[Alessio Boni]

Hi Jim,

It's on the monotony of life so a really good subject to write upon, but I don't really find anything remarkable in your repeated stanza the way it is now. It doesn't vex me. Maybe you could make it still two small but solemn stanzas but use direct examples regarding sleep, eating, and waking that suggest such a monotony?

Anyway this is just my opinion, you are the author so you decide.

Cheers,

Alessio.

[Glenn Wright]

There are two ways to look at ultra-minimalist poems like this one. One is to say that they don’t provide enough guidance to allow explication. The other is to say, as Jim Moonan does, that they require the reader to do most of the work in creating meaning and to become an active participant in the poetic process. These ultra-minis are like springboards or catalysts to provoke the creation of meaning from within the reader. They are like Rorschach tests to help the readers discover the contours of their own psyche, or like a greased pole to climb as a way to test their critical fitness.

In approaching this poem, as Max pointed out, the title is the best starting point, as it provides a clue or direction for inquiry. As I read the poem, a number of questions occurred to me. Who is “he,” and is he the same person in both stanzas? Who is the narrator, and where is he located in order to be able to observe and report the events? Why are the repeated actions mentioned exactly twice? If it is meant to describe an infinitely or indefinitely repeating cycle, why not write it in a circle like Gertrude Stein’s “A Rose Is a Rose?” Why does the cycle begin with “He wakes” instead of “He sleeps?” What does “he” feel about his existence? Is “he” aware of possibilities beyond the severely proscribed cycle of events he repeats? How does the N feel about it?

Here are some possibilities:
1. “He” is a brain-damaged/dementia afflicted patient in a nursing home. N=nurse marking his chart
2. “He” is an agoraphobe cowering in his tiny apartment.
3. “He” is profoundly depressed and contemplating suicide. (The title might imply this.)
4. “He” is Adam in the Garden before the creation of Eve. N=God
5. “He” is a different prisoner in each stanza living in adjacent cells. N=prison guard
6. “He” is a monk in a cloister, silently praying for the redemption of the world.

Rather than expecting the poet to leave a trail of bread crumbs leading to a foregone conclusion, ultra-minis hand the readers a pencil and paper and invite them to find meaning in themselves. Just as teachers know that the silence after asking a question can press students to think through and find an answer in themselves, so ultra-minis use what is not said to press readers to find an interpretation that feels true to them.

Literary critics are skeptical of the “affective fallacy” in which readers import their own thoughts and feelings into their interpretation of a work of literature, regardless of what the author actually wrote. Yet this is exactly what most people do when they read a poem or watch a film. They want the literature to speak to them personally and relate to their own unique life experiences. Ultra-minis actively encourage readers to commit the sin of the affective fallacy by providing no other way to make meaning.

Glenn

[Jim Ramsey]

Originally Posted by Chelsea McClellan

Hi Jim,

The idea of a pared down, bare bones poem that could express this feeling/idea is interesting. Unfortunately, I think that the "wake, eat, sleep" progression is just way too cliche to be moving. I think I'd need to read something I've never thought of before to make such a slim poem work.


Take care,
Chelsea

Hi Chelsea,

Thanks for your thoughts and impression on this piece. It is minimalist for sure and gimmicky in taking the pared down take too far. On the other hand that was the objective it set out to do, wrong-headed or not. To be honest, I'm not sure I would dare to submit it with other poems in fear that an editor would be turned off so much by this one that she would ignore the others too.

Jim

[Jim Ramsey]

Originally Posted by Jim Moonan

.
(What about her?)

Also, what Chelsea said. This is too easy.

Here's my own quick take:

I reflect
I reject
I reimagine

Another thought: if instead of the minimalist expression of existence, you were to elaborate on each action (waking, eating, sleeping) starting each stanza with the line "I wake / I eat / I sleep"and then proceed to make much ado about nothing, it might reflect our penchant for making meaning out of meaninglessness.

I wonder if the poem as is might be elevated simply by capitalizing every word to feign some kind of importance? Like this:

He Wakes
He Eats
He Sleeps

He Wakes
He Eats
He Sleeps


The only real reason I read poetry is to be moved. Everything else is a bonus. But as is, this doesn't move me.

There is a phrase used by announcers at hockey games: "He shoots he scores!" that came to mind as I reflected on your poem. That phrase might be an interesting dark humor epigraph to the poem. The phrase is used in general to express something that has been accomplished.
.

Hi Jim,

It's good to see you back on track with some good commentary. I myself am still wading through mental cobwebs and trying to think straight and this piece is meant to reflect that, and probably is about the most I am capable of at the moment. You give me some good ideas. I have started thinking about using the lines as headers to stanzas. I like the comparison you make with "he shoots, he scores!" and the juxtaposition of its exuberance with my poems dull monotony, and yet there they are, very similar constructions, very similar descriptions of basic actions, and yet so opposite in mood and tone. Oh, and about "her." This originally held the title "Self-assessment" and was going to be about an N speaking in the third person trying to rouse himself from his funk. Thanks for the feedback.

Jim

[Jim Ramsey]

Originally Posted by Alessio Boni

Hi Jim,

It's on the monotony of life so a really good subject to write upon, but I don't really find anything remarkable in your repeated stanza the way it is now. It doesn't vex me. Maybe you could make it still two small but solemn stanzas but use direct examples regarding sleep, eating, and waking that suggest such a monotony?

Anyway this is just my opinion, you are the author so you decide.

Cheers,

Alessio.

Hi Alessio,

You make good points and provide a simple solution, similarly to what other commenters have done. Thanks for taking time to share your thoughts.

Jim

[Jim Ramsey]

Originally Posted by Max Goodman

I agree that the poetry here is in the title. And the current one feels strong. Waking, eating, and sleeping aren't usually done with any goal in mind, toward any end, but, of course, they do inevitably move us toward our ends, our deaths.

Would a single stanza make the point more strongly?

It wouldn't, I think, make it any less strongly. And the shorter the poem, the more likely a reader is to focus on the title. Piet Hien's Grooks come to mind as operating similarly. [Having looked at some of my favorites, I see that the Grooks probably don't give a helpful model. I'll leave the observation here, though. A brief poem whose meaning/poetry is primarily in the title feels like a genre I recognize--even if the Grooks aren't it-- and the briefer such a poem, the better/clearer.]

I don't agree that Duggan's poem has a narrower focus, or that Dolly Parton's song covers Duggan's ground. Seems to me the song focusses narrowly on one aspect of the work world while both poems explore a general meaninglessness of life.

FWIW.

Hi Max,

First of all, you are right about the Dolly/Dugan poems. I over-quickly drew a comparison between them based on my memory of the nine-to-five song without actually looking at the lyrics. Dolly's song seems more about the frustrations of getting things accomplished when others get in the way and in having to do so without getting a fair wage for all the trouble and effort. Dugan's poem seems more about the drudgery but necessity of work for the sake of weekend time with the family. I still do think both are fairly narrowly focused, which is a good thing. My piece on the other hand is wide open to interpretation. As we agree, I can hint to the reader what direction to take by the title I choose. I think the main thing to take away from most of the comments, is that this doesn't appeal generally to most readers. The truth may be that this was just a self-shove to motivate me to get out of the lethargy I've been feeling lately. I do think Glenn's comment is worth a read by everybody in its take on this kind of attempt at a bare bones poem. Thanks much for the thoughtful take you give.

Jim

[Jim Ramsey]

Hi Glenn,

This is terrific stuff. I don't know where you get the energy and the time. I congratulate you on how well your brain is working, at least in comparison to mine. I hope others read your comment just for the sake of having something to think about. I have dismissed much of what I consider to be art for art's sake in the past, which is partly what such a simple piece as mine is trying to do. You've given me an idea for my next piece: I may simply post my next thread with no text and nothing but the title of "Invisible Ink" and truly let the readers have their way with it. Thanks for the comment and the information. Again, really something to think about.

Jim

Originally Posted by Glenn Wright

There are two ways to look at ultra-minimalist poems like this one. One is to say that they don’t provide enough guidance to allow explication. The other is to say, as Jim Moonan does, that they require the reader to do most of the work in creating meaning and to become an active participant in the poetic process. These ultra-minis are like springboards or catalysts to provoke the creation of meaning from within the reader. They are like Rorschach tests to help the readers discover the contours of their own psyche, or like a greased pole to climb as a way to test their critical fitness.

In approaching this poem, as Max pointed out, the title is the best starting point, as it provides a clue or direction for inquiry. As I read the poem, a number of questions occurred to me. Who is “he,” and is he the same person in both stanzas? Who is the narrator, and where is he located in order to be able to observe and report the events? Why are the repeated actions mentioned exactly twice? If it is meant to describe an infinitely or indefinitely repeating cycle, why not write it in a circle like Gertrude Stein’s “A Rose Is a Rose?” Why does the cycle begin with “He wakes” instead of “He sleeps?” What does “he” feel about his existence? Is “he” aware of possibilities beyond the severely proscribed cycle of events he repeats? How does the N feel about it?

Here are some possibilities:
1. “He” is a brain-damaged/dementia afflicted patient in a nursing home. N=nurse marking his chart
2. “He” is an agoraphobe cowering in his tiny apartment.
3. “He” is profoundly depressed and contemplating suicide. (The title might imply this.)
4. “He” is Adam in the Garden before the creation of Eve. N=God
5. “He” is a different prisoner in each stanza living in adjacent cells. N=prison guard
6. “He” is a monk in a cloister, silently praying for the redemption of the world.

Rather than expecting the poet to leave a trail of bread crumbs leading to a foregone conclusion, ultra-minis hand the readers a pencil and paper and invite them to find meaning in themselves. Just as teachers know that the silence after asking a question can press students to think through and find an answer in themselves, so ultra-minis use what is not said to press readers to find an interpretation that feels true to them.

Literary critics are skeptical of the “affective fallacy” in which readers import their own thoughts and feelings into their interpretation of a work of literature, regardless of what the author actually wrote. Yet this is exactly what most people do when they read a poem or watch a film. They want the literature to speak to them personally and relate to their own unique life experiences. Ultra-minis actively encourage readers to commit the sin of the affective fallacy by providing no other way to make meaning.

Glenn

[Jim Ramsey]

Just in order to try to make something from nothing, here is a new version inspired by a recent thread in general talk. It may just be another corpse to bury in the crawlspace.

Jim