A day late with this, again because I thought I marked it “public” but had not.
I was thinking about my Poems the other day after reading the three poems in the latest issue of The New Criterion, and wondering how my Poem poems compared with them. One was a landscape in rhymes at the end of some kind of 5-beat lines that was pretty good. The second by someone else but in shorter rhymed free verse lines about a more intimate landscape featuring a glove wedged in a tennis court fence that I also liked. The third was unrhymed free verse about two scenes with commentary I found a little overwrought. One of those poems I don’t much like but can’t say has much wrong with it.
Here’s the beginning of my poem from yesterday for comparison:
At the first ocean-wisdom, the lazy questions of the dolphins, folooping around his starplug, centered what thoughts Poem had. Gradually, his vocabulary wore away into warmth, proud to the touch, and galleoned to the top of the laughing April morning unnorming, unnorming, unnorming every worn where a syllable was abled against.
With no particular Poem poem in mind and, needless to say, a desire to find a way of convincing myself that my Poem poems are significantly better than the three I’ve just mentioned, and the many other very much like them except not usually rhyming that I come across in just about all the poetry magazines I’ve been reviewing for Small Press Review, I quickly came up with (1) linguistic enlargement and (2) size of the reality created as the two ingredients of my Poem poems that mainstream poems lack.
Evidence from the above of (1): “folooping,” “starplug,” “galleoned,” “unnorming” and “abled”; or a Joyceation, some kind of nonce-word, a DylanThomic noun as verb, another nonce-coinage, and an adjective as verb. A few Joyceans that seem superior ones to me like “nonciation” and “murmythry” occur later in the poem. Such words say my poem new, which is much more important for me than whatever it is mainstream poems are doing (and one thing they are doing mine don’t try to do although it’s a virtue, is connecting fairly quickly and directly with the majority of their readers). Such words also tend to say my poem more compactly, by combining more than one denotation in a single word, and compactness I consider as important as freshness in a poem.
That the language of my Poem poems increases their compactness means they say more per syllable than conventional poems do; that seems to me evidence that the reality each creates is larger than the reality poems of equal length like the ones in the latest issue of The New Criterion do.
Of course, how large the reality a given poem of mine creates is a subjective matter, although I feel it can be near-objectively argued (in part) by making a list of everything it speaks of plus what it ought to connote to most people. For the list to indicate largeness, though, some kind of near-objective, or plausible, unifying factor needs to be advanced. I had none, I have to say, when I wrote the three poems that became thhe single one I’m now discussing. I had an under-glimmer of a unifying mood while making the present poem that I think fairly effective: the growth of Poem’s celebratory mood of various melodic strands, so to speak, harmonizing and contrasting with each other about . . . ?
Interesting. I think I’m understanding the poem better now. This may be a good thing, but may be a disaster, for I believe I need to revise it, to make it more emotionally logical
More about this tomorrow.
.
a keeper for certain
Thanks, Karl! Whether you meant mine or Marton’s! But I know you meant both, right!?
speaking of yours