[Janet Kenny]

Patricia,
I think metrics are borne from language and are an organic part of the language (any) used by the poet. I don't think they are a matter of abstract study. That is the point as far as I'm concerned.
I have said that I don't believe it's possible to "translate" a haiku as I understand the meaning of translate.

Adelaide Crapsey obviously agreed with me that the English Haiku is unsatisfactory as a concept but she failed to see that English poetry doesn't need to imitate Japanese forms. It can draw upon Japanese aesthetics without counting its toes.

The first aesthetic principle for Japanese is truth to materials and that includes language. In the case of an evolved form like Haiku that is very true. Modern Japanese culture is another thing and that is for the Japanese to sort out.

I think her approach was wrong-headed. I know astrologers who study but it doesn't make me respect them.

Sorry to be difficult. That's just my personal slant. I do believe that good poetry can happen anywhere in spite of profound studies in English metrics
Janet


[This message has been edited by Janet Kenny (edited April 17, 2005).]

[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

Well, if nothing else, this thread has made me go do research and gain a new appreciation of Adelaide Crapsey and the cinquain, which before today I'd regarded as a quaint listing in my Poetry Handbook.

There's a very nice essay with examples of her work I found, both of which I'd recommend. And I have to say I like Crapsey's original cinquains as well as I like any of the classic haikus, which is to say, I consider them interesting reflections on the world.

As for formally studying metrics, doing so is hardly a novelty, but the same as linguistics, is a perfectly legitimate field. In the end, what can be said is the same as many poets before her, Crapsey devised a form to her personal liking and taste and wrote the poems she wanted to in it--and dying of TB at thirty-six certainly gave her some inspiration--and the form struck enough folk as something they liked as well that it's continued, like sapphics and so on.

Though I think Crapsey's cinquains are scads better than the thing about the fireflies.

[Patricia A. Marsh]

Originally posted by Janet Kenny:
Patricia,
I think metrics are borne from language and are an organic part of the language (any) used by the poet. I don't think they are a matter of abstract study. That is the point as far as I'm concerned.
I have said that I don't believe it's possible to "translate" a haiku as I understand the meaning of translate.

Adelaide Crapsey obviously agreed with me that the English Haiku is unsatisfactory as a concept but she failed to see that English poetry doesn't need to imitate Japanese forms. It can draw upon Japanese aesthetics without counting its toes.

The first aesthetic principle for Japanese is truth to materials and that includes language. In the case of an evolved form like Haiku that is very true. Modern Japanese culture is another thing and that is for the Japanese to sort out.

I think her approach was wrong-headed. I know astrologers who study but it doesn't make me respect them.

Sorry to be difficult. That's just my personal slant. I do believe that good poetry can happen anywhere in spite of profound studies in English metrics
Janet

No need to apologize for being "difficult", Janet. I respect your "personal slant" . . . though I was beginning to wonder how recently is was that Ms. Crapsey "obviously agreed" with you! I mean: Really?!

Anyway . . .

I, too "...believe that good poetry can happen anywhere in spite of profound studies in English metrics." . . . despite the fact that, more often than not, it's [ **cough** ] that happens!

[Patricia A. Marsh]

Oops! Duplicate post. Sorry 'bout that.



[This message has been edited by Patricia A. Marsh (edited April 17, 2005).]

[Janet Kenny]

Patricia,
I think she might have agreed about truth to materials.

Watch the Iron Chef to see what I mean
Janet

[Patricia A. Marsh]

What's "the Iron Chef", Janet?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
[ **groan** ] Nevermind! Did a google.com. Can't believe that there's actually a battle of the chefs TV show. Not in these here parts, however!


[This message has been edited by Patricia A. Marsh (edited April 17, 2005).]

[Janet Kenny]

Iron Chef

more Iron Chef

still more Iron Chef

The first seriously funny cooking show.

[Janet Kenny]

Patricia,
It was HUGE in America. Actually there's serious information and very polished cooking but it's presentation is very high camp.

If you care about food it's definitely worth watching. If you want a funny show ditto.
Janet

PS: And watch this movie
Tampopo

Last link failed.

[This message has been edited by Janet Kenny (edited April 17, 2005).]

[Tim Love]

Janet: But good use of traditional form is simply as natural as syntax - so is bad use. And we grow used to old things, they become naturalised. The fact that they're old suggests that they're of some use otherwise they wouldn't have survived - they're a safe option. But while using old forms I think we should also experiment with discarded ones and test the viability of new inventions. Forms that one can hear have the best chance (e.g. sonnet), followed by those that depend on spelling (e.g. Acrostics), then those that one can only see (e.g. syllabics), followed by those that readers need to be told about. Some forms are more useful to the writer than the reader; they're rules that help generate content but leave no trace. See http://education.guardian.co.uk/high...458799,00.html

[Janet Kenny]

Tim,
I was speaking exclusivley of successful poems written in traditional forms. Of course bad poems are part of the inheritance and inbuilt conditioning.

I will read that link. Thanks.

(Yikes! I've read it. I remember when that absurd work innocent of Es emerged. I long to use words which might bring a blush to the nicely raised in our midst. I really understand sometimes why the Chinese sent intellectuals to work in the rice fields.)

I mistrust an approach to poetry that leans too far towards the intellect. I prefer the senses and the subconscious with a little help from the brain when necessary.

My own poems are not written to be read aloud, but to be read "aloud" internally.
Janet


[This message has been edited by Janet Kenny (edited April 18, 2005).]