[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

I'm really unclear on how watching a television show or a play is "passive" while reading a poem is "active." Is attending a poetry reading then passive as well, because you're listening rather than reading? And what about kareoke or operas with supertitles, where you're reading at the same time as listening? Or is it just some "television=bad, poetry=good" business?

I can point to dozens of films and television shows that challenged my brain, and even more poems and novels that did not. Plus the "challenging your brain" nonsense is a false idol anyway. It makes poetry into brocolli, something to be consumed because it's good for you, not because you enjoy it.

I read a poem by Jane Austen today. It amused me greatly. I'm going to watch Veronica Mars tonight, and I expect to be greatly amused as well, and possibly pleasantly surprised by some interesting plot twist or issue never before actually addressed on television. (I'm particularly impressed by them treating child abuse as something not solved in one episode and then ignored like an after-school-special.) And last night I watched the new Doctor Who (downloaded via bittorrent) and had my vocabulary confirmed since "witter" is indeed a verb, not that I can find it listed in any of my many damnable American dictionaries.

Of course I was also first exposed to Hamlet as a child by watching an episode of Gilligan's Island, the same one which exposed me to the orchestral score of Carmen, so what do I know.

[nyctom]

But how can you really care if anybody gets it, or gets what it means, or if it improves them. Improves them for what? for death? Why hurry them along? Too many poets act like a middle-aged mother trying to get her kids to eat too much cooked meat, and potatoes with drippings (tears). I don¹t give a damn whether they eat or not. Forced feeding leads to excessive thinness (effete). Nobody should experience anything they don¹t need to, if they don¹t need poetry bully for them, I like the movies too. After all, only Whitman and Crane and Williams, of the American poets, are better than the movies. As for measure and other technical apparatus, that¹s just common sense: if you¹re going to buy a of pants you want them to be tight enough so everyone will want to go to bed with you. There¹s nothing metaphysical about it. Unless of course, you flatter yourself into thinking that what you¹re experiencing is "yearning."

--Frank O'Hara, from "Personism: A Manifesto"

[Alexander Grace]

I'm saying that poetry requires a greater effort of imagination to enjoy than films, but that effort leads to greater intensity of sensation, in the same way Angela Carter said that radio drama was the most visual medium, precisely because you can't see what's going on. Even then you get diagetic sound to help you out, in poetry you do not.

A film may encourage you to fill in the blanks e.g. hearing a sword swipe might suggest a beheading without one being seen, but even then we are getting direct, primary source sound information. In poetry we are not, we are being told what has happened, so we have to supply sound, visuals, smells etc. We are given the bare bones of meaning and we have to fill in the blanks.

'I can point to dozens of films and television shows that challenged my brain, and even more poems and novels that did not. Plus the "challenging your brain" nonsense is a false idol anyway. It makes poetry into brocolli, something to be consumed because it's good for you, not because you enjoy it.'

You have set up something of a straw man. My earlier point was that good cinema uses poetic techniques to good effect. I also said that (good) poetry forces us to make full use of our imaginations in order to be enjoyed. I said that I think people

'have had our imaginations blunted through an excess of passively received sensation'

e.g. bigger explosions, faster car chases, ultra-violence (which began in cinema in the 70s as a kind of protest against sanitised violence and was meant to shock. Unfortunately we sickos lapped it up). We are jaded viewers because we've seen it all, from all the different angles.

I think we have had sensation too easily and now we are bored of it, or at least bored with being led by the nose through another person's fantasy, or their idea of what ours should be; we often feel patronised and manipulated by such art.

Poetry, as I have so often heard from those learned in it's ways, is an opportunity to allow the reader to create his own experience, something unique that he has to work for but which he will value more because of the effort he puts in. I'm speaking from experience as someone who took a while to start exploring the potential poetry offered me as a reader precisely because of the effort involved. Now I am hooked, and yes, I do find that it has a value in terms of my life, and that it is 'good for me'. Have we become so neutered by post-modernity and so scared of any political statement these days that we cannot even affirm the positive aspects of our art? I find that since reading and writing poetry I am more conscious of my surroundings, more aware of parallel phenomena, more observant of character and perhaps more sympathetic to my fellow man. My imagination has been rejuvenated to the extent that I do not get bored on my own so easily - I have actually given up my TV because after discovering poetry I grew frustrated at being trawled through muck to pick up an occasional pearl. I wanted to select my own art (I still love films).

I think we've been hoodwinked into living through the experiences of others rather than daring to have experiences of our own, possibly because it makes us easier to manipulate as good little consumers should be. They keep the corn on the conveyor belt and we keep pecking. Poetry is a step towards encouraging people to discover their own experiences again; and I make no apology for supporting something that I think has the potential to be valuable to society.

The bottom line: with poetry (I am speaking mainly of modern image based poetry), you get no primary source information. You get the words, you have to imagine what's actually going on and create meaning from that. A good poem can take you way beyond the source material until you are actually creating text, rather than discovering hidden meanings in the text provided - this is what I mean by flying. I'm not saying poetry's the only artform that allows this, but I think it has the most potential to because as I've said several times, you are offered so much less pre-packaged sensation.

Alex



[This message has been edited by Alexander Grace (edited April 20, 2005).]

[wendy v]

Alexander, compelling, thoughtful posts. Thank you.

[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

Alex,

What you're talking about is one of the writer's imperatives: "Show, don't Tell" is only half the game; the greater part is "Imply, don't Show."

The better clarity you're finding in seeing the world is because to tell a story by implication, you have to be a very fine observer. You cannily mention the small details, folk will fill in the big ones from their own experience.

There's a trouble with theatre in that someone has already decided what a certain character will look like by casting certain actors and making certain choices. With a novel, you fill these in in your head, and with poetry, you can fill things in even more so.

However, I did the "life without television" for a year or so in college, finally deciding I was cutting off my nose to spite my face, as there was simply too much good cultural content I was missing out on. Though I'll admit that having a TIVO clone box makes it much easier to simply stack up shows I want to watch for when I have time.

Kevin

[Alexander Grace]

remove for silliness

[This message has been edited by Alexander Grace (edited April 20, 2005).]

[Patricia A. Marsh]

Originally posted by ChristyElizabeth:
I've never cared much for cinquains - but the first time I read anything about them may have tainted my view of them, although I doubt it - that Adelaide first developed this form after translating haiku and tanka into English from French, in 1909. It sounded then like too much bloat from an already distorted copy of an eastern form, and I haven't seen a cinquain yet that has pushed me away from that notion. The lines breaks are what makes it seem particularly pretentious to me. If I break Michael's the way I read them, here's how the linebreaks would actually fall:

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

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

The only one of Crapsey's I thought even had a true haikuishness feel to it was November night, but it still makes me want to strip it down.

Listen. . .
With faint dry sound
Like steps of passing ghosts,
The leaves, frost-crisp'd, break from the trees
And fall.

----
Like ghosts, frost-crisp'd leaves
break from the trees
and fall.


Just not a very impressive form, to me.

"November Night" is the first cinquain in a sequence of cinquains written by an invalid--Adelaide Crapsey--who died in her 36th year from TB. That first cinquain--perhaps the first cinquain ever written by anyone, inasmuch as Ms. Crapsey invented the form--<u>that</u> poem needs more words to explain than it took to write it!

If you're interested, I posted one explanation of "November Night"--one that I found in Karen Alkalay-Gut's biography of Adelaide Craspey, Alone in the Dawn: The Life of Adelaide Craspey. It's at Musing on Mastery.

All best.



[This message has been edited by Patricia A. Marsh (edited April 21, 2005).]

[Alexander Grace]

Kevin, yes I know what I'm saying isn't new, I'm just suggesting that poetry might suit our particular needs at this point in time. When people are spoiled with constant spectacular imagery, their inclination to use their own creative abilities is reduced. I'm sure this has a knock on effect in terms of society, because imagination is required to solve problems, and there are many of those.

Poems can act as imaginative exercises for both reader and writer, and yes, be enjoyable too - I don't think there's a contradiction here, in the same way that there is no contradiction between playing football being fun and improving physical fitness. I certainly don't avoid things that I know are good for me unless I've a mental block from having them rammed down my throat or presented in an unappealing way, as I hear poetry is in schools. I agree that there's a tendency for people to refuse to do what they're told to do; this is power play, like the infant who's favourite word is 'no'. So I don't advocate a 'national we must all read poetry or else' week.

However, I do think that while telling people poetry is good for them can be counter productive, it still IS good for them, or at least has the potential to be.

Alex

[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

Alex,

Spectacle gets very old very soon which is why the better dramatists have learned to save the fireworks for the grand finale, with an occasional explosion along the way as the plot warrants it. Last night I watched the latest Smallville, where after several episodes with lavish sets and showy special effects, the new villain was a body-hopping prom queen who simply needed to touch someone to take possession of them. The actors were having the time of their life with the conceit, their acting upstaging what few CGI effects were incorporated into the episode as a matter of form.

Good acting, good storytelling and good writing are still the order of the day, and television I think is old and hoary enough we can dispense with finding it spectacular merely by the fact of its being.

As for folk being spoiled by spectacle, it's a hunger, the same as anything else, and some folk are gluttons. If you have spectacular poetry, you may wow such trendies, but I'll doubt you'll convert them. They'll wander on to the next big thing, whatever that is.

Kevin

[Alexander Grace]

True, but I didn't say I was after them. I do think people are jaded with spectacle - look at the negative fan reactions to the new Star Wars movies, or the Matrix sequels, proving that less is often more. Is it fanciful to suggest that these individuals might be interested in something which leaves a little more to the imagination?

(Edited to add: Kevin, I've already remarked that yes, other artforms allow the spectator creative freedom - but it's a matter of degree. Your point about the actor being replaced in writing by the reader's imagined character proved this. I'm certainly not saying all film is mere eye candy, I'm saying poetry is imagination candy. When I speak about the viewer being jaded, I'm just pointing out something that seems self evident - they may turn from Star Wars to Smallville (or Buffy! Go Buffy!) but they may ALSO become more receptive to poetry.)

I'm just suggesting that there might be an opportunity for poetry right now - how to seize it I do not know. Performance poetry can lead people in, but can also obscure more literary efforts where the text is king; I think that's got something to do with the hostility I've encountered to it from 'real' poets (and I've also felt hostile towards PP at times). Better, more relevant education that doesn't start and end with Shakespeare might help (not that I'm against teaching The Bard, but at my school we did four of his plays, taking up perhaps half of the entire time devoted to English lit. That's just ridiculous). I actually did hear in the news that schools in England are planning on radically overhauling the texts they teach, so I'm not the only one following this kind of logic. English is not simply another form of heritage, and should be presented to students primarily as a living, evolving subject that concerns their world.

I suppose in my humble way I try to introduce people to poetry with varying degrees of success. I do know that when people used to confessional nonsense and random images are confronted with a REAL poem, a good one like Maz's latest or that lovely Michael Cantor one about the geisha, they are astounded. Try joining one of the many lesser sites around and posting your best - the reaction will be something along the lines of 'I didn't know poetry could be like that'. The reader may well stay with poetry for the rest of his life. I think some of us have become too comfortable in our ivory towers, however, we like the sense of family, the in jokes, the elitism. We are happy to snigger at a bad poem but less willing to explain how the poem can be salvaged, or if unsalvageable, how the poet could grow. Remember that everyone you train is a footsoldier in the battle for recognition of your art, and the personal status benefits that go with that recognition.

Seize the day, people (if I had anything I've spoilt it now, haven't I? *giggle*).

Alex



[This message has been edited by Alexander Grace (edited April 21, 2005).]