[New-Poetry] from the Writer's Almanac

[James Cervantes]

A world of difference, no?  There's no "imaginative power" vs. scansion.
 More like art vs. craft, I'd say.  "Art" uses the same devices/elements as
"craft," though "craft" doesn't make the leap into "art."
- Jim

On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 5:53 PM, Judy Prince <jbalizsprince at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Yes, you've noted what at least one of our resident metrics experts has
> noted, Mole.
> Baer's poem's initially cute, but hasn't the imaginative power to deliver
> an um imaginative vehicle for it.  And we guess that since he'd chosen an
> 'old' 'strict' form [sonnet], he might've strengthened his poem's satire
> with the 'old' iambic pentameter scheme.  He didn't, and it's clunky and
> bumpy.
> A friend notes that Sylvia Plath, tho, succeeded rather well at something
> akin to it:
>
> An Applicant by Sylvia Plath
>
> First, are you our sort of a person?
> Do you wear
> A glass eye, false teeth or a crutch,
> A brace or a hook,
> Rubber breasts or a rubber crotch,
>
> Stitches to show something's missing? No, no? Then
> How can we give you a thing?
> Stop crying.
> Open your hand.
> Empty? Empty. Here is a hand
>
> To fill it and willing
> To bring teacups and roll away headaches
> And do whatever you tell it.
> Will you marry it?
> It is guaranteed
>
> To thumb shut your eyes at the end
> And dissolve of sorrow.
> We make new stock from the salt.
> I notice you are stark naked.
> How about this suit----
>
> Black and stiff, but not a bad fit.
> Will you marry it?
> It is waterproof, shatterproof, proof
> Against fire and bombs through the roof.
> Believe me, they'll bury you in it.
>
> Now your head, excuse me, is empty.
> I have the ticket for that.
> Come here, sweetie, out of the closet.
> Well, what do you think of that ?
> Naked as paper to start
>
> But in twenty-five years she'll be silver,
> In fifty, gold.
> A living doll, everywhere you look.
> It can sew, it can cook,
> It can talk, talk , talk.
>
> It works, there is nothing wrong with it.
> You have a hole, it's a poultice.
> You have an eye, it's an image.
> My boy, it's your last resort.
> Will you marry it, marry it, marry it.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 2009/5/3 TheOldMole <Opus40-01 at opus40.org>
>
>> Well, I claim a back seat to no one when it comes to worthlessness, but
>> these are the lines that clunk on my ear a bit:
>>
>> without qualm, scruple, or further delay
>>
>> I can scan it as a 4-stress line easily enough:
>>
>> withOUT// qualm, SCRU//ple, or FUR//ther deLAY
>>
>> but when I try to get 5 stresses out of it, it comes out more like
>>
>> withOUT// qualm, SCRU//ple, OR//furTHER// deLAY
>>
>> And line 6 hits me as
>>
>> >too MA//ny HOURS //of UN//needED //durESS,
>>
>> -- I don't have any problem making "hours" a one-syllable word -- I
>> remember we recently talked about an issue like this in regard to the
>> question of whole rhyme,
>>
>> I can scan
>>
>> uncertain working conditions, and endless stress.
>>
>> but it feels clunky two me, with extra unstressed syllables in the middle
>> that take up too much room.
>>
>> As I said, I'm no authority here. But if I'd written the poem (if I had
>> the wit -- I do like most of the poem), I would have tried to rework those
>> lines to make them sound better to my ear.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris Lott wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 10:29 AM, TheOldMole <Opus40-01 at opus40.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Speaking as the worthless guy, it makes no difference if the lines don't
>>>> get
>>>> in the way of your appreciation of the poem, some difference if they do.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder, though -- are there any elements of craft that are worth
>>>> discussing, or is scansion the only worthless one?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Worthless might be putting it too harshly (about elements of craft, it
>>> is CERTAINLY not applicable to you)... but in practical terms the fact
>>> that scansion is so personalized makes it rather less valuable, or at
>>> least moves it into a different-- and honestly more interesting-- area
>>> of interest.
>>>
>>> More importantly, I wasn't as interested in an argument as I was (and
>>> still am) in simply seeing how different people scan the lines in
>>> question. I mean, since it was explicitly brought up... If that could
>>> be done without arguing about right and wrong (that's the worthless
>>> part), it would be very interesting. Anyone care to share their
>>> interpretation?
>>>
>>> Personally, I think all elements of craft are worth discussing, even
>>> if sometimes particular claims might be of dubious value.
>>>
>>> c
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> New-Poetry mailing list
>>> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Tad Richards
>> Read my NY Writing Careers Examiner column today!
>> http://www.examiner.com/x-2862-NY-Writing-Careers-Examiner
>>
>> http://www.opus40.org/tadrichards/
>> http://opusforty.blogspot.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> New-Poetry mailing list
>> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
>> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> New-Poetry mailing list
> New-Poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu
> http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/new-poetry
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20090503/0ce4e583/attachment.html