Does the poem stand alone from the poet? - Page 5


Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: Does the poem stand alone from the poet?

  1. #41
    life imitates art far more than art imitates life...OW
    The only one who can heal you is you.




  2. #42
    Darkkin -- Elsewhere, if memory serves, you have disassociated your work and yourself from metaphor. I believe you have claimed not to 'understand' it. That said, would you please tell me what to call the trope you so elegantly employ to carry your compelling explanation of the relationship between poet and poem in your post #39?



    ________________________________________________

    "I believe in nothing but the holiness of the heart's affections and the Truth of the imagination". Keats, ​Letters

    "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main . . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls -- it tolls for thee. " John Donne, Meditation XVII

  3. #43
    Allegory in tongues...Readers fill in their own context, I just lent a few words. Work stands or falls by itself, but it does not negate an author's style or voice.


  4. #44
    Pelwrath -- I don't think Darkkin was arguing a strict correlation, at all, bur I'll leave that for her to tidy up if she wishes. Methinks, however, there might be a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Your logic is shaky. Arguing polarities, yes--if I can define "the good", then I must have a pretty clear sense of "the bad" to do so successfully. Plato's character Socrates uses this method of argument to chew up his interlocutors in The Republic. But you're trying to use a similar kind of syllogistic reasoning to arrive at acceptable conclusions, and it won't wash To illustrate:

    1. A good poem will stir my emotions
    2. this is a good poem
    Therefore this poem will stir my emotions

    That argument is VALID. It has too many variables built in, too many 'undefinables', to be "true", but it is structurally valid. You're doing something different. You are proposing

    1. A good poem will stir my emotions
    2. this poem stirs my emotions
    Therefor, this poem was written by a good poet

    OR

    1. good poets write good poems
    2. Joe is a good poet
    Therefore Joe's poems are good

    ....or something along those lines. The conclusions are non sequitur, given the premises. Granted, you framed the issues as enquiries, not affirmations, so you may have been more curious than anything else. For me, it's an argument of limited interest, because it really gets into razor-thin speculation about the poet's thoughts at this or that point in his/her life, what might have influenced them etc. Victorian literary criticism love that kind of musing, but the bottom line is always a revelation about the critic as much as the author or work. and I don't think Darkkin was going there.



    ________________________________________________

    "I believe in nothing but the holiness of the heart's affections and the Truth of the imagination". Keats, ​Letters

    "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main . . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls -- it tolls for thee. " John Donne, Meditation XVII

  5. #45
    Darkkin -- Some of the most skilful side-stepping I've seen in my 4 years on these boards!!



    ________________________________________________

    "I believe in nothing but the holiness of the heart's affections and the Truth of the imagination". Keats, ​Letters

    "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main . . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls -- it tolls for thee. " John Donne, Meditation XVII

  6. #46
    I'm not delving into the pedantic war of defining a good poem or poetry, (it is without purpose because as a creative medium filtered through the perceptions of a vast contigent of readers, there is little that is quantifiable as functional fact. Too subjective by half and more. Like the Pirate Code laid down by Morgan and Bartholomew, definitions of quality serve more like guidelines.)

    What does remain is the fact that recognizable writers are able to produced material that stands on its own merit, but because of their sytle and/or voice. Dylan Thomas and Do Not Go Gentle into that Goodnight and Plath's Mad Girl Love Song are instantly recognisable. Work (an individual animal) that is seperate from its writer, but is clearly a specific species. Like griaffes, a reader knows the animal, but some are able to identify the four unique subspecies because that first encounter with the giraffe sparked an interest. Readers with favourite authors learn to recognise writing patterns, turns of phrase, and argument styles often used by their source. These unconscious inclusions are a writers fingerprints, and fingerprints that are recognised are what make an author known. And until an author is firmly established their work will countinue to stand or fall on its own merit. Thus, work is seperate from its author, but still bears subtle hints of its origins.

    - D.


  7. #47
    In an infinite universe
    The infinite
    monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

    Taking this theorem and applying it here That same monkey has also typed every poem ever written

    quantum mechanics the equations need an observer a constant
    to say the poem stands alone removes the observer that generated it and we default back to the monkey

    My point in the absence of knowledge of the observer you assume that role when knowing the observer you are now looking through your assumption of their perspective



    We are the measure of all things. And the beauty of our creation, of our art is proportional to the beauty of ourselves of our souls. Jonas Mekas

  8. #48
    I made a remark in relation to Dylan Thomas about not liking alcoholics, although I do like a lot of his writing, and Clark observed that it is a big question, how much are the poet and his poems interrelated?
    What if 'Dulce decorum' had been written by a conscientious objector? Or 'Prufrock' by a lothario? Would it change the poem? How much does the poet impact on the poem?
    I did not read the whole thread yet but it seems impossible to separate the writer from the poem. The inspiration for poetry seems to be experiences and feelings. Anything can be considered poetry that we experience and feel. This statement includes maybe if one wanted to write about a milk carton. As long as it makes sense to you. Think of a honey bee even as the theme of the poem but behind that theme is a personal belief that a person came up with.

    Recording experiences and feelings thus are the poet's tools I read. That way maybe a poet develops an attitude about the world. Maybe a person in writing a poem even tries to feel better because of expressing even negative thoughts (almost as if releasing negative thoughts makes you a smarter person regarding knowing how you feel over time).

    Some poets keep a journal for everything they feel.

    It could be to write reactions to what you feel concerning people, animals, and places, sights, and sounds, and whatever else impresses them.

    I honestly found it easier to be inspired to write a poem because using journals, human experiences, feelings, is something that is more difficult than a story. In a story you usually imitate life and consequently end up writing with a different creative process in mind.

    I've been reading how to express my thoughts to start a poem. To me there is little writers block in poetry. The subject I draw from I am thinking is life itself. To me that is a good way of being creative.

    So right now, every day journaling my experiences and feelings is what I am doing as I study a poetry book.

    A current challenge is figurative devices, which can help one transform an image. Even images are based on feelings in poetry it seems.
    I would follow as in believe in the words of good moral leaders. Rather than the beliefs of oneself.
    The most difficult thing for a writer to comprehend is to experience silence, so speak up. (quoted from a member)

  9. #49
    I sure hope the poet can be separated from his works for most people. For me I must separate the poet from his works or else writings that by social justice or some other convention might be considered off-limits. In writing I hope we transcend our mortal coil. On one hand, if I learned of say racism on the part of a poet who wrote beautiful verse expounding the very same evil I would be taken aback, but the validity of such works would only make them that much more powerful. Perhaps saying (this fictional poet) knew better than his ways. The opposite, can a 50ish male poet write a sonnet if the voice of a five-year-old girl? And does him not being a five-year-old girl take from the poem if the verse is good? As Firemajic pointed out Wilfred Owen lost his life in war, but does that make his poem Dulce et Decorum more heartbreaking or ironic or is that we see things in life that take us back to the poetry, modifying it in our conciseness. The words of a dead man/ Are modified in the guts of the living - In Memory of W. B. Yeats by W. H. Auden

  10. #50
    The 'truth' of the poem/poet . . .identification or separation?--is a straw man or red herring or whatever else you might choose to call a non-argument. The depth and nature of Poetry will never be known on the Altar of Empiricism. The poem EXISTS as an entity, an object -in-the-world, every bit as solid and HERE as the marble sculpture of Michelangelo's David. If you had never heard of the Bible or Michelangelo or this famous giant sculpture or the Renaissance or Baroque/Mannerism as "styles" of art, and you were transported blindfolded to Florence, the blindfold removed, and you were told you would be asked for your feelings as a viewer in one hour . . . you would have MUCH to say. Perhaps you would make some stunning observations, fascinating perspectives never before mentioned. Just you and David-the-stone-object-in-front-of-you.

    You become interested. You read everything there is to read about M's life, esp. his upbringing, family, influences, beliefs, etc. You then write another piece on the sculpture.

    Now you turn to history, the evolution of the Catholic Church, political events in Europe and Italy around 1500, the development of Baroque and Mannerism as 'schools' of art in M's day. You return to David and write a final piece on the sculpture.

    By what criteria could a reviewer pronounce judgment that one of your pieces is "superior" to the other two? That would be like an "objective" description of an F-16 sitting on the tarmac , as opposed to an "objective" description of an F-16 in combat at 1000 mph.

    There is merit in all three views because there is value in the different perspectives of all three, which is not as tautological as it might first seem. I would suggest that where content in any of them presents as adamantine certainty any thought clearly based on rank speculation. . . we draw the line. We can never get inside M's head or 'know' his creative intent. He's dead. We can never know the real influence of this or that person or event on M--those events are also dead. When we know of these things, yes, they form part of who we are, what we bring to Art. I would rather listen to a scholar of Italian Renaissance Art talk about David . . .but I would remain alert to the comments from the vacationing factory worker from Detroit, as well.

    One way or the other, our experiences and values and beliefs will filter through everything we know or don't know as a component of the perspective we bring to the sculpture. In the end, it will always be YOU and the piece of Art. You and the poem.



    ________________________________________________

    "I believe in nothing but the holiness of the heart's affections and the Truth of the imagination". Keats, ​Letters

    "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main . . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls -- it tolls for thee. " John Donne, Meditation XVII

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.