David Marine wrote: > on 11/23/02 6:17 AM, johnirving at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > The essence of poetry is verbal and conceptual density. > > Whose definition is this, John? Why do you say this?
Hi David. The definition is entirely my own, and merely a reflection of my comprehension of the form. Looking at it from a distance. It is the broadest definition I could come up with, since it's difficult to define Poetry when it comes in so many forms: formal and structured, haiku, free verse... etc. etc. I'm certain there are better definitions more brilliant, literate men can offer that would broadly categorize the form AND explain it. -I'm simply doing the best "I" can watching from the wings. But I definitely stand by this definition, as it seems to me just as an artist picks up a medium and proceeds to be visual, an essential element of Poetry is picking up the medium (language and words) and doing something with it, particularly something that makes prose prose or not prose. I assume the difference between plain speak (a conversation) is it is by nature 'free flowing and unstructured.' And prose hammers that down a bit. Well, Poetry seems to hammer prose down as well. Hence my view of it as 'condensation.' I've read a lot of poetry, care of Mr. Rice. Really, really good stuff. And the over arching element I can find between a Haiku and free verse is how articulate and careful the author has been with words. Careful in a way that would never pass go in normal conversation OR prose. If Poetry is obtuse, it is because it's so damn literate! People don't 'think out loud' that well. Poems may or may not rhyme, may or may not have rhythmic patterns, etc. etc. but to the best of my knowledge I've never seen one that wasn't succulently precise in it's language. Repetedly, the breath of that carefully chosen language is stunning! So the best defining bridge I know between the archaic classical forms and the modern is this careful compression of thought and word play both shared. -If you know of a better, defining commonality I'd love to hear it and I'll re-define my definition. For now, I prefer my definition as all poetry "seems" to share it, and at the same time it is a definition open ended enough to allow for all types of poetry to arrise from it. > > > Perhaps. As a poet and a longtime reader of poetry, I find the book very > satisfying. Granted, I would guess that readers of Schiller may find > something lacking when they read "Ode to Joy." Yes, it's the Beethoven that > is missing. But it's still a poem. No arguement from me that you find Joni satisfying. That's personal. But what you haven't done is DEFINE poetry or DEFINE WHY The Complete Poems IS poetry. Right or wrong, I have put a definition of poetry on the table: a poem is a literary form that compresses thought and word into it's most (at least hoped for) exacting wordplay as the author can produce. Once I make an a prior statement, nothing is 'relative' to it. It has a position. Right or wrong. True, my a priori statement is itself relative. But once one makes the effort to define a position, then everything falls in place in relation to it. The work, after that point is to defend the a prior statement and it's proofs against the known. and example: a priori statement: "Winter is horrible!!!" Relative to that, lots of things are no longer relative. Cold weather is horrible. Living in Minneapolis in January is horrible. Living in Arizona is grand. a priori statement: "Winter is wonderful, I love the snow. Skiing. The change of seasons..." Relative to that, Living in Minneapolis is January is wonderful. Arizona is the pits. Either a priori statement has truths that contradict it. For the first, the joy of being outdoors building a snow man, then coming in for a hot cup of cocoa. For the second, having to shovel 12 feet of heavy, drifting snow is a pain in the arse. Each a priori statement is called to task to 'defend' it's truth. But relative to itself, it is a TRUTH of it's own where nothing is 'relative' to it. I have put my a priori statement of what is poetry on the table. -The table is yours: 1. What is poetry? and 2. How does The Complete Lyrics fit that definition? Of course, my a priori definition also goes one step further in that it gives me a measuring tool for what makes a good poem (excellence of compression), and what makes bad. -WHY is Complete lyrics good, satisfying poetry besides "I find it satisfying." because on the face of it, saying "I find it satisfying." is really the height of 'personal border.' > > > > > > Actually, he didn't effort a grunt when I posed the question to him. > > Perhaps you could ask him again. And if he says that she is not a poet, > might you ask him to explain why he believes that? I will try to catch him in a good mood and pose the question... > > I would venture to say that many would prefer Joni's poetry to that of > Meredith or Justice (or my favorite, Ashberry). The truth is that their > poetry is rarely read outside of academic circles. The truth is, in fact, > that poetry is rarely read these days at all. Much of it is simply too > abstruse for the average reader. For most people today, the poems of their > everyday lives are written as lyrics. Again, 'preference' is relative. The real meat and potatoes is to nail down and define the a priori definition BEHIND the preference. That's the problem with the negative reviews we've been reading of T'log. -If this CD is sour music, I'd love for these authors to present me with better music and define why T'log doesn't compare! > > > I do understand the distinction that you and Franklin are attempting to make > between poetry and lyrics, between Joni's writing and that of contemporary > academic poets. But the distinction is specious. It's all poetry. Define poetry. Define good poetry. Here's one of my own poems: (from years ago... apologies, apologies... I was young and did not know better...) Is it good poetry? As good as Joni's? Zephyr gas on 8th street hires All-American grass cutters. Sells wonderbread and Coke. Where gas jockeys mull about antiquated islands in wait of cars. Plain. Wholesome. Clean cut. Across billboards hung over the Share Oil Co. lot Streams of gold sun delight an otherwise indolent bluesy morning. We sell Diesel. Quality at a Savings. Zephyr Oil and Gas by mornings early light. >From under a Dodger blue cap Kurt gazes up at me. Even under a clear sky shadows relief his tanned skin Jack Dandy face As with this lot and highway view muted blues and white highlights. Kurt is all grinning innocence Lank blond hair Thin reddish lips. Small Town Middle America Zephyr. Service my dreams. > > > > As a painter, the peers her equal or > > better, just in the southern Cal area alone would populate a small city. > > (Not to cast dispersions on her art. Just a statement of how many good > > artists there are out there doing good stuff.) > > If my math is correct, that would mean that there are about 70 million > painters worldwide producing pieces that are "downright magnificent." Not really... you have to allow for density. Major population centers have more 'Artistes' than other areas... I'd put the number, in the U.S. at 200, 000. Allowing that there are a million working artists (people who make a living at art) and assuming that a quarter of them are worth their salt. That's not allowing for the non working artists... > > > > I would rather contempate her work for what it is: Popular song raised to it's > > highest zeinith. > > You mean like the Iliad? Yeah! Like the Iliad. And Volvos. And Brandy Alexanders... things that are good. > > > This all comes down to the ongoing dialogue about high art vs. popular art. > Everyone draws his or her own borderlines. I'm open to whatever comments you > want to make about Joni's or anyone's work. But the argument that Poetry or > Painting can only exist within one's own personal borders does not advance > understanding, IMO. No. No. No. If there is any great need in the world now it is exactly THIS discussion. The problem with the world isn't borderlines. The problem, and reason nothing substanitive gets done is everyone is reacting to a priori statements without ever examing their a priori statements and holding them up to the harsh light of day. Every bit of reasoning they make flows from this point. What isn't being questioned, or even defined is the point itself. Everyone is defending Borders without any examination the what or why they are defending the thing. George Bush firmly believes he is on a moral ground to defend our national security. Well, if his ground is so moral, and so focused on defense, why would he allow the military to kick out 9 Arabic interpretors (forgive my spelling, it's late), -why would he allow 9 interpretors be kicked out of the millitary simply because they are gay? Especially given the hue and cry that 9-11 happened because we didn't have enough interpretors at work to sift through the billions of bits of information out there... Rest our poor little hearts that we are at least safe enough to allow for some home grown discrimination... "Whew!" --This is a moral position??? This is in the best interest of national security??? Of course he thinks it's moral. (He's allowing it isn't he? And I doubt he considers himself to be a man to do the opposite of what he feels is moral...) Because some a priori statement, belief about gays and their rights, or lack thereof, allows for this position. -The problem is he will never questions the a priori statement to begin with. I don't think it's enough to just rely on feelings or simply say, "It's all relative." To say, 'Everything is relative; you have your position I have mine." is meaningless. Life demands something more than being wishy washy. There is too much at stake. We deperately need a priori positions. My take on the world: Truth exists outside of humanity. For the most part, we can only infere it. But we are gifted with the ability to grope in the dark and make our best stab at truth. Sometimes we're right. Sometimes we're wrong. Nothing wrong with being wrong so long as we're willing to be 'relative' in our position to correct it. But we DO need to define it. And once defined, nothing is relative to it. So long as our "Truth" is continuously held to the highest possible scrutiny, there is always hope of being 'Right.' Define and defend. The world will heal and rise when self-examination becomes a positive attribute. Define and defend poetry. I would certainly be happy to define and defend T'log against any reviewer. -How's that for taking the easy out? Peace. John.
