There has been considerable clatter regarding the cinquain on the Sphere recently, and it bothers me because I think we are making a great deal of fuss about a form which encourages facile pseudo-poetry, and has little else going for it.

The demonstration of this, as far as I am concerned, is that virtually all of the discussion on this Board and Mastery - with the exception of some good analysis by Victoria Galle, and some language-related comments by Jerry Hartwig - is focused on the mechanics of the form - the number of syllables, or feet, per line. You would think we were a pack of accountants, rather than poets. Almost nobody seemed interested in what the cinquain is intended to accomplish (or seemed to know), how it should be constructed as a poem, why and how it evolved. I know Adelaide Crapsey invented the thing, but - as opposed to, for example, the haiku - it seems a poetic form without a poetic pedigree, without a sense of purpose, or a structure beyond mechanics.

Consequently, the form seems to lend itself to portentuous, but ultimately banal pronouncements, and most of what i have seen here - including Ms. Crapsey's work - is unimpressive.

To prove a point: here are a series of cinquains I wrote this afternoon. I normally spend days or even weeks on the work I post here. These probably averaged about three minutes each. The two stanzas might have required ten minutes total. I don't think any of them have any depth - but I felt that way about every cinquain I read. A few may be "shallow good" - they give the impression of being decent poetry, even if they aren't. Some humor and wordplay helps a bit. Compared to other cinquains posted, including Ms. Crapsey's, I don't think they are significantly better or worse, and in some ways more interesting. But it was all just quick-quick gabblegabblegabble. We can all count to eight, and most of us can write an interesting sentence or two. It was like doing ditties for the FunExcise Forum. I'm not finding much beyond that. (Further comments after the last poem.)

(1)
Hooker.
She used to stand
on Eighth and Forty-Fifth
and now she's gone. I guess she found
a fix.

(2)
Faceless
on rain-slick streets
I prowl the city; slide
through midnight crowds and never touch
a soul.

(3)
Wet snow
falling all night
encloses the cabin.
"Winter," she says, stretched by the fire,
"Winter!"

(4) (stanzas)
It was
one of those things
Piss call at three AM.
and yesmyloveyesmyloveyes!
Then snores

And she
now wide awake
can hear the fucking clock
remembers he was reading Joyce.
Of course!

(5)
Cinquains
I regard them
as poems for poets
who will not take the time to write
poems.

<u>Comments:</u> In writing these I found that I was unconsciously going for a twist - or a least a ta da in the last line, to add interest, and was also depending on irony and/or humor. But I do that all the time, so I'm not sure it's cinquain-inspired. I was basically digging into the old tool box and trying to make the dogs sing.

(1) and (2) are extensions of the kind of pretend city-smart tough guy stuff I wrote as a kid. Banal. But they seem to slide into this form, and the form makes them seem better than they are. (And, yes, nyctom, I know that (1) is outdated since Times Square was Disneyed and the hookers moved to the meatpacking district. It's a retro poem.)

I agree with Alicia's comments about the form possibly lending itself to stanzas, played with this a bit in (4), and I think it's the most successful of the group.

(5) pretty much summarizes how I feel after playing with the form. I feel it doesn't offer enough depth or challenge, and can encourage "lazy" poetry.

Dee - apologies for combining poetry and an op-ed piece, but I didn't know where else to put this. God knows it's not Mastery. And I didn't want to use General Talk as an excuse for posting my own stuff (particularly after recently criticizing David Halitsky for doing the same thing.) It would not be considerate to append it to Yolanda's thread. So - since it's a week since my last Poetry Board post - I put it here.

Michael Cantor




[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited April 16, 2005).]

Give 'em titles, Michael; and send 'em off via e-mail to AMAZE: The Cinquain Journal. Who knows?!

http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif

FWIW: It took me about 15 minutes to write two of 'em. Still thinking, however, about [uh] appropriate titles. I mean: Unlike haiku, cinquains need titles. Seriously!

With reference to the Mastery board, etc., you said that "Almost nobody seemed interested in what the cinquain is intended to accomplish (or seemed to know), how it should be constructed as a poem, why and how it evolved." Of course, you're right! Since I started that Adelaide Crapsey cinquain thread, I've been doing some online research, attempting to learn more than the mechanics of the form . . . going so far as to order two books from amazon.com after discovering what Denis Garrison, the editor of AWAKE, had to say about the cinquain form. Anyway . . .

Fact is: I wouldn't mind seeing Tim Murphy inviting Mr. Garrison to do a Poet Lariat workshop! Would you?

Have a nice day, Michael.




[This message has been edited by Patricia A. Marsh (edited April 16, 2005).]

Mike - Boy you really don't like Cinquains. http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/biggrin.gif

OK. You wrote these in three minutes? It looks it. Most of them read like run on sentances. Strangely enough, one reads like a five line warped haikuish thingy.

"Wet snow
falling all night
encloses the cabin.
"Winter," she says, stretched by the fire,
"Winter!"


Strangely enough I like this one:

"And she
now wide awake
can hear the fucking clock
remembers he was reading Joyce.
Of course!"

Kind of clunky between line 3 and 4 and I'm not sure of using "and" in the first line but heck the Cinquains weren't important. Your opinion was.

Sorry, but this doesn't belong here. Tacking on the poems was a weak excuse.

I'm not sure what to say. Do you want crits that confirm the paucity of the form, and therefore your poetry's failure?

Michael: 'To prove a point'

Possibly the wrong reason to post on a workshop, thus wasting everyone's time with an attack on other's poetry and chosen form. Besides, the fact that you are capable of writing bad cinquains does not prove that the form is inherently flawed, only that in this instance your logic is.

I notice that the form has been used (in my opinion) very successfully on another thread.

The second one of yours is particularly awful, but then you knew that. Sigh.

Alex

[This message has been edited by Alexander Grace (edited April 17, 2005).]

I think that's his point, Yolanda. He's acknowledging these are not good poetry, yet they are no worse than what's been posted here as haiku or cinquain - or much of anything else. Plus, with effort, I've no doubt Michael could turn these sentences into nice little gems. He has the ability to look critically at his own work, and analyze it objectively, unlike some who post work of this caliber, then defend, even praise it, in the face of informed criticism.

Michael has demonstrated his ability to write superb poetry, and proven his worth as a critter many times over, as opposed to the occasional newbie who appears, full of self-proclaimed expertise, wanting to tell everyone else how it's done without providing anything that demonstrates their own knowledge or ability.

And no, I don't lead the 'Michael Cantor Fan Club'.

He does *grin*.

Michael,

We are all limited to one poem a week here. That includes you.

Bobby

I never thought I'd hear a cry of 'NOOB!' in here. Sometimes I wonder whose gods we pray to. (I'm only coming back because it seems this thread has been designated a free for all by the writer).

Still, Jerry is right, and I speak as a former noob whose first important lesson was in how little he knew.

Alex

Michael, since you claim that these poems are not worth critiquing, I see this more as a discussion thread. I'm moving it to General Talk. Thanks, Dee

Hmmmmmmm, actually, Michael, I like cinquian. Even more strangely, perhaps, I like some of yours. http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif
It's just another form of "short poetry" to me. Like an epigram, perhaps. Concise and to the point, whatever that point might be. Of course, it's better if you actually make a point while you're at it. < g >
If nothing else, it serves as an exercise in restraint, which a lot of poets could definately use. Wouldnt it be fun if we could take all the long winded terrible poetry we've all read and say to the author, "That's a great idea you've hidden in that overly-descriptive, modifier-heavy, adjective-enhanced 40 line poem you've written....now reduce it to a cinquain.and try not to lose a thing." The attempt alone would be a valuable learning tool for many.

I've done that a few times myself and been so pleased with the result that I tossed the original "too much information" first attempt away and held onto the shorter-and-therefore-sweeter cinquain instead.

Innominate

Behold
the changeling child.
The indolent daughter
of the night. She is the sun's bitch.
She shines.

http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/smile.gif Self-portrait, of course. < g >

Lo

Lo-

That is really nice. Looks to me like you've really figured out what makes the cinquain work.

And... You came very close in your post to advocating recommending syllabics to long winded versifiers.

----------


The cinquain appears very good for autobiographical moments. Perhaps it works best when it's treated as a snapshot between two verbs, as Lo's poem above is done.

Did Crapsey invent this to try to improve on imagist poetry? As I've understood it the cinquain was invented in the 19-teens, around the time of H.D. and early Pound. A form that places imagist poetry between two verbs could be seen as an improvement on imagist poetry.

It's also nice to reflect on what Pound's poetry might have been like if he had spent his entire life on short poems like cinquains



[This message has been edited by albert geiser (edited April 17, 2005).]