Entry 52 — Some Conventional Haiku « POETICKS

Entry 52 — Some Conventional Haiku

Today’s entry is a repeat of one from Christmas day, 2005, with a few comments from today at the end of it:

25 December 2005: “clenched sky.” That’s one of the scraps in the notebook yesterday’s entry was about. Circa 1983. Never got into any poem of mine but may yet. Another scrap is the start in fading cursive of a sonnet I completed somewhere else on Dylan Thomas. I was momentarily quite taken by what the word, “steepled” did to its fifth line, “by his construction of a steepled truth,” for it took a while for me to realize the word was not “stupid.”

Other highlights include the following five unpublished haiku:

rain now as loud
against the northern side of the house
as the roof

rotting log
only part of forest floor
to show through melting snow

glimpsed tanned shoulder;
thin white string across it,
tied like a shoelace

bikini-bar dancer
showing off to her boy-friend,
me in between them

far enough from the storm
nearing the color-dotted beach
to see above it

I wrote these about the time I pretty much stopped writing conventional haiku. I quite like the storm one, probably because I still vividly remember the first Florida storm I saw from far enough away to see above–and to both sides–of it. I don’t think it’s a truly outstanding haiku, though. The one about the bikini dancer is fair in the wry sardonicism vein, I think. The one about the bikini string is nearly not a haiku, for it doesn’t really provide any haiku contrast; i.e., it’s a single-image description. On second thought, maybe it’s excitement versus the mundane: girl in bikini versus shoelace.

I dunno. The other two are very standard, but I’ve tried to improve them,anyway:

the rain now louder
against the house’s north side
than on the roof

rotting log:
only portion of the forest floor
to show through the snow

The first is slightly haikuish in the way it obliquely discusses a wind; the second re-uses a very over-done haiku theme, to wit: life goes on, or–more specifically–winter snow won’t win; but the theme is slightly warped toward freshness with the use of something a reader will take to represent a cohort of winter rather than a counter to it, until he realizes the cause of rotting.

Also in the notebook this bit of High Sagacity: “The Eastern Wise Man attempts to reduce his awareness to the size of his experience; the Western Wise Man attempts to increase the size of his experience to the size of his awareness.” Yep, I’ve always been Eurochauvinistic.

From today:

rotting log;
nothing else of the forest floor
showing through the snow.

Tags:

Leave a Reply

Claude Monet « POETICKS

Archive for the ‘Claude Monet’ Category

Entry 1078 — An Analysis of a Mathexpressive Poem

Friday, April 19th, 2013

A few people have told me (I don’t know how seriously) that they have not been able to figure out all the pieces I have in my latest entry in my Scientific American blog, and a few of mine colleagues even claim I can’t multiply.  Ergo, I have an excuse to blither about one of my poems.  I’ve chosen one I think the easiest to defend.  First, though, here’s Monet’s The Regatta at Argenteuil.  It’s important for one trying to understand my poem to know of it because it is central to the poem (as the third poem in my triptych makes clear with a full reproduction of it).

TheRegattaAtArgenteuil

Okay, to begin with the simplicities of the poem below, a person encountering it must be aware that it is a long division example.  That is indicated by two symbols: the one with the word, “poem,” inside it, and the line   under the sailboat.  The first, so far as I’m aware, has no formal name, so I call it a dividend shed.  The line is a remainder line.  The two together, along with the placement of the other elements of the poem, one where a long division’s quotient would be, one where its divisor would be, one where the product of the two would be, and one under the remainder line where a remainder would be, clinch the poem’s definition as long division.

MonetBoats1-FinalCopy
Now, then, anyone remembering his long division from grade school, should understand that the poem is claiming five things:

(1) that the text the painter who is unsleeping a day long ago multiplied times the scribbled sketch, or whatever it is to the left of the dividend shed equals the sailboat shown;

(2) that the sailboat is larger in value that either the painter or the sketch;

(3) that the addition of the letter fragments under the remainder line to the sailboat image makes the sailboat equal the poem referred to above it;

(4) that the the sailboat should be considered almost equal to the poem;

(5) that the letter fragments, or whatever it is that they represent must be less in value than any of the other elements of the poem with the possible exception of the quotient.

(2) and (5) are decidedly less important than the other three, but can still be important.

I could easily claim that the poem is wholly accurate mathematically by giving the painter a value of 2, the sketch a value of 7, the sailboat a value of 14, the fragmented letters a value of 3 and the poem a value of 17.  Arbitrary?  Sure–but by definition as Grummanomical values of the elements mathematically correct however silly.  (And I would contend that if I had time, I could given them Grummanomical poetic values most people would find acceptable, and–in fact–I believe one of the virtues of such a poem is that it will compel some to consider such things–at least to the extent of wondering how much value to give a painter’s activity, how much to a sketch, and whether a poem is genuinely better than either, or the like.)

7into17

I am including the above in my entry to help those a little fuzzy about long division (and I was definitely not unfuzzy about it when I began making long division poems, and still sometimes have to stop and think for more than a few minutes at times to figure out just what one of my creations is doing).   My poem imitates it in every respect except that it does what it does with non-numerical terms rather than with numbers.  I hope, however, that someone encountering it without knowing much or anything about such poems will at least find things to like in it such as the little poem about the painter, or the idea of the childish sketch as perhaps the basis of what would become a Grand Painting.  Some, I believe, would enjoy recognizing the sailboat as the one in Monet’s masterpiece, too.  But what is most important aesthetically about the work is what it does as a mathematical operation.  That operation must make poetic sense if the work is to be effective.  Needles to say, I claim it does.

To consider the question, we must break down the long division operation the poem depicts into its components.  First of all, there is the multiplication of the sketch by what the painter is doing to get the sailboat–the painting of the sailboat, that is, sketch times something done by a painter almost having to yield a picture of some sort.  Does this make sense?  Clearly, a painter must carry out an operation on some initial sketch or idea or equivalent thereof to get into a painting, so I don’t see how one can wholly reject painter operating on sketch yields portion of painting as analogous to . . . 2 operating on 7 to yield 14.  But there is more to it than that, if only to those of us who think of multiplication as magic, and are still in touch with the way we felt when the idea that 2 times 7 could make 14 was new to us.  That is, just after we had internalized the remarkable mechanism for carrying out multiplication.  For us, the poem’s painter is using his painting mechanism to hugely enlarge a sketch the way the operation of multiplication (usually) hugely enlarges a number.  Doing so in a kind of concealed magical way unlike mere addition does.  A three-dimensional way.

At this point, the question arises as to whether the sailboat nearly equal to a poem.  That’s obviously a subjective matter.  Those who like sailboats (and poems) will tend to say yes.  Note, by the way, that “poem” here does not mean what I say it mean verosophically, but as what one of my dictionaries has it: “something suggesting a poem.”  Here the context–a work of art–makes it impossible to take the word literally,–and moreover, of taking it to mean not just something suggesting a poem, but something suggestion a master-poem.

Well, not quite here: the penciled informality of the word, “poem,” counters the idea that a super-poem is being referred to, and the sailboat is only a black and white portion of a great painting, not a great painting by itself.  We know it’s on its way to being that, but the multiplication is only telling us of it as a pleasant step, not anywhere close to being a realized goal.

The remainder, fragmented words, add very little to it, but we will later see that they are fragments of the phrase, “the faint sound of the unarrestable steps of Time.”  Again, it’s a subjective matter as to whether these words could deepen anything sufficiently to enable it to suggest a poem.  I say it does.  But even if not, I think it would be hard to claim that the addition of such words to a visual image could not be called a plausible attempt to mathematically increase the image’s value.

In conclusion, I claim that the poem carries out the operation of long division in two steps, one multiplicative, the other additive, to valuable aesthetic effect.  Elsewhere I have shown how, according to my thinking, it will put someone one appreciative of it into a Manywhere-at-Once partly in the verbal section of his brain and partly in the mathematical section of it.  The next poem in the triptych goes somewhat further; the sequence’s final poem brings everything to a climax–I hope.

.

Entry 931 — Continuing the Monet Sequence

Friday, November 23rd, 2012

Finally into my creative-flow zone this morning after thinking I never again would be, I produced the following, which is the fourth frame in a sequence devoted to Monet I hope to continue:

Here’s the frame just before the above one, to provide context:

I’ve had it here before, I’m pretty sure, but if you look carefully, you’ll see a few small changes I’ve made to it since then.  I still think it’s stupendously fine.  Urp.

.

Moribund Facekvetch « POETICKS

Archive for the ‘Moribund Facekvetch’ Category

Entry 584 — An & & My Full Triptych

Monday, December 5th, 2011

It seems that almost every time I seem to be getting productive, something knocks me down.  This time it’s only a lost entry–this one, that I was trying to correct some detail of and lost in the process–without realizing it, so was not able to try to find the lost material by backing up until it was too late.  So now I have to spend an hour or so, restoring what I can recall of what was here two days ago. 

 One item was this by Moribund Face:
 
 

And all three of my frames of “Triptych for Tom Phillips”:

About the ampersand, I commented something about how it expressed the essence of “andness.”  I loved the way its bird regurgitated what looked like all of itself, while looking to continue “anding” forever.  I said little about my full triptych except that if you click on them, you’ll see a larger image of them which may be helpful although still very small–and in black&white.  The original frames are each eleven by seventeen.  Oh, one thing I did point out was that the frames are about, “departure,” “journey” and “arrival,” and are intended to be about them in the largest sense, but particularly about them with regard to arriving–for either an engagent of it or its author.

* * *

Sunday, 4 October 2011.  Sunday is hazy to me now, three days in the past as it is.  I played tennis early in the morning–badly.  I didn’t return to my Shakespeare book, but evidentally got a blog entry posted, and probably wrote an exhibition hand-out or two.

.

Entry 386 — 4 Mathemaku from c. 2005 « POETICKS

Entry 386 — 4 Mathemaku from c. 2005

As of part of my continuing neurotic habit of adding small projects to my over-extendedness, I began going through my old blog entries to find out when I made various mathemaku of mine, for I posted all of them at my blog, I think, as I finished them (and even when sketching some of them, as well as when revising them).  I’m now up to my 600th entry.   I was happily reminded of the many frames I’ve done for my Long Division of Poetry sequence: around thirty, I’m pretty sure.  I found one sub-sequence that I quite like and don’t think I’ve ever posted as a sequence:

.

.

.

I’m not sure whether or not the following frame should be considered at extension of this little sequence.  Originally, I added it simply because I thought it nice, but not worth an entry to itself.  Now I begin to see how it may connect to the other two. . . .

.

Not that any woman ever drove me to drink.  Wait, women were the reason I drank: I only went to bars for the strippers, except the few times I wanted to watch Lakers’ games before I had a television.  I drank more beers (always beers though I never liked the taste of beer) than needed to cover the cost of being there mainly to make the strippers look good.

3 Responses to “Entry 386 — 4 Mathemaku from c. 2005”

  1. Kevin Kelly says:

    You’re going to upset the feminists with that last comment, mister. By the way, the copy editor in me tells me there is some grammatical hell going on in your opening graph for this entry — i.e. “now” disguised as “not,” and read the first sentence out loud to yourself. Regarding the mathemaku, I think the first one is perfect already, and the others are unnecessary.

  2. Bob Grumman says:

    Well, thanks for the copy editing, Kevin. As for your literary criticism, I’m afraid I have over 30 other divisions of “poetry” logic would require you to say were unnecessary. But no problem: now that you’re a Californian, your literary opinions don’t count no more.

    Note, despite your comment, I have approved you as a commenter here. Just shows what kind of person I am, right?

    –Robbit

  3. Kevin Kelly says:

    You seem to be implying that you can outperfect perfection. That’s so Grummanly of you.

Leave a Reply

Entry 454 — Mathemaku-in-Progress « POETICKS

Entry 454 — Mathemaku-in-Progress

I continue to believe someday people will be interested in how various poems of mine came about.  Hence, the following three stages of my unfinished “Cursive Mathemaku, No. 2″:

.

.

.

.

I scribbled notes for version one, then took weeks to draw my ideas at Paint Shop, and more weeks to put them together in a work something like version one, which is probably the third version of the finished base of the poem.  Almost two months went by before I dared add the final cursive lines I always meant the work to have to make version two.  Over a week went by before I made (today) the more well-thought-out third version.  I’m pretty sure both that the third version (already revised two or three times–modestly) is the one I’ll go with.  I’m looking forward to adding colors, with a good idea of what they’ll be, although I never go with all or even most of the colors I use in a work.

2 Responses to “Entry 454 — Mathemaku-in-Progress”

  1. hyperpoesia says:

    i love these, bob!

  2. Bob Grumman says:

    Hey, thanks for the good words, Maria. As soon as I saw them, I thought of your embroidered poems and how similar my scribbled poems have in common with them–a kind of looseness, different-colored threads, domesticity (?), sensitivity (I hope!). Main thing is how much fun they are!

    –Bob

Leave a Reply

Entry 589 — A Spin-Off « POETICKS

Entry 589 — A Spin-Off

The poem below is something I spun off the mathemaku I posted yesterday.  I made it mainly because I wanted to use a complete long divion poem as a term in a larger long division–something I’ve done once before but have never been satisfied with. 

 

* * *

Friday, 9 December 2011, 8 A.M.   Now that I’m starting to get things done, my luck has soured.   A while ago I was getting ready to take the three framed works I now have for counter-display to the Arts&Humanities Council office.  I could only find two.  I was carrying the missing one around in my bicycle basket a few days ago.  Looks like someone grabbed it.  Unless I found a some incredibly stupid place to hide it from myself here.   Luckily the frame was a cheap one, and the poem, which I’m sure the ones who stole it had not interest in (if they stole it for the poem, I’d be very pleased) is about the easiest of the ones I have to zap out another copy of.  It’s the “Hi” one.  But I’m out ten dollars or so, and have to ride out to get another frame, a wearying chore that upsets my plans for the day.

It is now a little after nine.  Just as I was about to leave to get a new frame and take care of a few other errands, I found the “stolen” work.  It was in a packing envelope (as I remembered it had been) and right in the chair I would naturally have put it in after getting back from the bike ride I’d had it with me on.  My jacket was draped over it, but not entirely over it.  I should have looked where it was as soon as I thought it lost.  I’m not going senile–I’ve been doing things like that all my life.  I must say, I feel a lot better.  And something good came from it: needing another copy of the poem, I fooled around with it at Paint Shop and improved it.  (Hey, that counts as my work for day on exhibition-related matters!)

It’s now eleven.  I did some more work concerned with the exhibition: I went to the A&H office and talked to Judy, the lady in charge.  I got a better idea of things from her–such as the date of the opening (3 January 2012).

5 P.M. and I’ve corrected my “A Christmas Mathemaku,” which I’ve always considered a potential crowd pleaser, and done a write-up on it.  I plan to leave a framed copy of it at the Grumman Exhibition Center on Monday.

 . 

easy tracking
Order Flower Bouquet

Leave a Reply

Entry 133 — Somewhat Awake Again, I Think « POETICKS

Entry 133 — Somewhat Awake Again, I Think

I simply disconnected from my blog–just didn’t think of it for about a week until a day or two ago.  Then last night for some reason I started thinking about haiku and came up with the following poems that I thought worth making this entry for:

.

.                            early April night:
.                            barely a single haiku
.                            of moonlight in it

.

.                            the street’s cherry blooms,
.                            dazzling, yet almost grey
.                            besides the haiku’s

.

.

.

.

.

.

Tags:

Leave a Reply

Pluraphrase « POETICKS

Archive for the ‘Pluraphrase’ Category

Entry 569 — Sample Hand-Out for Show

Sunday, November 20th, 2011

 

Mathemaku for William Blake

This is one of my favorites of my own poems.   Blake is not a central hero of mine, but I do like some of his poems and a lot of passages from his work, particularly the wonderful:

                       To see a world in a grain of sand
                       And a heaven in a wild flower,
                       Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
                       And eternity in an hour.

In my poem the grain of sand is the dividend (that’s what you divide into, for those of you who may have forgotten the terminology—and it took me a long time to remember what was what in long division when I started making long division poems).  Most of one world that might be in it is the many-color design under it.  My (very loose) idea was to say that the right kind of eyesight can multiply a dreary day into a wonderful world.  Add ripples, or an influence spreading out from that world, to it, and you’ll get what Blake found in a grain of sand.

I thought of the “right kind of eyesight” (or, really, over-all sensitivity) as being “unlessoned” or without much formal education and therefore able to see things in an unconventional way, like Blake did.  I liked the pun the word makes with “un-lessened,” or “not reduced.”  I added “lane-loving” because I think of lanes as wandery and out in the country, sure to go to interesting, happy places. 

Poets are usually taught no avoid adjectives as much as possible, but I like them.  That’s why I have two in my quotient (the top part) and three in my divisor (what goes into the dividend).   I do try for unusual ones, though, such as “stumbled-inert,” whose meaning I hope I don’t have to spell out.

I tried to make my poem visually appealing, but carried out very few visual poetry tricks,   “stum  
bled” does stumble, and the day is kind of pinched; I think the ripples ripple, and the grain of sand is packed tight.  

Diary for 19 November 2011, 6 P.M.: another okay day.  Tennis in the morning followed by a snack and conversation with my teammates at a MacDonald’s.  Back here, tired, but able after a short nap to take care of my blog and one item for my exhibition at the same time by working up a curriculum vitae for the exhibition which I could post as the day’s blog entry.  I already had one of these but it was a little out-of-date, and in need of a bit of revision.  It took more than on hour to take care of, for I improved it quite a bit.  Still tired, I had troube getting around to my book.  I spent some time, off and on, playing Civilization or reading the Tom Clancy novel I started a few days ago, to avoid the book.  I finally got to it, although I didn’t do too much work on it, just enough to feel I’d done my duty.  I made up a little for that by writing a good longish commentary on another of the poems that will be in my exhibit, “Mathemaku in Praise of Language.”  I may get a little more work done today, but I doubt it.

.

 

Entry 372 — Mathemaku Still in Progress

Tuesday, February 8th, 2011

If I ever come to be seen worth wide critical attention as a poet, I should be easy to write about, locked into so few flourishes as I am, such as “the the” and–now in this piece, Basho’s “old pond.”  I was wondering whether I should go with “the bookshop’s mood or “a bookshop’s mood” when Basho struck.  I love it!

Just one word and a trivial re-arrangement of words, but I consider it major.  (At times like this I truly truly don’t care that how much less the world’s opinion of my work is than mine.)

We must add another allusion to my technalysis of this poem, describing it as solidifying the poem’s unifying principal (and archetypality), Basho’s “old pond” being, for one thing, a juxtaphor for eternity.  Strengthening its haiku-tone, as well.  But mainly (I hope) making the mood presented (and the mood built) a pond.  Water, quietude, sounds of nature . . .

Oh, “old” gives the poem another euphony/assonance, too.

It also now has a bit of ornamental pond-color.  Although the letters of the sub-dividend product are a much lighter gray on my other computer than they are on this one, the one I use to view my blog.

Entry 371 — My New Mathemaku, Updated

Monday, February 7th, 2011

Updated, but probably not finished, although I consider the dividend set:

Now to my pluraphrase of this poem I have to add that the dividend is a quotation from Wallace Stevens’s “On the Dump,” one of my all-time favorite poems, so brings that poem’s concern with the nature of metaphor, (sensual) fascination with the seasons and the final essence of existence to it.  It’s another fresh expression, too, because still a shock to most minds, and certainly unexpected in this poem.  It also provides the poem, I think, with a unifying principle, the idea of language’s being on the precipice or “soon” to (“:”) bring one to the the making, at least to me, enough sense for a poem.

Incidentally, one thing a pluraphrase should do that I neglected to mention is determine a poem’s level of archetypality.   Mine seems to me, with “the the” now in it, to do that at the highest level with the search for the meaning of existence.  Stars are archetypal.  The struggle to express oneself seems to me moderately archetypal.

Entry 370 — A New Mathemaku

Sunday, February 6th, 2011

It’ll be “Mathemaku Something-or-Other” when I figure out how many mathemaku I’ve now composed.  Close to a hundred, I’m sure.

Frankly, I don’t know what to make of this.  Whether I keep it or not will depend on what others say about it.  I made it as an improvisation using “soon:,” so as not to lose the latter due to my revision of the poem it was in.  The sub-dividend product is a fragment of my standard Poem poem semi-automatic imagerying.

It is, in fact, a near-perfect candidate for a pluraphrase.  Which I’ll add later today.

* * * * *

Okay, here’s my pluraphrase (with thanks to Conrad Didiodato, whom made a comment to my entry for yesterday that I ought to “flesh out” my description of the pluraphrase by demonstrating its operation on some classical poem.  That didn’t appeal to me, classical poems having been more than sufficiently discussed, but doing it for a poem I’d just been working on did.  It ought to test as well as demonstrate the procedure–and maybe help me with my poem, which it may well have, it turns out.  Time to start it.

After a note to the fore: what follows is to be taken as an attempt, an intelligent attempt, to prove a definitive pluraphrase of the poem treated, not a claim to do so.

1. According to this poem, if you divide “nowhere” by “language,” you’ll get “soon:,” with a remainder of “stars,  eternally listened-to.”  The poem also indicates that multiplying “language” by “soon:” equals “lavender streets slowly asked further and further into the depths of the bookshop’s near-holy mood.”

2. “soon” is an adjective indicating an event that has not yet occurred, a what-will-happen in the near future.  An expectation of something interesting to come is thus connoted, a connotation emphasized by the use of the colon, a punctuation mark indicating something to follow.  “Language” is the main human means of expression, communicated expression, so the metaphor, “language” times “soon:” suggests some sort message of consequence that is on the threshold of appearing.  The arithmetic of the poem  equates this message-to-come with “lavender streets,” or a path not likely to be real because of its color so a fairyland or dream path–through a town or city because a “street,” which has urban connotations, and because entering in some way a bookshop’s mood, which places it in a center of trade.

The street does not go in the mood but is “slowly asked” into it, “asked” serving as a metaphor for “go.”  We are not told who or what is doing the asking, ever.  A feature of many of the best poems is details left to puzzle the reader into subjective but potentially intriguing never quite sure answers.  For instance, that here the draw of the books in the shop is strong enough to invite a street, and those on it, into the shop.  It’s subtle, though, or so its slowness suggests.  And a production is being made of the asking, since ordinarily to ask something takes but a moment.  It’s important.

The personification of the bookshop as a creature capable of experiencing a mood clearly makes “mood” a metaphor” for “ambiance.”  This ambiance is “near-holy” for some unspecified reason, probably having something to do with language, books, literature, the word.  Something complex since the street apparently goes quite deeply into the mood–and, as I’ve just pointed out, slowly.  With perhaps deliberation.  Not on whim.

In keeping with “soonness,” the street reaches no final point, it is in the process of going somewhere.  Something is building.

If “stars,  eternally listened-to” is added (and the addition needn’t be metaphors since additions are not confined to mathematics) to the image of the street descending into the bookshop (or bookshop’s “mood”), we somehow get “nowhere.”  Or so the arithmetic requires us to accept.  Stars are (effectually, for human beings) eternal, and ‘listened-to” must be a metaphor for attended to or the like.  Or a reference to the music of the spheres, making what’s going on a mystically experience.  It would seem to be intended to be awe- inspiring.  Hence, for it to contribute, with a perhaps questing street, perhaps questioning street, to nowhere seems a severe anticlimax, or a joke.  Nothing makes sense except that the view expressed is that our greatest efforts lead nowhere.  Which I don’t like.  If I can improve the poem, from my point of view, by changing the dividend, which I may well do, it will demonstrate the value for a poet of a close reading of his work.

My pluraphrase is far from finished, though.  We have the technalysis to get through–and, in passing, I have to say that that is a beautiful term, I must say, even if no one but I will ever use it.  Melodation?  Well, the euphony of “nowhere,” “slowly,” “holy,” “soon:,” “into,” “shop’s” “mood,” “to” and “star,” with the first two carrying off an assonance, and the long-u ones possibly assonant with each other, too.  The “uhr”-rhymes, and backward rhyme of “lang” with “lav.”  A few instances of assonance, alliteration and consonance, but no more than you’d get in a prose passage of comparable length.  I would say that the pleasant sound of the sub-dividend product’s text adds nicely to its fairy-flow, but that melodation is not important in the poem.  No visio-aesthetic effects are present, or anything else unusual except, obviously, the matheasthetic effects.

The mpoem’s being in the form of a long division example, the chief of these, allow the metaphors of multiplication and addition already described in the close reading–but also the over-all metaphor of a “long-division machine” chugging along to produce the full meaning of the poem.  This provides a tone of inevitability, of certainty, of this is the way things truly are.  The ambiance of mathematics caused by the remainder line, and what I call the dividend-shed, is in what should be a stimulating tension with the ambience of the poem’s verbal appearance–as a poem.  Extreme abstraction versus the concreteness of the poetic details, science versus art, reason versus intuition.  All of which makes an enormous contribution to the poem’s freshness, since very few poems are mathematical.

The final function of an artwork is to cause a person to experience the familiar unexpectedly, here with long division yielding an emotional image-complex some engagents of the poem will find familiar.  Too much unfamiliarity for those without some experience of poems like this one.  Which reminds me that since this poem has a standard form, at least for this poet’s work, a long-division example–and, more generally, an equation, it alludes to other poems of its kind.  No other allusions seem present.

Part of the poem’s freshification, too, are “lavender street” since few streets are lavender, the idea of a street’s being “asked” into something, the idea of stars as “listened-to,” or a bookshop’s having a mood.  The breaking up of the poem into five discrete images is easy enough to follow but different enough to be fresh.

That’s it for the pluraphrase.  I think I’ll make the dividend “the the.”  The only thing I have against that is that I’ve used that before more than once.  I’ll probably do more with the look of the thing, add colors.  I’ve had thoughts from the beginning of giving it a background, with words.

Entry 369 — A Discussion of the Pluraphrase

Saturday, February 5th, 2011

In his kind blog entry on me the other day, Geof Huth pointed out a difference between the two of us that got me thinking.  It was that I need to know the meaning of each of my poems, whereas he doesn’t mind not knowing what a particular poem of his means, and sometimes doesn’t.  As is often the case, he was half right.  Certainly, I have a greater need to know the meaning of my poems than he has to know the meaning of his.  Never do I expect fully to know the meaning of a poem of mine, however.  Indeed, if I too quickly maxolutely grasp a poem’s meaning, I feel pretty certain it isn’t very good.

If by “understanding the meaning” we mean understanding the verbal meaning.  I mean far more than that by the term, though, for one can have only a very hazy verbal understanding of some poems but a visceral understanding of them that more than makes up for it.  Which I suspect Geof needs.  Does a poem make sense as an arrangement of elements?  Does it sound or look aesthetically pleasing in some important manner?

Zogwog.  I played tennis this morning.  On the way back on my bike I thought of how I was going to soar through this entry.  I had what I was going to say all figured out.  The result would be a description of something I call “the pluraphrase,” that I came up with twenty years or so ago.  It’s basically an analysis of a poem so full that, if carried out with skill, should permanently nail a poem.  I think no poem can be considered effective if no one can come up with a pluraphrase of it a reasonable number of others agree is sound and reasonably complete.   Effective as a poem, I mean.

For some reason, I’m swigging every whose where, not sure why.  Will try to get a grip on mineself and concentrate.

First there’s the paraphrase, which is a summary of what the poem’s words and graphics, if any, mainly denote,  connote and clearly allude to via quotations, symbols or other “advertances,” as I call them.  If you can’t make one for a given poem, either you or it is defective.  But there is much more to a poem than what a paraphrase tells you about it.

One thing is what a close reading uncovers.  Which should be everything a poem’s words and graphics, if any, denote,  connote and allude to.

Finally, and in my view most important, is the pluraphrase.  That’s the close reading plus the . . . technalysis, my new-today term for an analysis of what a poem does technically.  To wit: its melodation, or everything regarding what it does with sound–rhyme, meter, auditory shaping–and anything that contributes to the poem’s connotational or allusional ability (which can be great–for instance, what the sonnet-shape does as an advertance to the history of the sonnet in the West); its visio-aesthetic effects, or what its visual elements beyond the conventional shape of its letters, punctuation marks and other textemes do for it decoratively or visiopoetically; its audio-aesthetic effects, or what its auditory elements beyond the conventional sound of its syllables do for it decoratively or beyond that to make it a sound poem, if that’s what it is; its linguitechnics or its appropriate misuse of grammar for aesthetically meaningful language poetry effects; its freshification (I know, I need a better term for this, but I’m ad hoccing at the moment), which in conventional poetry is primarily its use of fresh diction or  subject matter–particularly in the case of surrealistic and jump-cut poetry, of fresh juxtapositions of images; mathaesthetic effects, or the use of mathematical operations on non-mathematical terms as in my mathemaku; miscaesthetic (miscellaneous aesthetic) effects or the contribution of its gustatory, olfactory, tactile, or the like in some aesthetically meaningful way.

No doubt there are elements of poetry I’ve overlooked.  Let me know about them, please.  I truly want to be complete.

My view, as stated, is that no poem that cannot be given a reasonably full and coherent pluraphrase can be effective.  My only evaluative uncertainty is whether or not a poem for which no reasonably full and coherent close reading exists can be considered effective–as a poem.  Such a text may prove sufficiently audio-aesthetically or visio-aesthetically pleasing to be considered effective as music (textual music) or visimagery (textual visimagery), but not as poetry, which needs to be verbo-aesthetically compelling to qualify as an effective poem.  For instance, Gertrude Stein’s buttons, which are not poems but short pieces of evocature, would be effective as prose if they could be shown to make verbal sense.  Stephen-Paul Martin did that for one of them to my satisfaction in a book whose title escapes me, and someone else did the same for another, I vaguely recall.  Marjory Perloff failed to do it for a number of them.  As is, the most you can say for them is that they may be somewhat effective pieces of music.

Getting back to how much a poet should know about his own poems, I don’t think he ought to make a pluraphrase of everyone of them.  I haven’t of mine.  But he ought to have some feel for whether a poem of his could be pluraphrased, and whether at least some of its elements were superior.  I’m sure that most poets know these things in some way.  Sometimes intense analysis is necessary, I think.  Unless a single pleasing effect is enough for you, and you don’t care about the unifying principle I believe every poem needs to make it to the top.

My temperament is such that I enjoy analysis.  I find it almost always useful.  True, sometimes one’s analysis can lead one astry.  More often it helps, I believe.  I now believe it has with regard to the mathemaku Geof posted of mine in his little celebration of my birthday the other day.  The version he posted almost convinced me I should have “soon:” as its quotient instead of “Persephone.”  Last night, thanks to analysis, to trying to fathom the full meaning of the poem, I concluded I was wrong.  “Persephone” is definitely better.  The quotient times “mystery” is supposed to equal the springlike effect of language on the world, according to my analysis, so multiplying it by “Persephone,” the goddess of spring, will clearly allow this while multiplying it by “soon:” will not clearly do it.  The idea of soon something will follow won’t suggest it to many, I don’t think.  And although I tried hard to think of how language could be thought to have anything to do with “soonness,” I couldn’t.  Nor did mystery.  If it had, then “soon:” wouldn’t have had to.  “Persephone” may be a tick too overt, but I’d rather be too clear than unclear.  Besides, it’s “Persephone” in its sole hard copy publication.

* * *

On my bike, I imagined I’d be able to make this entry a wonderful source for students of poetry that no college could be without.  It didn’t work out that way.  I do hope to return to it sometime and improve it.

John Bloomberg-Rissman « POETICKS

Archive for the ‘John Bloomberg-Rissman’ Category

Entry 862 — What’s A Literary Critic?

Saturday, September 15th, 2012

There’s a discussion at leafepress.com the title of which is, “What is Literary Criticism? What is a Literary Critic?” It’s mainly between Conrad DiDiodato and John Bloomberg-Rissman, but Ed Baker takes a few potshots at the others, basically reiterating the standard belief of the romantic poet that criticism is irrelevant to poets.

The discussion annoyed me because it made no references to my criticism. Of course, I didn’t really expect it to, although Conrad knows a little of my work, but I have trouble listening to people taking tenth-rate critics seriously when my work is available. Yes, I am that arrogantly convinced of the value of my criticism. Not that I’m all that sure it’s any good, but that I am positive that it’s many orders of magnitude better than Derrida’s, say, or DeMan’s, or that moron Foucault, which these guys seem to admire (although they do seem to be familiar with a wide range of critics, some of whom I don’t take as tenth-rate, like Cleanth Brooks.

The discussion annoyed me more because, like so many such discussions, it starts nowhere, really, and splathers inconclusively severalwhere. Its central defect is absence of defined axiom-setting terms—due to the standard belief of its participants that “artworks . . . can NEVER be fully unpacked.” The truth is that any artwork can be unpacked sufficiently to satisfy any sane person. Just as the distance from my house to yours can be measured sufficiently to satisfy any sane person although it can never be measure perfectly.

This absence of defined terms allows them to say sometimes interesting things, and not worry about contradiction. And it satisfies the political need of the naïve to feel certain all beliefs are equally true/false, just as all persons are equally good/bad. The only problem with it is that it’s nonsense. This is a problem, because false beliefs are much more likely to lead to grief than true beliefs—as every knows intuitively but intellectuals keep out of their verbal awarenesses. For example, an intellectual won’t make a fifty-foot swan dive into a pool whose water he knows is frozen because his reptile brain will give him nausea at the thought of doing so. But the nausea will never work its way up into his verbal awareness and bother him with the possibility that a belief that a fifty-foot dive into a pool of solid ice is harmful is true whereas a belief that it is not harmful is false.

I know. Simplistic. But in the final analysis, true.

I began this expecting simply to answer the questions in the title of the leafepress.com discussion. No, not answer them, just scatter a few thoughts concerning them. I’ve elsewhere answered the questions pretty well, I believe, although I’m not sure when or where. Right now, however, I have one new thought (for me) about the subject: that there is an important difference between a literary critic and a literary appreciator. A literary critic tells you—make that, “tries to tell you”—everything important to know about a particular literary work based on its expressive elements alone. Which will include what is denoted, what connoted and what is explicitly alluded to. It will, I believe, also include what is implicitly alluded strongly enough for most knowledgeable engagents of the work under analysis to connect to. “Fourscore and ten years ago,” for instance, with “Lincoln’s “fourscore and ten years ago” being an explicit reference.

Hmm, I see that I’ve defined a literary critic, except that I left “literary work” undefined. So be it, for now, although it’s easy to define; it’d take too many words for me to bother doing that here (and I’ve done it elsewhere). Oh, one other minor omission: I didn’t say what it is important to know about a literary work. I’ve defined that, too. It wouldn’t take all that many words, but too many for me to bother with here.

Let me turn to what a literary appreciator is. I decided I needed the term because it seems to me my definition of the literary critic is almost identical to any new critic’s. But new critics opposed going beyond the artifact on the page or pages in analyzing it. I believe them correct to dos, but only strictly speaking. I want someone telling me about a poem, say, to tell me things about its maker, including things having little or nothing to do with the poem. Like, Wow, a guy like Ezra Pound could believe in a totally loony economics theory yet write “In a Station of the Metro!” A literary appreciator is a literary critic who also is willing to discuss all kinds of things about a poem beyond what it is as literature. He is not someone who slights literary analysis to do this. He must also avoid finding implicit allusions that aren’t there for any normal person and building wacky psychiatric interpretations out of them the way Freud did and has followers have. As basically all the French critics and their allies have in diverse ways.

Not that there isn’t a place for, say, someone who focuses on what forces in society may have influenced the final form of a poem. Such a person is neither a literary critic nor a literary appreciator; he is a sociological critic of literature.

Before I end I want to mention that I would divide literary critics into two kinds: the practical literary critic and the theoretical literary critic (unless I think of a better name). The first deals with works of literature, each mostly by itself, although he may (and usually should) connect a work to other works of its author, and to like works by others; the second does this also, but presents some kind of theory for the nature and value of a literary work—not just that rhyme is pleasurable, for instance, but why it is. Along the way he will provide a taxonomy of the kinds of literary works he deals with, and a continuing list of the techniques used in them with detailed descriptions of them, and why they are effective.

Above the two kinds of literary critics is the literary philosopher. Such a person is a serious seeker of significant final truths about literature. He will probably also be a philosopher of aesthetics, one seriously seeking significant final truths about all the arts, not just literature. My taxonomy continues upward, finally arriving at the neurophysiological theorist—who is one step below the Total Verospher, who seriously seeks significant final truths about everything!

Urp.

.

Entry 390 — Two Poems from three Years Ago « POETICKS

Entry 390 — Two Poems from three Years Ago

.

Just about three years ago I wrote a version of the following poem:

.             Poem has a question

.             Whose sleep is the sky?
.             For hours and
.             hours Poem
.             wondered.

I improved it just now by deleting its previous two last words, “about that.”

Note: I find that the day after I wrote the above, I “improved” it by adding ten or twelve lines to it.  I hereby disown that version.

The following is a re-done poem I sent a year or more earlier to something going on in Mexico.  I was trying to do something with the show’s theme of International friendship, or something.  Barely worth keeping, I’d say but may some will enjoy it.

Note: as should be obvious from the way I strained tofind things for this entry, I’m still blah.

5 Responses to “Entry 390 — Two Poems from three Years Ago”

  1. marton koppany says:

    Whose sleep is the sky.

  2. Bob Grumman says:

    Aah, you minimalists!

    But possibly yours is an equal but different version of the poem; I like Poem physically in his poems, though, and the emphasis on the time the question intrigues him. There’s even a juxtaphor (implicit metaphor) between the motion of the sky and the motion of Poem’s wonder–for me, at any rate.

  3. marton koppany says:

    It just came to my mind as a possible “answer” to Poem’s “question”. Perhaps, yes, because he was physically there. :-)

  4. Kevin Kelly says:

    I’m still working my way in reverse (top to bottom) on your blog, Bobby, so I may find more like these, but I think there’s something really interesting going on in “Mathemaku No. 21,” specifically in the figure after the minus sign. I like the possibilities with the reverse type creating new shapes inside those already created in the mashing up of letters.

  5. Bob Grumman says:

    Thanks for the look, Kevin.

Leave a Reply