable verbal prattling: logorrhea. It sounds like what it means: diarrhea of the mouth. What's worse is diarrhea of the pen, when a poet actually intends his overwrought constructions, not merely as a symptom of mental illness.

I think what I most admire in poets is clarity. Leavis (or was it Brooks?) wrote that Eliot could make a phrase "ring in the mind like a silver coin." Notice, again: one adjective, with two nouns and a verb, make up this critical felicity.

I wish I had a word processing program that totaled adjectives, adverbs, nouns and verbs in some final count. Without looking at a poem, I bet I could predict if it had the chance to be good based on such a count. If adjectives exceeded nouns, and adverbs, verbs, I would be willing to bet it was bad. We should never forget that modifiers are modifiers; they are not the movers and shakers of verse, not the characters, more the special effects.

A second, related quality of verse, after clarity, which I value, is compression. Here I think a simple paradigm is instructive: the longer the poem, the less compression is necessary. A haiku is compression; a sonnet is compressed; a longer narrative should leave more breathing space between images and flourishes of sound than a short poem allows. In other words, the need for compression is inversely proportional to a poem's length. Even "The Waste Land" has long sections of dialogue and comparative prosody to modulate effect. If one of Shakespeare's sonnets were 140 lines instead of fourteen, I think I would need a break by line fifty or earlier. And this is only natural. If poetry is the highest exercise of language, as I believe, no good poet stays on top of Parnassus too long or the reader runs out of oxygen. All of this concerns the importance of pacing and contrast.

Contrast is big with deconstructionists, but they do have a point: words are defined, not only by the reader's passive dictionary, but by their relation to other words around them. I don't agree with Derrida and others that the text is all, which is the conclusion of deconstructionism. But I agree that the meaning, sound, and impact of words is largely determined by their setting. Jewels must have settings, and in every poem there are peaks of sound and sense that require a more prosaic context for a proper setting.

This principle obtains in improvisational jazz as well. One sign of a good jazz players is an appreciation of empty spaces. What to leave out is as important as what to put in. Charlie Parker, whom I admire, could play with restraint and feeling, but at times he fills too many measures with consecutive riffs. This is overkill and becomes boring, no matter how good the artist, and akin to the overstuffed lines I lament. Better one good verb than three good adjectives; better one haunting image than a profusion of incidental ones.

C.E. Chaffin Editor, The Melic Review http://www.melicreview.com

 

[Liar]

Sounds like the first rule of narration all over again: The Reader Does Not Need Your Help With Imagining Irrelevant Shit.

If you say, "a forest", the reader will pull a suitable forest out of his gallery of memories and apply it. If you say "a lush, green forest", chances are most readers still have an idea of what that looks like.

But if you say "a lush green kareli birch forest with it's sub vegetation of 35 percent mauve thistles and 65 percent rhododenron bushes" you really need to ask yourself why the hell you are saying all that. It will only serve to confuse the view in the readers imagination, making the setting harder to relate to, and in effect, the emotional connection with the situation is lost.

Of course, you can still do it, if wordiness and confusion is the style and the effect you're after. But you have to know why you do it.



Fiorgot to say: yeah, good article. Thanks TRM

 

[Maria2394]

I wish I had a word processing program that totaled adjectives, adverbs, nouns and verbs in some final count. Without looking at a poem, I bet I could predict if it had the chance to be good based on such a count. If adjectives exceeded nouns, and adverbs, verbs, I would be willing to bet it was bad. We should never forget that modifiers are modifiers; they are not the movers and shakers of verse, not the characters, quote from Rainman


hey Rainman

excellent subject and I agree. I took a creative writing class last I attented a local college and my Prof said the same thing. He worked us beyond enjoyment by pounding that into us. Over and over...I didnt agree at first, but that was atime when all my poetry rhymed, lol

Im glad that someone I admire as much as you put this into words, on this site!! I have been trying to pare my own work down, trying to get a point across without too many feathers fleeing the open seams of my little word pillows



maria

 

[373Kelvin]

Sounds like the first rule of narration all over again: The Reader Does Not Need Your Help With Imagining Irrelevant Shit.

If you say, "a forest", the reader will pull a suitable forest out of his gallery of memories and apply it. If you say "a lush, green forest", chances are most readers still have an idea of what that looks like.

Or better still, say lush forest. If it is lush, it is green. Writers should be forced to buy their adjectives and adverbs the way contestents on Wheel of Fortune buy vowels.

 

[clutching_calliope]

Reminds

.....

 

[GuiltyPleasure]

Thank you RM - I've printed that article. I'm almost scared to go back over my stuff in the light of what it teaches me.

 

[EsotericPathway]

Very interesting article.

I read, and re-read the article with great interest. Thanks for sharing this article.

I would like ask the more experienced and/or educated posters on this forum:

The author specifically directed this instruction as it relates to poetry. How, in your opinions, does his advice apply to prose?

 

[MyNecroticSnail]

Sounds like a senna jawa rap
but worth bumping - keep up the good stuff

 

[Liar]

I read, and re-read the article with great interest. Thanks for sharing this article.

I would like ask the more experienced and/or educated posters on this forum:

The author specifically directed this instruction as it relates to poetry. How, in your opinions, does his advice apply to prose?

Perfectly. It's the same thing, basic storytelling rule of thumb: It's the readers who has to experience the story, not the writer. Don't elaborarte in stuff that risks to obstruct the view for the reader.

 

[EsotericPathway]

One more quick question...

I understand how this would apply to adjectives and adverbs that modify a single noun or verb. But is it okay to detail an entire scene? For example:

Would 'The red wheelbarrow sat idle, as it had done for years, in the middle of the neglected garden' be more preferable than 'The red wheelbarrow, dingy and rusted, sat idle in the neglected garden that was overrun with weeds and the remnants of what used to be award winning tomato plants?'

The reason I ask is that I have always found favor with authors that could make me see their vision clearly. I understand each reader has his/her own preferences, but if a writer wants to appeal to a large audience, I suppose it would be best to know what most appreciate. How much detail should be used to describe, not necessarily an object, but the scene as a whole vs. allowing the audience to create it him/herself? And, how do you determine where the line should be drawn?

Perhaps this is just a matter of experience, writing styles and what's important in a story line, but I'd like to get the opinions you have to offer.

Thanks in advance, and thanks Liar, for the earlier input.

 

[wildsweetone]

I understand how this would apply to adjectives and adverbs that modify a single noun or verb. But is it okay to detail an entire scene? For example:

Would 'The red wheelbarrow sat idle, as it had done for years, in the middle of the neglected garden' be more preferable than 'The red wheelbarrow, dingy and rusted, sat idle in the neglected garden that was overrun with weeds and the remnants of what used to be award winning tomato plants?'

The reason I ask is that I have always found favor with authors that could make me see their vision clearly. I understand each reader has his/her own preferences, but if a writer wants to appeal to a large audience, I suppose it would be best to know what most appreciate. How much detail should be used to describe, not necessarily an object, but the scene as a whole vs. allowing the audience to create it him/herself? And, how do you determine where the line should be drawn?

Perhaps this is just a matter of experience, writing styles and what's important in a story line, but I'd like to get the opinions you have to offer.

Thanks in advance, and thanks Liar, for the earlier input.

from above:
'The red wheelbarrow sat idle, as it had done for years, in the middle of the neglected garden'

Why write the word 'neglected' - surely the wheelbarrow sitting idle as it has done for years indicates clearly that the garden is likely to be neglected also?

In my opinion, tautology is another common fault in prose that runs along with adverbs and over use of adjectives.

from above:
How much detail should be used to describe, not necessarily an object, but the scene as a whole vs. allowing the audience to create it him/herself? And, how do you determine where the line should be drawn?

You need to use 'enough' detail to clearly show images that the reader can understand. Sounds easy eh? With practise it can be done. There is sometimes a fine line between not enough detail and too much. Practising writing complete 500 word stories (for example) is a good skill for learning how to scythe the rubbish away. If you write to a specific word count and aim for sticking with the exact count (not five words either side of it) then you'll learn a great deal about what is necessary and what is not.

To determine where the line should be drawn in how much detail you give you need to know from your reader whether they understood the story or not. If they didn't, then you need to either reword, or add detail.

 

[MyNecroticSnail]

"every adjective dilutes a noun, every adverb dilutes a verb"
every? dilutes? (Dogma Alert)
"Forest" cries for a qualifier.
It is the dark of the forest Dante comes to not the collection of trees.

And a rose may not be a rose, it can be a verb or an adjective.

And Rainman, builder of houses analogy user. A house is a house? What makes it your house? Your embellishments, dare I say your modifiers? I will venture a guess you are not a Shaker.
While the gist of this is needed, you really should raise an eye over statements like "every adjective dilutes a noun, every adverb dilutes a verb"

The point is adjectives and adverbs should be used for effect and guarded against because they can dilute.

 

[Angeline]

"every adjective dilutes a noun, every adverb dilutes a verb"
every? dilutes? (Dogma Alert)
"Forest" cries for a qualifier.
It is the dark of the forest Dante comes to not the collection of trees.

And a rose may not be a rose, it can be a verb or an adjective.

And Rainman, builder of houses analogy user. A house is a house? What makes it your house? Your embellishments, dare I say your modifiers? I will venture a guess you are not a Shaker.
While the gist of this is needed, you really should raise an eye over statements like "every adjective dilutes a noun, every adverb dilutes a verb"

The point is adjectives and adverbs should be used for effect and guarded against because they can dilute.

Yes.

Rainmain's article is sound, imo, because modifiers are so overused when a well-chosen noun or verb would be more precise (usually). On the other hand, moderation in all things is good, and good poetry is furthered by the right word in the right place no matter what part of speech it is. I find that the more one studies good poetry and the more one writes, the more adept one becomes at knowing where to draw the line between precise diction and overuse of modifiers that muddies strong imagery.

And I do think adjectives are almost always a better choice than adverbs in poetry.

Write on, RM.

 

[MyNecroticSnail]

Yes.

Rainmain's article is sound, imo, because modifiers are so overused when a well-chosen noun or verb would be more precise (usually). On the other hand, moderation in all things is good, and good poetry is furthered by the right word in the right place no matter what part of speech it is. I find that the more one studies good poetry and the more one writes, the more adept one becomes at knowing where to draw the line between precise diction and overuse of modifiers that muddies strong imagery.

And I do think adjectives are almost always a better choice than adverbs in poetry.

Write on, RM.

the article is excellent, except the it is marred by that sentence with it's gross overstatement, contradicted here:

"good poetry is furthered by the right word in the right place no matter what part of speech it is." Your quote.

My statement(distilled) select modifiers make the image, which contradicts "every" "dilutes".

 

[MyNecroticSnail]

Yes.

Rainmain's article is sound, imo, because modifiers are so overused when a well-chosen noun or verb would be more precise (usually). On the other hand, moderation in all things is good, and good poetry is furthered by the right word in the right place no matter what part of speech it is. I find that the more one studies good poetry and the more one writes, the more adept one becomes at knowing where to draw the line between precise diction and overuse of modifiers that muddies strong imagery.

And I do think adjectives are almost always a better choice than adverbs in poetry.

Write on, RM.

and of course with more reading one should become adept at picking out the overstatements that are put in as a lazy way of making the point
<winkz
Your statement has the proper qualifers.

 

[Liar]

"good poetry is furthered by the right word in the right place no matter what part of speech it is." Your quote.

My statement(distilled) select modifiers make the image, which contradicts "every" "dilutes".

I'd like to compress that to "poetry is the right word in the right place". But that's possibly an oversimplifmplification.

 

[Cockyfox]

Is poetry for the reader or the poet, though?

 

[Angeline]

Is poetry for the reader or the poet, though?

Most poets are also readers, no? When I write poetry, I try to find a balance between for me and for my readers.

 

[TheRainMan]

"every adjective dilutes a noun, every adverb dilutes a verb"
every? dilutes? (Dogma Alert)
"Forest" cries for a qualifier.
It is the dark of the forest Dante comes to not the collection of trees.

And a rose may not be a rose, it can be a verb or an adjective.

And Rainman, builder of houses analogy user. A house is a house? What makes it your house? Your embellishments, dare I say your modifiers? I will venture a guess you are not a Shaker.
While the gist of this is needed, you really should raise an eye over statements like "every adjective dilutes a noun, every adverb dilutes a verb"

The point is adjectives and adverbs should be used for effect and guarded against because they can dilute.

the statement "every adjective dilutes a noun, every adverb dilutes a verb" does appear excessively dogmatic, even lazy perhaps, but i think it was "exaggeration for effect," and should be read in the context of what surrounds it . . . statements like:

Modifiers must be used when the range of verbs and nouns in the language does not suffice to describe, or create, the picture one seeks . . .

and

If one adds more than one adjective or adverb to a line, the overall effect is usually a diminution of impact . . .

and

Eliot could make a phrase "ring in the mind like a silver coin." Notice, again: one adjective, with two nouns and a verb, make up this critical felicity . . .

and, others.

nowhere is he saying that modifiers should not be used . . . he just suggests they be used wisely, with restraint.

i think the article is great, very instructive. and the points made are vital, which is why i decided to post it . . . statements like:

don't write nonsense and what I most admire in poets is clarity and the effect of such exaggerated verbiage is cartoonish are things that should be taken under advisement by all poets.

and i do not agree with you when you say:

What makes it your house? Your embellishments, dare I say your modifiers?

what makes a poem "your" poem are many, many things . . . i think modifiers are far down on the list.

***

to me, the best modifiers are those that flow seamlessly into the succeeding noun.

this line the writer refers to, for instance:

A red wheelbarrow glazed with rain water

he is incorrect in saying there is one adjective. there are two, red and rain. "rain" is an adjective modifying "water," but it is seamless. it reads like one word . . . rainwater . . . so that rain appears not to be an adjective at all.

 

[Angeline]

the statement "every adjective dilutes a noun, every adverb dilutes a verb" does appear excessively dogmatic, even lazy perhaps, but i think it was "exaggeration for effect," and should be read in the context of what surrounds it . . . statements like:

Modifiers must be used when the range of verbs and nouns in the language does not suffice to describe, or create, the picture one seeks . . .

and

If one adds more than one adjective or adverb to a line, the overall effect is usually a diminution of impact . . .

and

Eliot could make a phrase "ring in the mind like a silver coin." Notice, again: one adjective, with two nouns and a verb, make up this critical felicity . . .

and, others.

nowhere is he saying that modifiers should not be used . . . he just suggests they be used wisely, with restraint.

i think the article is great, very instructive. and the points made are vital, which is why i decided to post it . . . statements like:

don't write nonsense and what I most admire in poets is clarity and the effect of such exaggerated verbiage is cartoonish are things that should be taken under advisement by all poets.

and i do not agree with you when you say:



what makes a poem "your" poem are many, many things . . . i think modifiers are far down on the list.

***

to me, the best modifiers are those that flow seamlessly into the succeeding noun.

this line the writer refers to, for instance:

A red wheelbarrow glazed with rain water

he is incorrect in saying there is one adjective. there are two, red and rain. "rain" is an adjective modifying "water," but it is seamless. it reads like one word . . . rainwater . . . so that rain appears not to be an adjective at all.

Funny thing is that "rain water" is currently spelled solid ("rainwater"), at least according to Merriam-Webster, although I suppose that was not the case at the time the poem the line is excerpted from was written. (It is endlessly fascinating to me how language changes over time.) Even if it were spelled solid though (if, for example, the line was written for the article or its author got it wrong when he copied it) and there were legitimately one adjective in the line, your point would still stand. Anyone who reads that article should understand the point is not to count parts of speech, but rather to write with care and try to find the right words.

 

[Tzara]

Funny thing is that "rain water" is currently spelled solid ("rainwater"), at least according to Merriam-Webster, although I suppose that was not the case at the time the poem the line is excerpted from was written. (It is endlessly fascinating to me how language changes over time.) Even if it were spelled solid though (if, for example, the line was written for the article or its author got it wrong when he copied it) and there were legitimately one adjective in the line, your point would still stand. Anyone who reads that article should understand the point is not to count parts of speech, but rather to write with care and try to find the right words.

The original, if written out as a single line, would be "a red wheel barrow glazed with rain water" which would have three adjectives--"red," "wheel," and "rain." But "wheel barrow" and "rain water" act like compound words, so it feels like only one adjective.

It was a good article, TRM, if a little pedantic in tone. It's always good to be bashed in the head about the basics. God knows I constantly need to be.

 

[Angeline]

The original, if written out as a single line, would be "a red wheel barrow glazed with rain water" which would have three adjectives--"red," "wheel," and "rain." But "wheel barrow" and "rain water" act like compound words, so it feels like only one adjective.

It was a good article, TRM, if a little pedantic in tone. It's always good to be bashed in the head about the basics. God knows I constantly need to be.

Agreed. My only point is that as some adjective-noun combinations become more and more commonly used over time, they usually go from two separate words to a hyphenated compound (not always, but often) to one word. That has happened with "wheelbarrow" and "rainwater," although "rain water" is not spelled solid in the article (for whatever reason). Once a word is spelled solid like "seawater" or "byline," for example, it is technically considered a noun though its origin was otherwise. That's splitting hairs, I know, but my point is not to argue but to say derivation fascinates me.

 

[Tzara]

Agreed. My only point is that as some adjective-noun combinations become more and more commonly used over time, they usually go from two separate words to a hyphenated compound (not always, but often) to one word. That has happened with "wheelbarrow" and "rainwater," although "rain water" is not spelled solid in the article (for whatever reason). Once a word is spelled solid like "seawater" or "byline," for example, it is technically considered a noun though its origin was otherwise. That's splitting hairs, I know, but my point is not to argue but to say derivation fascinates me.

And I agree as well. I don't think we're at cross-purposes.

Actually, when I go back to look at it again, it seems to me that both "wheel barrow" and "rain water" are pleonasms.

I would bet the good doctor wrote the line out from memory, which is why "wheelbarrow" becomes one word and "rain water" two. Though the line break is the same in both cases, splitting the compound word. For some reason, he probably remembered the separation on one and forgot it on the other.

Or maybe he just made a typo. It happens to the best of u s.

 

[Angeline]

And I agree as well. I don't think we're at cross-purposes.

Actually, when I go back to look at it again, it seems to me that both "wheel barrow" and "rain water" are pleonasms.

I would bet the good doctor wrote the line out from memory, which is why "wheelbarrow" becomes one word and "rain water" two. Though the line break is the same in both cases, splitting the compound word. For some reason, he probably remembered the separation on one and forgot it on the other.

Or maybe he just made a typo. It happens to the best of u s.

I just had to look up "pleonasm" and it was defined as an "unnecessary redundancy." LOL! Isn't that a pleonasm?

Here's a list of commonly (mis)used ones:

actual experience
advance planning
advance reservations
advance warning
all meet together
armed gunman
at 12 midnight
at 12 noon
autobiography of my life
awkward predicament
baby boy was born
basic fundamentals
cease and desist
cheap price
close proximity
cold temperature
commute back and forth
consensus of opinion
difficult dilemma
each and every
empty space
end result
estimated roughly at
filled to capacity
free gift
frozen ice
general public
join together
(natural) instinct
never at any time
null and void
pair of twins
(past) experience
poisonous venom
pre-recorded
reason is because (this one drives me crazy because I see students do it constantly) regular routine
small speck
suddenly exploded
surrounded on all sides
unexpected surprise

 

[Tzara]

I just had to look up "pleonasm" and it was defined as an "unnecessary redundancy." LOL! Isn't that a pleonasm?

How better to define the word than by an immediate example.

That is pretty funny, though.

Here's a list of commonly (mis)used ones:

actual experience
advance planning
advance reservations
advance warning
all meet together
armed gunman
at 12 midnight
at 12 noon
autobiography of my life
awkward predicament
baby boy was born
basic fundamentals
cease and desist
cheap price
close proximity
cold temperature
commute back and forth
consensus of opinion
difficult dilemma
each and every
empty space
end result
estimated roughly at
filled to capacity
free gift
frozen ice
general public
join together
(natural) instinct
never at any time
null and void
pair of twins
(past) experience
poisonous venom
pre-recorded
reason is because (this one drives me crazy because I see students do it constantly) regular routine
small speck
suddenly exploded
surrounded on all sides
unexpected surprise

Oh, oh, oh. My fingers twitch to use my namesake's cut-up technique on this to create a poem. Perhaps redundancy is the new "meaning." Film at eleven.

In poetry you can probably make anything work, though, if you wear a beret and sunglasses.