[Philip Quinlan]

Inasmuch as I may have expressed strong views contra this poem, at least I showed restraint by not cheating (googling) and finding out who it was by first.

However, curiosity overcame me and I looked it up.

Seeing who wrote it, and reading some of the workshop discussion about it, I understand now why and how it ended up in its present form. Clearly a longer, more "telly", poem preceded this incarnation, and there was some process of paring down that went on.

I wonder how many commentators saw this about the homeless because they already knew that was what the author intended? and how many saw it as a "painting" of sorts because they knew who that author was?

Not an accusation of any kind - we all bring prior knowledge, conscious or unconscious, to any reading.

There is a whole interesting debate here, still, I think about whether a poem can paint a picture without the mediation of the meaning the words (phrases, sentences) have. I think not (leaving aside the crude example of shape poems, I suppose.) Conversely a poem can be utterly meaningless yet musical, simply because words have associated sounds which aren't linked inextricably to their literal meaning. OK - somebody is going to say onomatopoeia, to which I can only reply "Thump, slap, bang, crack, kapow!"

"Dud" was a bit strong, I suppose-a reaction to being lectured about how marvellous this poem is. But in a weak sense it's the right word: a firework that fails to go off.

I'm with Fr. Pecotte on this one...intellect and meaning have to come first.

Philip

[R. Nemo Hill]

Just as a disclaimer I did not recall this poem's earlier incarnation or its transformation. I reacted to it as something brand new, and before I knew who wrote it--although it did dawn on me in the course of the discussion. To say the painted words are unmediated by meaning is inaccurate: meaning has, rather, been morphed in an unaccustomed manner. Were utter meaninglessness so achievable, this heavy head of mind would find a lot more rest.

Nemo

[Jan D. Hodge]

"I wonder how many commentators saw this about the homeless because they already knew that was what the author intended? and how many saw it as a "painting" of sorts because they knew [the] author..."

I immediately read the poem as about the homeless, without having seen the original thread and without any idea of who had written it. (Nor was I bothered by the keen imagination and intelligence of the speaker; even some of the bright and sensitive among us can be homeless. I was a bit startled, though, by those responses that missed the obvious 1st person ["our"] narrative strategy.)

[Cally Conan-Davies]

Each image is so palpable, I want to touch it. But I know that if I do, the shape of things will collapse and blow away. This is so there and almost gone at the same time. Transience. Transients.

Makes me breathe slower and deeper.

Thank you, poet and Wendy.

Cally

[Rick Mullin]

Hey, thanks everyone. And thanks Wendy.

Well, this has been quite an experience--lots of input.

I've come to understand that people either get this poem or they don't--and they appear to have strong feelings about it one way or the other~,:^)

I'm not going to "explain it," but I can assure you that I did not intend it as a puzzle or riddle--I hate puzzles and riddles, especially in art and poetry. Dan Brown should be kept at least 100 yards from schools and libraries.

I'll add that the "most important word" for gaining entry is probably the first one. And that some folks are taking the word "station" way too literally.

The one person I feel compelled to answer directly is Fr. Robert, who raises the question of emotion over intellect. It is a fascinating question. I can say that the intellect had little to do with writing this one. When it comes to an artist's credo, I think it's hard to beat the George Inness quote written over the door to his gallery in the Montclair Art Museum in Montclair, NJ: Knowledge Must Bow to Spirit. That makes a lot of sense to me, especially when surrounded by Inness's landscapes. I think it extends beyond artistic considerations as well. It's not quite the question of intellect vs. emotion, but it's a similar variety of heart over head. I guess it is a question of which informs which and which bows when.

I hope this is helpful to those who had questions about the poem. I appreciate all of the input and thank everyone who voted for the thing. And everyone who participated.

Thanks once again to Wendy, and, of course, to Maryann who is always so supportive.

Rick

[Robert Pecotte]

Well...spirit and emotion are not the same thing and intellect and knowledge are not the same thing. The 'soul' or 'spirit' contains the Intellect, Memory and the Will. The passions (emotions) are part of the sensitive appetite which functions through the body and influences the Will. Thus, they are also called feelings. The Intellect is supposed to inform the Will of either the 'good' or the 'evil' (or greater or lesser good) of a desired act or object that the Emotions are moving the Will toward. Example: I experience the emotion of anger based in an injury caused by another: do I harm that person back or not? Is harming the person back always the proper choice? My intellect needs to inform my will whether or not the emotion of anger ought to be acted on or released.

I have no problem with poetry that expresses emotions (my poems always do,) but this one certainly did not do that for me. In point of fact, I thought that this poem required too much of the intellect to be understood beyond some vague idea of what it might mean. The first couple of lines made me think of 'homeless people' but after that...not at all. For a poem to produce the desired emotional response, it needs to be understood. Otherwise, the emotional content is missed or replaced with confusion.

I have no problem with people liking this poem, but to say that the ‘intellect’ takes a secondary place in poetry is a ridiculous statement. And remember, I do not equate the Intellect with ‘fact” (or knowledge with mere fact.) I’m not endorsing Spockean poetry (or Leonard Nimoy’s.)

Fr. RP

PS: I replied to the question of emotion over intellect: Wendy raised it.

[David Anthony]

I'm guessing this is ekphrastic.
Could you post a link to the picture, Rick?

[Rick Mullin]

Really, it's not intended as a guessing game. I would tell you the source if it were an ekphrastic poem. I like to make that kind of thing explicit.

I don't mean to be coy, but I really can't explain this. I especially like Michael Cantor's description of how he reads it, however. While I didn't intend any of the specific details he describes--those are really for the reader to come up with--I sense he sees himself. As I said, the first person plural is what this is about. From there, I'll take any interpretation, and may come up with several of my own.

Thanks for the reply Fr Robert. I understand what you're saying and not contesting it. I just think it is an intriguing question, similar to, but not equal to, the meat of the Inness credo.

RM

[Janice D. Soderling]

OK, I'll bite. What is the Inness credo?

(Duh, I must be really dumb.)

[Rick Mullin]

Hi Janice,

It's in my previous comment:

"Knowledge Must Bow Before Spirit"

Not to be confused with the Ellington Principle. For that, see "Minimalism".

Rick