poetry critical

online poetry workshop

Thread

Return To Index11-20 of 23
re: squeeze the word  cadmium  6 Aug 18 9:18AM Post Reply

this doesn't suggest why poetry works as poetry. it's talking of poetry as a kind of frendlly way of saying, and that our duty is to talk to other americans about values. williams was a marxist-populist and couldn't allow himself to write without propagandizing something. yes, it's what we read when we were children. now, we write sometimes for children and can see w's tricks and weakness as an intellectual. huckster ginsberg went over to visit him and played him for a silly old man. good reason to avoid kids.

re: squeeze the word  OldShoe  6 Aug 18 9:37AM Post Reply

for a marxist, he echoes half of what you have charged over and over about the emotional side of language.  and never-the-less (for it) ginsberg grifted whitman in all his howling.  

simply put.  what you fancy.  what excites you.  may not another.

i would charge further.  stand front of most any group, challenge they listen to something that has burrowed beneath your cloth, as far as writing goes... as far as you have seen --poetically.

and you may be lucky to reach a single soul.  you might be lucky to find one who felt what you felt.  

this will vary, vastly, between age and experience and verse...

but one might contest... "FOOLS!" one might profess... they don't see, can't... to the miss-direction, miss-education... un(s) -- in an elitist fashion

but what is the point in that?  really.  no brandish necessity about what 'vocabularly did' or didn't do.  

what it is to you it is to you.  what it is to another, what matter?  other than one may want to reach and touch and be touched.  that's normal.  

take what you can get.  

a dialogue to dialogue is just a stake in trying to find what yet's to be found within one self.  for those so possessed... it is 'zed'.  

as much as one might appreciate the amazonian(s) for who or what they are, when one categorically tries to capture them...

the write them off, at the very instance.

such is impasse.

re: squeeze the word  OldShoe  6 Aug 18 9:46AM Post Reply

for every cantos - a pound of fools, and for every fool, a prufrock

re: squeeze the word  cadmium  6 Aug 18 11:41AM Post Reply

your point is what? you're talking about revred personalities, using a consciousness on them you had when you were a kid. children under 35 are still just collecting sentences to use in their on fantasy room -- the movie they see themselves in, the bedroom, the party, bar, lunch room. this isn''t an intellectual dialog for you. it's a casual chat. so what.

why call something a poem? because someone else called this stuff poetry? the whole thing about subjective is is that some people can't get intimate wite others, but they really want their free form prose to be accepted in this elite whatever poetry world. it's not that it's subjective to poetry, it's that poetry is personal to the reader's experience and reading ability. if you canxt read, youxre going to like to write poetry, cause it doesn't seem to have any rules... because casuals, uptight freaks with a teaching credential, have taught them literature is really a non-textbook kind of anthropology and psychology. psychology and sociology for dummies.

most people don't get poetry. this is from before milton. i donxt think you get it either. as far as i can tell, poetry is a kind of condensed shortstory plot flavored with adjectives. that's ok, but it makes your crits worthless in a workshop. not to mention that you can't simply offer for discussion your theory of poetry.

re: squeeze the word  OldShoe  6 Aug 18 1:39PM Post Reply

the opposite if that supposition, if you read what i wrote.  

you may read
what i read

have  

as much as you may

wish

to minimize by alluding— a lack of personal,

or suggestion of reverence only (as well as)

allusive

reference it was there before the first.  

that said i would never feign to shake a shirk any shap

— no matter

(the elementary antic)

i would rather celebrate language

and in whatever time

one may find

you suppose an artist must be, to create— art? and more so, an artists theory— intrinsic to craft?  

one might deduce a naivety

you will not find such worrisome here

right you are, and wrong

and to your undoings

what needing sense, what needling, makes anything so?  what do you presume?

such contradiction, hanging from one’s coattails

petti, petty, pretty, pity

what pleasure would find you t(here)?

—slim

strut, strut, strut

re: squeeze the word  cadmium  6 Aug 18 6:22PM Post Reply

it's not enough to look 'sensitive' while you write the 'truth'. you actually have to actually have an argument. all you're saying is that i look funny.

what is a word? do words actually exist? if you think of it, they don't, because 'word' is only an academic's name for something that seems to be part of a phrase but which can't mean anything without being in a phrase.

re: squeeze the word  OldShoe  6 Aug 18 10:48PM Post Reply

one could hold a belief, albeit brief, that if care or consideration were intended, a deeper read than gut might be afforded.  you of all would be capable, would you not.  but that is upon your favor.  

i don't think/believe, you look funny.  perhaps a little cyclical, trapped.  but that's not unfamiliar territory either.  ocd runs in the family.  

that said, i am not sure why you take the stance of presuming appearances.  but sure.  i'll accept the label of pretender.  more truth than not, as i see fit.  i find no offense in it, not that you intend that either.  but likewise, i'll accept pretenders validity, insofar as one could easily argue stake, if only by interest of response alone.  

that in itself, may carry more weight than any bird in mirror conversation carried out otherwise, and by the record of history, has been well asserted

one day you will find your sam-i-am.  till then, even if fractional to litany you present, i can find merit, insofar as you see value in your own sermon. for you it may be everything.

only in relationships, existence

this, not this, nor that

but you didn't want a dialogue in linguistics

-tease

re: squeeze the word  cadmium  7 Aug 18 1:19AM Post Reply

you want me to respect you because of the universal rights of man, and the declaration of independence, and the walmart rights of the consumer statements. but, you evidently don't need to respect me enough to actually respond to the questions i've brought up. when i write 'squeeze the word' as a title for this discussion, i mean something conceptually by it. you're just telling me i'm wrong to analyze a poem at all. i've been writing and being published for 55 years. i've worked with other writers since college to help each other find the poem in our fatuous little twitterings. i don't post these discussions to control, but the alpha control freaks always respond to me in kind.

tell me what 'linguistics' is, because i know something about that. in fact, i read some in college. what flavor of 'linguistics' do you want to add into the dialog? the part where words are only responses to the physical? never a physical thing in themselves? or, the part where linguistics is a failed discipline because it never became a science?

re: squeeze the word  OldShoe  7 Aug 18 2:58AM Post Reply

how frightfully confusing. i can't tell whether you are getting passionate or asking me to enter a pop-n-locke contest.  as enamored as i am, as endearing as you are, i'm really not into your step-up posturing.  

tone it down a little, for the slow ones such as me.  i can't keep up.

-- johnny handcock

re: squeeze the word  cadmium  7 Aug 18 6:41AM Post Reply

o.k.. remember, this wasn't posted for you, so it's up to you to ask the right question from the first. not 'why bother', but, 'what does "squeeze the word" mean?'

Return To Index
Previous | 1 2 3 | Next


1.771s