Marilyn R. Rosenberg « POETICKS

Archive for the ‘Marilyn R. Rosenberg’ Category

Entry 1453 — One of My Best SPR Columns

Tuesday, August 19th, 2014

When Marilyn emailed me about the publishworthiness of her bookwork, she mentioned that I had reviewed the page I reproduced here yesterday in an old Small Press Review column.  Wondering what I’d said, I looked it up (it’s in this blog’s “Pages” to the right), and like it well enough to post it here.

A New Vizlature Anthology


  Small Press Review, Volume 29, Number 2, February 1997


             Visuelle Poesie aus den USA, edited by Hartmut Andryczuk. 67 pp; 1995; Pa; Hartmut Andryczuk, Postlagernd D-12154, Berlin, Germany


Toward the end of 1995 a new anthology of vizlature, or verbo-visual art, came out of Germany. It was edited by Hartmut Andryczuk. I was sent a copy of it because I have a couple of pieces in it, but–alas–I got no details concerning its price.

Among the sixteen participants in Andryczuk’s anthology is Marilyn R. Rosenberg, quietly one of this country’s premiere vizlateurs for some two decades. She is represented by a landscape-sketch close enough to an outline to double as a map, thus exploiting the tension of the literal versus the abstract. Her piece is all in calligraphic lines of various degrees of thickness and delicacy that delineate clouds (or mountains) forming above water foaming into being among juts of a landmass. The latter includes an area that could be either a tilled field or a lined page, but in either case is a locus of creativity. At various points in the composition are a Q, and an A (to suggest question/answer), three X’s, a C and a T–and, right together, a W, an upside-down W (or M), and a sideways W (or E), to put us in a Japanese-serene country where a breeze can tilt West to East, and all hovers mystically just short of nameability.

In dramatically unbreezeful contrast to Rosenberg’s piece is John Byrum’s “Transnon,” which consists, simply, of “TRA/ NS/ NON” in large white conventional letters against a black background. With the two cardinal directions missing in Rosenberg’s composition (north and south) in it, and black & white . . . and a backwards rendering of the word, “art,” this work seems almost monumentally engaged with ultimate dichotomies.

Two more map/drawing/poems are presented by Richard Kostelanetz, from an early work of his using text-blocks of pertinent city impressions (e.g., “Boutiques,/ mostly in/ basements,/ their names/ as striking/ and transient/ as rockgroups:/ ‘Instant Pants’/ ‘Pomegranate’ . . .”) to represent various blocks of New York such as that defined by First and Second Avenues and St. Mark’s Place. Very local-feeling, intimate, accurate.

A similar kind of opposition is at the heart of one of Nico Vassilakis’s contributions to this volume, “foremmett” (“emmett” being famous visual poet, Emmett Williams). It consists of a square with two parallel lines drawn horizontally across it near its middle; just above the upper line is “BL”; just below the lower line is “RED”; in between them is “UR.” In the corners of the upper section of the diagram the word, “blue,” is repeated; the word, “red,” is repeated in the corners of the lower section, while “purple” is printed once at each end of the narrow middle section. Another minimalist, almost overlookable piece that teems with the blur of science and sensuality, or where blue analysis becomes, or arises from, a red mood. . . .

Three poems by Dick Higgins carry on this kind of letterplay in homage to Jean Dupuy, ina blom and wolf vostell. The first, just four lines in length, demonstrates the technique: “JEAN DUPUY/ NUDE JAY UP/ DUNE JAY UP/ PUN JAY DUE.” Then, following a charming mathematico-visual tribute to his daughter Amy, Karl Kempton does a lyrical take on the moon that includes a partial reflection of the moon as “wo u,” to magically suggest a fragment of “would,” or moon-distant wishfulness.

Chuck Welch, active in mail art since 1978 as “the Crackerjack Kid,” contributes a moving swirl of words enacting Gaea’s flow which ends with “this dream truss/ clerestory/ Gaea’s blueprint,” but also a medallion-sort of visual poem that I liked less well: it looks nice but too boiler-platedly condemns white C(IA)olonialism and genocide, for my taste.

A “cubistic” specimen of Gregory Vincent St. Thomasino’s Go series is here, too, with a more clearly visual poem from the same series that evokes a rescue at sea, a flare filling the sky with o’s while the excitement of the situation fills it with oh’s. St. Thomasino, and many of the other artists in the volume, provide readers with a short artist’s statement, by the way, which are quite useful.

Others with first-rate pieces in this volume are M. B. Corbett, Harriet Bart, Harry Burrus, Spencer Selby, Stephen-Paul Martin, John M. Bennett (who does terrific things with near-empty frames of the tackily rubber-stamped kind well-known to those familiar with his work) and Paul Weidenhoff. All in all, Andryczuk’s anthology gives a valuable if rough idea of the terrain of current American vizlature.

* * * * *

How I wish someone would tell me (in reasonable detail) why in the sixteen years since then, no one in the BigWorld has ever asked me for a piece like it?!  Is it that inferior to the poetry-related pieces in magazines like the Atlantic?  Or too different?  Maybe too clearly politically-incorrect?   Or is it that there is absolutely no one on the look-out for fresh talent? I have little to add to what I said in my column about Marilyn’s piece except that my first impression on seeing it again was that it seemed to me strongly Chinese (which I mean as a Large Compliment) and I again felt enlarged by its Q&A, this time by the ocean seeming to query the land . . . which provided, or was the answer.  I was influenced a lot about some of Marton Koppany’s Q&A-related pieces that I’ve recently been enjoying and writing about.

Note: I corrected a typo or two in my column but left some of my now-obsolete terminology as is.

.

AmazingCounters.com

Entry 1542 — A Book Work

Monday, August 18th, 2014

The following is by Marilyn R. Rosenberg, who wanted to know if I thought a version of it worth publishing (of course!):

QA
.
IT IS, one-of-a-kind, 1987. Tract Series. Pre-bound, black hard cover, 210 archival pages, closed 5 1/2”w x 8 1/2”h.  Misc. media, mostly water color and gouache and black ink.  Pages are filled with black and white Visual Poems and Visual Narratives in lyrical abstracted  poetic  and unknown language.   
.
Group Exhibitions:
1993, Four artists, Ralston Fine Arts, Johnson City TN.
1997, FACE TO FACE: THE HIDDEN SELF, Chappaqua Library Gallery,  Chappaqua NY.  Curator, Berit Schumann
.
Published pages:
 Andryczuk, Hartmut, Herausgeber. TERAZ MOWIE NO. 18B. (Januar 1995), pp. 81-86. (Six visual poems)
.
Andryczuk, Hartmut, Herausgeber. VISUELLE POESIE AUS DEN USA: EXPERIMENTELLE TEXTE, 1995 Siegen, Universitat Gesamthochschule, pp. 57-58. (One visual poem)
* * *
I hope tomorrow to say a little about the piece on the right, which I wrote about (brilliantly, I thought when I read it yesterday) in one of my columns for Small Press Review.

.

AmazingCounters.com

Entry 718 — Something by Marilyn

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

The inconcision of the snow’s translation of the day was middling me deeply into wanly incorrect answers to questions about where to drain the line.  The sun is always somewhere, angry.  Too many misspelled birds, speckling the past.

Hey, here’s something for misspelled eyes and brains: a work by Marilyn Rosenberg at Amanda Earl’s National Poetry Month Site.

.

Entry 193 — A Visual Poem by Marilyn R. Rosenberg

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

Here’s a piece I really like by Marilyn Rosenberg called “Muse We Can’t Return”:

Among the many virtues of Marilyn’s work is what I consider its constantly enhancing verbal and visual inter-referentiality.  Note, for instance, what she does with the beige circles.

To see more of her work, click HERE.

K.S. Ernst « POETICKS

Archive for the ‘K.S. Ernst’ Category

Entry 1645 — Part of Something from 1994

Friday, November 28th, 2014

I was going to write something new for today but it fell apart somewhere before its midpoint.  I have hopes for it, but . . .

So, in place of it, here’s commentary on poetry from an article published twenty years ago that I actually got paid for: 9 pages on all the neglected kinds of poetry then extant (just about all of which are still extant, and neglected).  As is the case with nearly all my poetry commentary/criticism, no one every wrote me about it.

I was going to use just what I said about Kathy Ernst’s “Philosophy,” then thought it might be interesting to present the whole page in media res.  Less work for me, at any rate.  So, here is page 6 from the November/ December issue of Teachers & Writers:

Page6Teachers&Writers.

AmazingCounters.com

Entry 900 — The Anthology from Fantagraphics

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

I got my contributor’s copy of this yesterday.  I don’t love every work in it but I think there are almost no works in it that I’d call poor, and many that I think terrific.  My highest rating is always for works I want to steal from, or steal completely, and I’ve already come across more than ten of these, in just a few fast skims.  My favorite so far in one by Kathy Ernst, “Viole(n)t,” which is . .  I was just about to say  unstealable because anything you could use it or a part of it in would look stupit compared with it.  Then I thought of one way you could steal from it, or from any work: steal just a detail, or–better–a fraction of a detail, just enough so a viewer knowing Kathy’s work wiykd recognize it; this way you could use it as an allusion that might make everything near it seem minor, but not the whole work it was in due to how small it was.  Hey, I think I could make it work!

Note: I think every good poem has stolen elements in it.  It may be the  the more stolen elements it has, the better it is.  No, make that the best poems have the most stolen elements, but some bad poems have a lot of stolen elements, too.

.

Francisco Jose Craveiro de Carvalho « POETICKS

Archive for the ‘Francisco Jose Craveiro de Carvalho’ Category

Entry 1307 — “Portrait of Max Dehn”

Sunday, December 22nd, 2013

Below is a poem from an anthology I’m writing a review of.

PortraitofMaxDehn

It’s by Francisco Jose Craveiro de Carvalho as translated from the Portuguese by Manual Portela.  All it tells us (with a nice touch of surrealistic fantasy) is that Dehn was an emigrant–but it does so with the same kind of inspired empathy with which Keats famously described Ruth, amidst the alien corn. It’s here because I like it, but more because I wanted to say something about the Reviewer’s Delight I felt when, in writing about it, I saw my way to giving a poet what I feel is a high (and appropriate) compliment while also again praising my old favorite, Keats.  Such delights are what make reviewing worth doing no matter how difficult it is at times.

.

language poetry specimen « POETICKS

Archive for the ‘language poetry specimen’ Category

Entry 1207 — The Experioddicist, July 1993, P.4

Sunday, September 8th, 2013

ExperioddicistPage4

Note: I consider Geof’s poem a masterpiece–one of more than a few he’s done I wish I’d done.

.

Entry 942 — “eapt,” by (surprise!) John M. Bennett

Tuesday, December 4th, 2012

The following poem John M. Bennett posted yesterday to Spidertangle and elsewhere, at once struck me as among the very best of the huge number of superior poems he has done.  Partially out of laziness, but partially also to give others a chance to reflect on the poem without the temptation of seeing what I have to say about it and possibly being deflected from their own equal or better discoveries, I am going to just let it sit here uncritiqued today.

eapt

 

flooded haphtic duu

stt’s yr nodte nude

)label streaming( to )ss

ed( cash an )slo

shshed( where the

moumouthless lungch

“lost’s tea cher” )fol

ded yellp(

 

sot ,dusty

.

Entry 369 — A Discussion of the Pluraphrase « POETICKS

Entry 369 — A Discussion of the Pluraphrase

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.

3 Responses to “Entry 369 — A Discussion of the Pluraphrase”

  1. “My view, as stated, is that no poem that cannot be given a reasonably full and coherent pluraphrase can be effective.”

    Bob, can you pick, say, a sonnet by Shakespeare or Petrarch or Hopkins and offer “a reasonably full and coherent pluraphrase” for it? Let’s flesh out this terminology a little bit.

  2. Bob Grumman says:

    Good idea, Conrad. In fact, a while ago I started a book on Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18. A book. My goal was something quite a bit more than “a reasonably full and coherent pluraphrase.” For instance, I listed every instance of alliteration, assonance, rhyme, consonance and euphony in it.

    A good pluraphrase would be very boring to read. The practical critic basically carries out a good enough substitute for one by clicking off what a poem mainly says, how it says it and what’s good and bad about it.

    To give a good example of a pluraphrase, I think I’d do one of a haiku. If I ever do a full essay on it, I guess I’ll have to do one of something standard, probably Sonnet 18. Maybe not, on second thought, because my take on that is non-conformist and would need justification. (I consider it primarily a celebration of summer.) Better that I choose something I can interpret conventionally. I’ll think about it. But remember that I’m very lazy.

    I think some of what I said about it that qualifies as pluraphrasial is here at my blog, findable with a search, maybe even using tags. Or it may be at my previous blog. I’ll check.

  3. Bob Grumman says:

    Sorry, just one entry here, a short one. You’ll have to wait, I guess.

    –Bob

Leave a Reply

Entry 436 — Visual Poetry Intro 1a « POETICKS

Entry 436 — Visual Poetry Intro 1a

According to Billy Collins, E. E. Cummings is, in large part, responsible for the multitude of k-12 poems about leaves or snow

But, guess what, involvement in visual poetry has to begin somewhere.  Beyond that, this particular somewhere, properly appreciated, is a wonderful where to begin at.  Just consider what is going on when a child first encounters, or–better–makes this poem:  suddenly his mindflow splits in two, one half continuing to read, the other watching what he’s reading descend.  For a short while he is thus simultaneously in two parts of his brain, his reading center and visual awareness.  That is, the simple falling letters have put him in the Manywhere-at-Once  I claim is the most valuable thing a poem can take one to.

To a jaundiced adult who no longer remembers the thrill letters doing something visual can be, as he no longer remembers the thrill the first rhymes he heard were, that may not mean much.  But to those lucky enough to have been able to use the experience as a basis for eventually appreciating adult visual poetry, it’s a different story.  Some of those who haven’t may never be able to, for it would appear that some people can’t experience anything in two parts of their brains at once, just as there are people like me who lack the taste buds required to appreciate different varieties of wine.  I’m sure there are others who have never enjoyed visual poetry simply because they’ve never made any effort to.  It is those this essay is aimed at, with the hope it will change their minds about the art.

I need to add, I suppose, that my notion that a person encountering a successful visual poem will end up in two significantly separate portions of his brain is only my theory.  It may well be that it could be tested if the scanning technology is sophisticated enough–and the technicians doing the testing know enough about visual poetry to use the right poems, and the subjects haven’t become immune to the visual effects of the poems due to having seen them too often.  Certainly, eventually my theory will be testable.

The following poem by Cummings, which is a famous variation on the falling letters device, should help them:

But Cummings uses the device much more subtly and complicatedly–  one reads it slowly, back and forth as well as down, without comprehending it at once.   Cummings doesn’t just show us the leaf, either, he uses it to portray loneliness.  For later reading/watchings we have the fun of the three versions of one-ness at the end and the af/fa flip earlier–after the one that starts the poem.

Marton Koppany returns to the same simple falling leaf idea but makes it new with:


In this poem the F suggests to me  a tree thrust almost entirely out of Significant Reality, which has become “all leaves”–framed, I might add, to emphasize the point.  So: as soon as we begin reading, our reading becomes a viewing of a frame followed quickly by the sight of the path now fallen leaves have taken simultaneously with our resumed reading of the text.  Which ends with a wondrous conceptual indication of “the all” that those leaves archetypally are in the life of the earth, and in our own lives.  And that the tree, their mother and relinquisher, has been.  Finally, it is evident that we are witnessing that ” all” in the process of leaving . . . to empty the world.  In short, the archetypal magnitude of one of the four seasons has been captured with almost maximal succinctness.

So endeth lesson number one in this lecture on Why Visual Poetry is a Good Thing.

Note: I need to add, I suppose, that my notion that a person encountering a successful visual poem will end up in two significantly separate portions of his brain is only my theory.  It may well be that it could be tested if the brain- scanning technology is sophisticated enough–and the technicians doing the testing use the right poems, and the subjects haven’t become immune to the visual effects of the poems due to having seen them too often.  Certainly, eventually my theory will be testable.

2 Responses to “Entry 436 — Visual Poetry Intro 1a”

  1. endwar says:

    Hmmm . . . . all leaves in fall.

    Was this one of the response to Dan Waber’s “Fall leaves” project?

    – endwar

  2. Bob Grumman says:

    I’m away from the files in my main computer so can only tell you it was a response to one project of Dan’s, probably the one you mention. Not sure, though, It had to do with work by bp Nichol, though.

Leave a Reply

Entry 581 — My Most-Used Quotient « POETICKS

Entry 581 — My Most-Used Quotient

  

This is the quotient in just about all my twenty or more long divisions of “poetry.”  It’s intended to convey the meaning of Dickinson’s lines about telling the truth, but telling it “slant,” so represents “superior poetic diction.”  That’s all I took it for, for a long time.  I was disturbed, however, that, as a general term that in my division of poetry, almost always multiplies another general term, like “words,” it should yield a general product, not the specific product I always had it yielding.  Take the first division in the series:

My problem with this and the others would possibly never occur to anyone but me, but it bothered me for years: how could I say that slant-words times words (or whatever) should equal the very idiosyncratic graphic the long division claims it does.  Just now, I thought of my way out.  It was to recognize the image of the slant-words as one of an infinite number of such words!  Big thrill, hunh.  Well, to me it meant that there was nothing wrong with having this one instance of poetic diction multiplied by words (in-general) equal the particular instance of–not poetry, but of something almost poetry that needs “friendship” to make it poetry.  (That latter, folks, is an attack on hermetic poetry–if no one gets anything out of your poetry but you, it’s not poetry, even though that may be the case with my poetry.)

If nothing else, you have now been exposed to the kind of nutty need I have to make my mathematical poems mathematically valid, at least in my own mind.(Note: the poem I have posted here is different from both what it was originally and what it was in its last published version.  I think I have it in its final form now, though.   I changed the graphic five or more times because it kept seeming to me that a goose was in it, and I didn’t want no goose in it!

 

* * *

Thursday, 1 December 2011  Not much to report.  I attended a match my tennis team played, and won, 3-0.  I was the back-up for this one.  Very cold (for Florida).  After I got home, I ran again, this time completing a mile.  I went very slowly, finishing with a time about eleven-and-a-half minutes.  I really do think I’ll be able to improve on that.  I worked on “Frame No. 7″ of my long division of poetry series and put an black&white illustration of it on an exhibition hand-out but forgot to write a commentary on it.  I did get this blog entry wholly done, and I consider the work I did on the mathemaku a reasonable day’s work for the exhibition. 

.

Leave a Reply

Entry 583 — The Text of My Triptych « POETICKS

Entry 583 — The Text of My Triptych

 (This is a day late but I had it done in time, honest!  I just forgot to change the “private” setting to “public.”)

For lack of anything else to post today, which is one of my null days, here’s the text of the poem in the sub-dividend product of the frame from “Triptych for Tom Phillips that was in yesterday’s blog entry:

          From is for every bound alled.
          Similarly, if is alled. {urthermore}.
          This is also the.
          + infinity (actually, the symbol for infinity) in port ever.

This is basically something about the allness of the state of from-ness and if-ness. “Urthermore” has something to do with final origins although right now I can’t think what. So does the the from Stevens that whatever “this” refers to is also. Positive infinity is said to be forever in port. All this is a close representation of “arrival,” needing only the graphic shown as the remainder to exactly represent it. The fore-burden of the text (for me) is that a poem is an arrival. Note, however, that this text has three different direction to turn into a departure into. To begin a consideration of one of my most ambitious and complex works that I will say a little more about, maybe, tomorrow.

* * *

Saturday, 3 December 2011, 5 P.M. Not a great day–the least productive since I started my attempt to be culturally methodical. I post my blog entry for the day, but had it done yesterday. The only thing I did so far as the exhibition is concerned is get my triptych printed at Staples, buy three frames for it, and frame one of the two sets I have. It does look nice. But I think I see how I can make another triptych that’s much better.

I also played tennis.

.

Leave a Reply

Entry 369 — A Discussion of the Pluraphrase « POETICKS

Entry 369 — A Discussion of the Pluraphrase

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.

3 Responses to “Entry 369 — A Discussion of the Pluraphrase”

  1. “My view, as stated, is that no poem that cannot be given a reasonably full and coherent pluraphrase can be effective.”

    Bob, can you pick, say, a sonnet by Shakespeare or Petrarch or Hopkins and offer “a reasonably full and coherent pluraphrase” for it? Let’s flesh out this terminology a little bit.

  2. Bob Grumman says:

    Good idea, Conrad. In fact, a while ago I started a book on Shakespeare’s Sonnet 18. A book. My goal was something quite a bit more than “a reasonably full and coherent pluraphrase.” For instance, I listed every instance of alliteration, assonance, rhyme, consonance and euphony in it.

    A good pluraphrase would be very boring to read. The practical critic basically carries out a good enough substitute for one by clicking off what a poem mainly says, how it says it and what’s good and bad about it.

    To give a good example of a pluraphrase, I think I’d do one of a haiku. If I ever do a full essay on it, I guess I’ll have to do one of something standard, probably Sonnet 18. Maybe not, on second thought, because my take on that is non-conformist and would need justification. (I consider it primarily a celebration of summer.) Better that I choose something I can interpret conventionally. I’ll think about it. But remember that I’m very lazy.

    I think some of what I said about it that qualifies as pluraphrasial is here at my blog, findable with a search, maybe even using tags. Or it may be at my previous blog. I’ll check.

  3. Bob Grumman says:

    Sorry, just one entry here, a short one. You’ll have to wait, I guess.

    –Bob

Leave a Reply