A Sonnet - Page 3

Tom Jardine · #21 04-20-2003, 07:52 PM

Bob,

I was unclear. I did not raise or lower the bar
because it was a sonnet, or not.

David,

Good comment, and your writing has good tone. I don't have that.
You said,

"You can't make people like a poem."
----I was hoping to make people dislike the poem and present reasons.

"I think the starting point for liking or disliking a poem is whether or not we empathise with it; everything else is back formation. Wouldn't be much of a world if we all liked and disliked the same things." ---True enough, but I was trying to apply the line: "Art is either great or garbage."
This is a famous quote.

"Sorry, I've probably upset you both now."---Goodness, David, I don't get upset, speaking for myself! I've got real problems!

Poets are such whiners and complainers, and they take everything so seriously and so personally! Yuck!

TJ

Julie Steiner · #22 04-20-2003, 10:53 PM

TJ asks:

Quote:

Now, what is the poem about? Sure, the image is interesting, but if you take the unoriginal image away, which is presupposed in many of us, then what?

Simple. This sonnet is about obstructions to the laws of thermodynamics, time's arrow, entropy, and all that other stuff we all slept through in physics class.

I see the poem as a study in contrasts between inert and kinetic energy over time. Below I've divided the poem into sections by time period. Inertia (passivity, stagnation, unchanging truths) are represented by the italicized words, while the forces of change (violence, unpredictability, entropy, fad and fashion) are represented by the underlined ones:

Timeframe: eternal past & future (a universal truth)
Each April's different: (But this certainty is about the certainty of change!)

Timeframe: the recent past (a fleeting, finite historical point)
this one saw a spate
Of rain increase the run-off from the snow
To make the village millpond overflow
Well-groomed banks and leap an unused gate
Into the race,

Timeframe: the more distant past (another finite historical point, referred to by "unused" in the last line)
which had not felt the flood
In fifty years. That's when the mill and wheel (once symbols of industry, and thus of action, yet became old-fashioned--changeable on both counts),
Back then thought (a changing fashion) insufficiently genteel,
Were leveled (passive mood of violent verb which rendered the mill and wheel inert) and

Timeframe: in perpetuity (eternal in one direction only, from a fixed historical point into the future)
the stream shut up for good, (another passive mood of violent verb which rendered the mill and wheel inert)

Timeframe: from distant past until recent past (from a fixed historical point until its inspecified, but inevitable, ending should come)
Or so it seemed.

Timeframe: eternal past & future (universal truths again)
But flood will out, commotion
Run its course.

Timeframe: the recent past (finite historical point)
I watched (a passive activity) the water boil
Through undergrowth, sluicing astonished (once-inert, now abruptly kinetic) soil
Off toward the deep (impossible-for-us-to-change) disturbance of our ocean,

Timeframe: slightly more recent past (finite historical point)
And so subside

Timeframe: even more recent past (finite historical point)
and next day leave (a passive activity) no trace (evidence of its passing, an active event)
But mud and some erosion (evidence of turbulence) in the race.

I agree, the sonnet doesn't seem to draw a "meaningful conclusion" about the interplay of all this action and passivity, but I don't think it is obliged to do so. It's simply an contemplation of that interesting interplay, and an invitation to contemplate the evidence alongside the narrator. I, for one, enjoyed it, but I certainly respect anyone else's right not to.

Julie Stoner

robert mezey · #23 04-20-2003, 11:29 PM

What a lot of strange things said about this sonnet, which
has its moments, as well as its flaws. But the strangest
thing was surely the quotation, "Art is either great or it's
garbage" (or something to that effect). Whoever said that was either drunk or a moron. There are many many poems that are
not great, merely good, but nonetheless lovely and valuable.
To suggest that good poems that fall short of greatness are
garbage is too stupid to argue with.

Curtis Gale Weeks · #24 04-21-2003, 01:55 AM

I have to agree with Robert on the quotation.

But the original of this poem is just too pathetic in places. I've been toying with it, but I've not been able to eliminate potential allusions to current events from my mind (whether originally intended or not; universality.) Still a bit rough in places (L4: to leap, leaping, or merely leap?), but Bradley's original has potential--

<dir>
Millrace

This April saw a spate
of rain increase the run-off from the snow,
a millpond overflow
its well-groomed banks, leaping an unused gate,
and a race which had not felt
the flood in fifty years begin to boil
as water sluiced the soil
through undergrowth where mill and wheel had dwelt--
fifty years had stood
since both were leveled, the stream shut up for good.

I watched the familiar commotion
flash toward the deep disturbance of our ocean,
subside and leave no trace
but mud and mad erosion in the race.</dir>

Ah well. I don't feel like critting the original line-by-line, although I see areas that could be improved.

C.

[This message has been edited by Curtis Gale Weeks (edited April 21, 2003).]

Tom Jardine · #25 04-21-2003, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by robert mezey:
What a lot of strange things said about this sonnet, which
has its moments, as well as its flaws. But the strangest
thing was surely the quotation, "Art is either great or it's
garbage" (or something to that effect). Whoever said that was either drunk or a moron. There are many many poems that are not great, merely good, but nonetheless lovely and valuable. To suggest that good poems that fall short of greatness are garbage is too stupid to argue with.

Robert, (and Curtis)

I do understand how the statement sounds stupid, and it does
not align with your sentence "To suggest that good poems that fall short of greatness are garbage ..." Your sentence is not applicable to the thought, which I read many years ago, by Picasso. What is meant is that the intrinsic ability and talent of a creative person is, by its very nature, great. Compare the early sketches of Van Gogh to his later work,--same thing, same pure energy, albeit, developed. True talent is obvious and does not fail, it succeeds 100%, even when it screeches into a corner and goes ding, ding, ding! But phonies always fail.

It doesn't mean that a poem, when delightful, is literally to be considered garbage. The thought is to know exactly what your vision is, and to know yourself. You may as well set your sights high, because in the long run, you will hit where you aim. (Which, of course, roughly paraphrases another famous quote.)

The line means that a lot of art and poetry is really just craft, as opposed to art. And the art is to know the difference. And I enjoy craft shows! I went to one last fall in Asheville, North Carolina, and saw lots of lovely things!

But when trite pretention pops its little wack-a-mole head,
I am compelled to put in my 50 cents.

The only thing is
can you sing.

I like your editing, Curtis.

You two going to WC?
TJ

Tom Jardine · #26 05-02-2003, 09:56 AM

Talkers talk of soldiers while soldiers die.

Carol Taylor · #27 05-03-2003, 07:34 AM

Tom, garbage is in the eye of the beholder. What Picasso thought was art might look like garbage to me, or at least smell a little high. And vice versa.

You believe talent's an absolute allocation that you either have or you don't? 100%? What about degrees of talent? I wouldn't say I have zero talent, but certainly I will never be great or even close. Does that mean I should gather up all that wasted paper and leap into the nearest dumpster? Do you know anybody fit to say, with total objectivity or omniscience, under which shell the golden pea of talent is hidden? It would be a shame if a Frost or an Eliot leapt into the dumpster beside me because a critic on the internet had appraised his talent and pronounced he had none.

My admittedly subjective opinion is that the sonnet is good.

Carol

Tom Jardine · #28 05-03-2003, 09:22 AM

Tom, garbage is in the eye of the beholder. What Picasso thought was art might look like garbage to me, or at least smell a little high. And vice versa.
Carol, we are agreeing more than disagreeing. Jumping
to your last line, an 'opinion' is something that everyone
has, therefore it means very little, including my opinions.
The idea expressed is to create beyond, past, through, over
'opinions.'

You believe talent's an absolute allocation that you either have or you don't? 100%? What about degrees of talent?
I knew I made a mistake when I used the word 'talent.'
People with talent are Sunday painters. Either someone has top-shelf ability or they fall off the shelf. This does not mean lesser art is not enjoyable, it means to at least try
to understand the difference.
I wouldn't say I have zero talent, but certainly I will never be great or even close.
Now here I will argue with you. And here is the story, which you may already know. I say the job of the poet is to write at least one great poem. Just one. If more come about, well, wonderful! But the story goes of a poet who wrote the ultimate 'garbahge' ever. He was not all that popular in his lifetime, except in terminal fashion of the times. Anyway, he writes one poem. Even though it appears like his other work, this one is magic. I have read all his other work and there ain't nothin' there. But he is proof positive of the fact that anyone can write a great poem.
Matthew Arnold. So never say never.

My admittedly subjective opinion is that the sonnet is good.
My opinion is that the sonnet is bad. No whiskey for you! A whiskey for me!

Carol

[/quote]

Clive Watkins · #29 05-03-2003, 09:38 AM

Dear Tom

You write: “I have read all his other work and there ain't nothin' there. But he is proof positive of the fact that anyone can write a great poem. Matthew Arnold. So never say never.”

But surely that is just your opinion, and, as you also say, “an 'opinion' is something that everyone has, therefore it means very little, including my opinions”.

I don’t see where you are going with this.

Now, back to the Saturday crossword…

Regards

Clive

Terese Coe · #30 05-03-2003, 10:00 AM

One of the best things about poems is that your reactions vary each time you read the same one. Today, this strikes me as having too much to say for a sonnet. After 12 lines about the flood, the couplet is too abrupt to describe the events of and after the subsidence. It's simply impossible to believe there was "no trace" except for "mud and some erosion in the race"; the poet says nothing about the considerable effects on the people, thus "trace" appears rhyme-driven. Why not write a longer poem instead?

Terese