Shelby Scott
Writing & Lit
Response # 7
11/3/10
Firstly, I must express that I've never hated poetry so much as I have during the past week. Reading Post Modern American Poetry has been one of the most grueling, hair-pulling, mind-numbing, frustrating experiences in my life. For me, poetry has always been about finding a way to express myself- period, point, blank. I've never had to think too hard about word choice or hidden meaning, and for that I feel blessed. I thought that reading this book couldn't possibly have been as hard as Eric made it out to be, but unfortunately, reading this was like trying to crack freaking morse code without an instruction manual. After reading, I felt like the poetry was some sort of chemistry, built up completely of formulas and structural codes.
Picking a poem to analyze wasn't any easier for me because I felt like I couldn't pull any content or substance from the text. I've come to the conclusion that this is not what I'm used to reading, and so a lot of it didn't strike a concrete understanding in me. With that in mind, I began to think back to my spoken word pieces, and came up with the solution: if I searched for the feelings, the rest would become apparent. If it didn't, I’d look for specific moments that have great imagery or express a universal truth. I told myself that there's a reason these poets have a whole anthology dedicated to them, and I just need to figure out why that is.
I chose to look at In Cold Hell, in Thicket by Charles Olson. I honestly didn't understand most of what he was writing about, but there is one moment in his first couple of stanzas that kept me gnawing at its meaning: “ All things are made bitter, words even are made to taste like paper, wars get tossed up like lead soldiers used to be (in a child's attic) lined up to be knocked down as I am,” the meaning that I first derived was that the poet himself might be the God challenging me to go deeper, or that in life we choose what role we want to play, whether it be the puppet or the puppeteer. I believe that that verse is an eye-opener because it makes you think of the universal truths in writing. It makes me think back to my own writing and if I can give a reader an image as clear as that one stanza and then ask them to question themselves, I've got to be doing something right.
In class we spoke about how you can take one perception in poetry and continue to use it, and eventually it becomes a sort of catalyst for the poem, then I started looking at my own writing and recognizing that you can build an entire story upon the foundation of one clear moment. I tried to follow this with Olson's piece but unfortunately I couldn't get where he was trying to go. It felt like I literally hit a brick wall and no matter how many times I read the piece, I couldn't crack the code. I came to the conclusion that his piece could be compared to spoken word in that the feeling put into the poem must be real, no matter how brief or concise it may be. This is because in that moment, your audience really has the chance to see what the life of the poem has the potential to be.
This is really beautifully written, Shelby. Way to go. I don't know how much editing you did on this, but it is clean, and clear, and smooth. FREAKIN' KINETIC!!!!
ReplyDeleteThere are also so many good lines in this, that I can't really put them all down, but here are a few:
"After reading, I felt like the poetry was some sort of chemistry, built up completely of formulas and structural codes." WOW!! what a great image. I find it really interesting that to describe something very structured you chose chemistry and not mathematics. I think that chemistry works even better, because, yes, like chemistry, this kind of poetry is made up of formulas and codes. But even more like chemistry (an sometimes unlike math) it has a life of its own, it's self-sustaining, and the billions of little codes and rules and formulas add up to beautiful and meaningful whole that is more than the sum of its parts. Of course, math (ideally) does this too, but we often can't see the big picture. With chemistry we see how all these boring little structured molecules build to up to produce . . . . LIFE! All by itself.
"if I searched for the feelings, the rest would become apparent. If it didn't, I’d look for specific moments that have great imagery or express a universal truth." This is a good plan. And that searching for the "feeling" is really the direction your should focus on. Poetry functions on feeling or what we call "affect" (used like a noun but with the spelling of a verb).
"there is one moment in his first couple of stanzas that kept me gnawing at its meaning." I love this image, and this is absolutely what these poets want you to do--"gnaw at their meaning." In fact, you shouldn't get frustrated if you don't finish "gnawing" and find the meaning that is the correct answer. There is no correct answer. We're just supposed to gnaw on it, teasing it, playing with the possibilities of meaning, and marveling at the ephemeral quality of those many meanings.
"In class we spoke about how you can take one perception in poetry and continue to use it, and eventually it becomes a sort of catalyst for the poem, then I started looking at my own writing and recognizing that you can build an entire story upon the foundation of one clear moment. I tried to follow this with Olson's piece but unfortunately I couldn't get where he was trying to go."
This section has a couple of points, but I want to focus first on the idea that you can build an entire story/poem/novel, etc. from one moment. This is great. But for the next part, remember what Olson says about "The Process"--it's not enough for this kind of poetry to just stay with the one moment--that perception must lead to other perceptions, which lead to more. Don't worry about where he's trying to get to--he doesn't have a plan. The poem isn't trying to go anywhere--it just goes.
Lastly: Don't try to crack the code. It's not a riddle. Think of it like a really well-structured, complex, beautiful riddle that has no answer. The poem itself is the answer.
Nice work=10
e
Wow, there are a lot type-o's in my comments. I was typing really quickly. Sorry.
ReplyDeletee