[conny]

he'd be a better poet if he posted here for sure. being blocked
is a bit of a clue to the poem. I'd be kind if it was here, but put
bluntly the poets ego is on show- and it gets in the way of the
poem. he over reaches into abstraction and then doubles down
on it. and then again.

abstraction is OK sometime but it needs beauty to carry it,
and even then it needs to be subtle.

it's the lack of subtlety that gets him. by L.5 the material is simply
too hot for him to handle.

i could go on but i'm not sure it's worth it.

[conny]

also,

the only closure for the hearts desire is instant death?


lol.

i think not.

[R. S. Gwynn]

Thanks to those who did comment on the poem instead of getting sidetracked by motives, professional ethics, and copyright laws. I sometimes put my own poems on my FB poetry page; if I put a real dud there late at night I'd be embarrassed the next morning.

Hardy's poem is hardly relevant since his major trope is personification. If I'd ever written a line as good as "And dicing Time for gladness casts a moan" I'd probably retire on the spot. If I ever published "The sheets of virgin snow that know no end, / climbing past windows to eternity--" I'd probably also hang it up, though for different reasons.

We workshop flawed poems-in-progress here in hopes of making them better. About half of our critiques focus on formal matters, the other half on diction. The poems on MP generally avoid abstraction in favor of strong, specific imagery. For me, the present poem gets an A- on form (one questionable line) but a D- on diction. If we're dedicated to working in form, we also learn, sometimes through hard knocks, that form alone does not a poem make. I say this also as one whose latest MP poem probably contained a level of abstraction that's about as high as I've ever gone.

You can read some critiques here: http://nerobooks.org/2016-jul-rowe-a...onds-on-mazer/

I'd argue that we do a much better job on a daily basis.

[conny]

i'd agree with that.

some of his stuff is OK but Keats he is not. and that kind of review
is not going to make him so. but i suspect Mr. Mazer doesn't like
bad news.

in Scotland we say that if he was chocolate, he would eat himself.

[William A. Baurle]

Sam,

"Hap" is my go-to poem whenever the question is asked, "can a poem be any good if it contains nothing but abstractions, or mostly abstractions?" (or words to the effect.) Since that question was asked, I can hardly see how reference to it is not relevant. Note I didn't say Hardy's poem was the greater poem because... etc. I only linked to it to answer the question.

I remember lengthy discussions about the use of abstractions at PFFA, where the slightest use of abstract terms was enough to get a pile-on of negative crit. And you couldn't defend abstractions without getting slammed, and without the other poets assuming you had some kind of unsavory preference for them.

Just to be clear, I much prefer poetry big on concrete imagery than poetry that is short on it. It takes a really good poet to make a poem that relies at any point on abstractions. And, as I mentioned, I am not crazy about the poem under discussion. However, I still don't think it's a bad poem. In my view, a lousy poem is one that refuses to communicate much of anything, that revels in obscurity for the sake of obscurity: elaborate fakes, so to speak, like the ones Ashbery is so famous for, and like a ton of modern poetry that apes him.

An even lousier poem is one that revels in sentimentality, like something Edgar Guest or James Kavanaugh liked to crank out. Eek! Nothing is worse than saccharine, sentimental verse, no matter how metrically sound. I don't think the Mazer poem falls into that category. It's not homespun, or terribly cheesy, just telly and plain.

Have you read much of Robert Creeley? He's someone praised to the hilt, but a very large percentage of his poems are almost without a decent image. William Carlos Williams said he had one of the greatest ears of his generation, but I'll be quiet on that for now.

Here's a very-anthologized poem by Creeley:

Link

This is pretty typical of his stuff. The last two stanzas

Love, if you love me,
lie next to me.
Be for me, like rain,
the getting out

of the tiredness, the fatuousness, the semi-
lust of intentional indifference.
Be wet
with a decent happiness.

are almost all abstractions, but does he get a pass? How do you like it? Just asking. I don't like it. I like the Hardy poem because it's just exceptionally good, whether his "major trope is personification" or not.

There's a thread about Wallace Stevens going, and he's got many poems with a high level of abstraction, to cop your terminology. But he's also an author of some of the most stunning imagery going. Oddly enough, my favorite poem is the one the OP doesn't care for. Ah, hell!

It all depends on the skill of the poet, and if there's an audience for highly abstract verse, there will be poets who will serve it up.

All this being said, I agree with you that we should go in fear of abstractions (as Pound is famous for saying), and always look for ways of showing rather than telling. No argument from me about that.

[B. N. Faraj]

Well, Bill, asking Sam “How do you like it” after your love poem is kind of loaded!

Love to know what you think of WCW’s ear!

[R. S. Gwynn]

Creeley? There were some really good things from time to time, but I do recall checking out his first volume of collected poems years ago. It was a huge book, and he still had thirty years to go, collected in a second volume. There are poets I just can't connect with, but it's not for lack of trying.

Williams? The author of some great poems, but not an author of a great poetry. I feel pretty much the same about Stevens though his claims to a great poetry are currently very strong.

[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by B. N. Faraj

Well, Bill, asking Sam “How do you like it” after your love poem is kind of loaded!

Love to know what you think of WCW’s ear!

What love poem would that be, B.N? You must be referring to my poem to my friend Kristine, which I explained was to a friend right there in the thread, and not a love poem.

I also noted many times that I regret posting it. You kinda need to pay attention. < Apologies for the snark.

I think WCW had an excellent ear. Definitely better than mine.

What do you think of WCW's ear?

[B. N. Faraj]

WCW has his first name to brag about!

Now as far paying attention, I wish you went after what's possible!

This is what I was referring to:

Love, if you love me,
lie next to me.
Be for me, like rain,
the getting out

of the tiredness, the fatuousness, the semi-
lust of intentional indifference.
Be wet
with a decent happiness.

WCW may have had a good ear, but what I object to is what came out of his mouth. We can't question his influence, but that, in part, is why metric poetry is in the state it's in. Of course, there are other reasons, but I don't think his influence is something to celebrate!

[William A. Baurle]

Okay, B.N, I admit I don't follow you. Surely, I must learn to pay more attention.

Your post makes it sound like you are citing those verses as if they were penned by Williams. But of course they are from the Creeley poem I linked to. Are you blaming WCW for the badness of the verses quoted? If so, that would be a mistake, because WCW is a much finer poet.

There is much on the relationship of WCW and Creeley online, but one bit I can quote is from the back cover of my volume of Creeley's Collected Poems 1945-1975. It reads:

The subtlest feeling for the measure that I encounter anywhere except in the verses of Ezra Pound. - William Carlos Williams.

That's one hell of a compliment. Personally, I tried to understand exactly why Williams would say such a thing. I've gone into my volume of Creeley's poems dozens of times, and I always come away terribly frustrated. I just can't break bread with him, to borrow another phrase from Pound.

I have no idea what you mean by "I wish you went after what's possible!" I'm exhausted from a long week and twelve hour days, so my brain is fried. I will try harder.