[Max Goodman]

Succeeding as a poet means you know/you're nobody.

Nicely phrased. Meaning not only that there is little worldly success to be gained through poetry, but (probably among other possible meanings) that a poet's success lies in coming to terms with one's insignificance (an insignificance shared but maybe less-well understood by lawyers, political leaders, celebrities...).

I'm not a big fan of triolets, so grain of salt: I'm not sure the form is adding to that fine statement. Unless there are implications I'm missing, the repetends don't change meaning in significant ways.

FWIW.

[Susan McLean]

Max, it's a mood piece. I'm trying to capture the paradox of continuing in the face of despair. Success for a poet is to reach this realization and keep going anyway. It's a circular motion, so I think the repetition helps to demonstrate that.

Susan

[Julie Steiner]

Hi, Susan!

Pace Dickinson, I just can't swallow the premise that succeeding as a poet means you know you're nobody. If you were to change this to "Succeeding in translation means you know you're nobody," I'd buy that. But that's clearly not the poem you want to write. Which is fine. Anyway....

I think if you're going to capitalize a personified Time, her personified daughter (and not-daughter) should also have their names capitalized.

[Roger Slater]

Like Julie, I don't buy the premise either. "Succeeding as a poet means you know you're nobody" doesn't really make sense to me, since you make it sound like knowing you're nobody is the state that poets aspire to. But no one ever said, "I know that I've succeeded as a poet since I realize that I'm nobody."

What I imagine you intended to say, is more like, "Even if you succeed as a poet, you're still a nobody." That is, realizing you're a nobody isn't the goal, or the measure of success, but the unfortunate condition that awaits you if you succeed.

I don't think my suggested alternative for L1 actually solves the problem I've identified, though perhaps it inches closer to a solution. And of course, no solution is needed if you don't agree there's a problem.

[Susan McLean]

Julie, I took your advice about capitalizing "Truth" and "Oblivion." I am not saying that no poets ever become "Somebody." A few do, even in their own lifetimes. I am saying that the true success for a poet is to know that he or she is nobody, but to keep writing anyway. Even the poets who do become well known must have doubts that their reputation will last. Perhaps I should have titled the poem "Negative Capability."

Roger, see my note to Julie.

Susan

[Matt Q]

Hi Susan,

I like "succeeding" (over the suggested change to "success") because I can read it as an ongoing process / an intermittent thing, instead of (and as well as) as a final state. We are succeeding at this (doing it properly, well) when the stated conditions hold. At other times we might not be succeeding: such times as we forget that we're writing our names in water or planting our seeds in snow.

So, I like the title change in the light of the above, since the original one had seemed (to me) to tie "succeeding" down to its sense of achieving a final state rather than a process. I also quite like it on its own terms too, for the word-play: the capacity to grasp these negatives. Though I wonder if it's "straight" meaning works as well for the poem.

I dislike the capitalisations of L6. It seems at odds with the rest of the poem, as if the poem shifts era for a line. I think the line works as well without them for sense, and the poem works better.

I did wonder if there was another modifier than the somewhat well-worn "mere" that could go before "oblivion" -- "bare" maybe, for sense and for alliteration? But maybe you're intended to reference Shakespeare here?

best,

Matt

[Hilary Biehl]

Originally Posted by Matt Q

I dislike the capitalisations of L6. It seems at odds with the rest of the poem, as if the poem shifts era for a line. I think the line works as well without them for sense, and the poem works better.

I'm with Matt on this.

[Susan McLean]

Matt, yes, I did mean "succeeding" to suggest that it is an ongoing process. I am glad you think the new title works. I will think about other options for "mere" but "bare" seems to suggest a presence, while I am implying an absence. I have removed the capitalizations I had added.

Hilary, see my note to Matt. Thanks for mentioning how you felt about it.

Susan

[Joe Crocker]

Hi Susan

I'm with Matt on "mere oblivion". If it's there to echo Shakespeare then fair enough. It's just that "oblivion" is a scary word for me and calling it "mere" seems wrong. How about "blank oblivion"? It conveys the absence you said you were after. And I like the alliteration. But you may not.

Cheers

Joe

[Susan McLean]

Matt and Joe, I wasn't intentionally echoing Shakespeare, though his language permeates my mind in a way that seeps out occasionally. For me, "mere" does not diminish "oblivion," but implies "nothing less than oblivion."

Susan