|
Bare of foot and
Fair of hair she stands
Bat at her shoulder, cap at a weird angle,
Saucy snap of bubblegum
Swing and a miss, one foot in the puddle
Of the once and future rain.
Innocence is painted over with toenail polish
That’s the falling sin.
|
Written by Josie (4035 comments posted) 11th September 2007 | | You paint a good description of "her" but two questions: What is "the once and future rain?" Also, what exactly is falling sin? Thanks |
Written by andybyers (196 comments posted) 12th September 2007 | Points to ponder, Josie.  Only you know what the mean to you. | With Josie
Written by Talisker (1367 comments posted) 12th September 2007 | If you are posting here, surely you are trying to communicate Andy?
Obtuseness is OK, but if you can't even explain your own poem when asked... 
Oli | With Derrida
Written by andybyers (196 comments posted) 12th September 2007 | When I was in university, my literary crit professor presented us with a poem that where a word seemed to have two different, and slightly contradictory, meanings. Which, he asked us, was the "right" one? The author was not present to ask (in truth, he or she was likely long dead). Even if he were present, would his experience of the poem invalidate yours if you guessed "wrong"? Of course not. And so someone in the class said, "Well, couldn't it mean both?" For me, that was a moment of revelation.
I've only presented you with a set of symbols. I won't tie you down by forcing a meaning on you. I may not even be able to fully explain what I felt or "meant"; I might change my mind over time. A line of poetry may simply be euphonic and not actually intrinsically significant even to the author. So I'm not being "obtuse", but merely honest, when I say that only you know what those symbols evoke in you. If it's nothing, so be it. No one has to fill every glass they see. | Sorry Andy
Written by Josie (4035 comments posted) 12th September 2007 | | You must be dealing with the thickest person on this website, but I do not know and cannot guess what the two things meant of which I spoke. To me, if the meaning is incoherent, then the message is worthless. I'm not saying that to be rude, but I've said it many times on this writing website. It is very easy to write using a mixture of words that mean nothing. It is much more difficult to write coherently, putting your message over clearly. I've been a teacher too, and when you don't understand something, I guess the best thing is to turn the question over to the class. ha ha. (No, I have never done this to be truthful). | I'm more with Searle...
Written by Talisker (1367 comments posted) 12th September 2007 | Who commented of Derrida's work:
"...anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial"
Voila.
Oli
| Obfuscatory...
Written by Talisker (1367 comments posted) 12th September 2007 | Was the word I was grasping for. Yes, Andy, a master of obfuscation.
Oli  |
Written by andybyers (196 comments posted) 12th September 2007 | It's okay. By professional, I actually work in words that are very, very precise. There's no room for ambiguity. Poetry for me is freedom. It's the ability to shake my head, feel the shackles come off, and simply follow words where they lead me. I quite like strings of words that are removed from being tied too closely to what preceded and what follows. I'm must more down to Earth when I write prose, but unless you're reprising Finnegan's Wake, you pretty much have to be.
I like reading work like that. Some of the greatest joy I've felt lately is reading work by Jim Morrison. A lot of it is simply ideas, tossed out there, naked, insubstantial but so compelling. This is my point in adhering to deconstructionist principles. You can't ask Jim "what's it mean"? He's dead. So if he can't tell you, how is the work of a living author different? In either case, you have the text. What's "in it" is different for every person. Even if I told you what it meant to me in writing it, whatever it meant when you read it is subjectively just as valid. And it's okay if it doesn't work for you, or something strikes you as odd or pointless. For you, probably for others, that's just how it is. There are lots of things I don't get that others seem to.
The line about "once and future rain" could refer to any number of things, really; I'm loathe to list them because people might consider the list as inclusive, and might feel what they understood it to mean is somehow illegitimate; it's not. However, in the interests of demonstrating I'm not utter scrambled: water evaporates: it fell as rain, it will fall as rain again (even this may simply be a allusion: reincarnation; the journey of the soul from God to flesh and back to God; the loss of innocence in life and its resumption in death on the basis of the blood sacrifice of Christ; a reference to the tears the girl will likely shed as she matures and meets the tribulations of life in the onrushing maturity hinted at by polishing her toenails...). "Rain" may be seen to be a play on the word "reign" -- once and future rain, once and future reign, once and future king (again, a reference to Christ and the resurrection). These are just the ones that occur to me sitting here; initially, the only one I had in mind was evaporation and the simple idea of cycles in life.
But it means whatever occurs to anyone who reads it, ultimately. Or, in some cases, fails to mean anything if nothing does. But that's not finally up to me. I simply follow where the muse leads. I don't mean to be rude, either, but it's very easy to ask "what's it mean?" It's harder to think and decide. But that's finally all I really ask of a reader. Read. Think. Evaluate. Decide. |
Written by andybyers (196 comments posted) 12th September 2007 | | Searle just didn't get it, Oli. It wasn't in him. The fault, dear Oli, is not in Searle's stars, but in himself. |
Written by Talisker (1367 comments posted) 13th September 2007 | Eloquent Andy - but even more mud in the water for me.
I look at the sky - I can pick out patterns of stars which appeared there, probably after the big bang (I'm no creationist). I can imbue them with my own personal meanings and interpretations (as many have over the millennia), but that doesn't make them art.
You could use a random word generator, and each person would read and interpret it's output through the prism of their personal experience - but it wouldn't be poetry.
Poetry, for me, starts with the way the poet experiences the universe around him, the words are only the last part. Your "open to interpretation" model is fine up to a point - but what motivated YOUR word choice as the poet? Stream of conciousness? In that philosophy ANY group of words is a poem, and anything at all is art.
Interesting chat. At least your work elicited response and led to debate.
Oli |
Written by andybyers (196 comments posted) 13th September 2007 | Oli, what you're basically doing here is condemning every creator, writer, painter, photographer, composer, whatever, to stand beside every poem, every photo, every rendering, every tune and field unending questions as to the inspiration, intent, circumstance, and nuance of any presented work. That's impossible. First of all, the vast majority of artists are dead; they can't do it because they no longer exist. Secondly, even when they do, it's impractical to make this demand of them. Ultimately, whether you like it or not, the interpretation of the world around us and the elements in it (like the things we read) really is up to each of us, and is based upon our life experience, what weight and import certain symbols have to us, and how we as individuals see and understand the world. The background one has as, say, a Christian will bring a wholly different understanding of even fairly prosaic works than that evoked by a Muslim upbringing.
It's not my intention to footnote every possible reference or inference made in what I write. I present it for what it is and trust in the reader to journey or not as suits him or her. Often all I hope to provide is a scoop by means of which the reader and dip down into the well of his soul and experience and draw up fresh water, rather than handing over a bucket of my own (for that, I tend to use prose). If he draws up nothing from a particular dipper, that's alright. I'm not offended. But I can't tell you what ought to come up when you do.
Feel free to indulge in random word generation. I'll continue with my own process, writing first for myself, and presenting what pleases me to others in the hopes, but not the demand, that it may please them as well. |
Written by Talisker (1367 comments posted) 13th September 2007 | We shall have to agree to differ.
Josie didn't want or expect an in depth analysis of your poem. She was merely interested in what you were trying to convey, which in her (and my) humble opinion is rather unclear. Luckily, finding that you had not perished and were still available for comment, she politely and reasonably requested some assistance in it's interpretation from the writer's perspective.
Rather ironically I think, you actually unwittingly obliged in your second last comment above
Nobody wishes to be spoon fed, and Josie is a highly intelligent, articulate and sensitive lady. Perhaps it would have been more respectful to help without all the faux-artistic snobbery.
I quite liked the poem actually.
Oli |
Written by andybyers (196 comments posted) 13th September 2007 | There wasn't anything unwitting about it, Oli; I conceded the point to make a more important one -- that deconstructionism is about being open to alternate interpretation. I never said which, if any, of the ones I furnished were in my mind when I penned the piece, however; merely what occurs to me in retrospect. This is essentially the act I'm hoping for out of any reader.
"Faux-artistic snobbery"? No need to apologize, Oli. You probably can't help it. | Thank you!
Written by Faerieanna (25 comments posted) 13th September 2007 | I have enjoyed reading both the poem and the ensuing discussion. Between the two they have prompted me to dip into my Dictionary of Quotations (to look up "once and future" I knew it rang a bell, d'uh!) and Companion to Philosophy both of which have been gathering dust on my bookshelves for far too long!
Whilst I agree completely that poetry (and any other form of art) is entirely subjective, I also think that it can be helpful to understand either the intent behind it or other interpretations of it (how else could literary criticism be usefully studied?), and I definately got more out of your poem once I read the suggested interpretations you offered.
I do, however, also appreciate "stream of consciousness" writing, especially in song lyrics, (Tori Amos for example).
I must admit I had not come across Derrida before reading this (in spite of having a Philosphy degree (I won't call myself a philosophy graduate though as that seems to imply I know much more than I actually do!)) and have read a little about his Deconstructionism before commenting here. My first impression is that this is a self defeating approach to poetry (and to writing of any genre). Writing, and therefore poetry, to the best of my understanding is a medium for conveying thoughts and meanings, a means of communication, therefore the idea that words are limitlessly open to interpretation makes the whole point of writing redundant. While it is a fascinating philosphical idea, I'm not sure how useful it is to literature, maybe you could enlighten me? (It is a new concept to me and I may be misunderstanding or over reducing it).
I did enjoy the poem, especially the line: "Innocence is painted over with toenail polish", which somehow rings true although that must be the hangover of some sort of social prejudice as nail polish is hardly corrupting (it was exlplained to me as a teenager that painted toenails and (more particularly) anklets were only worn by whores!).
Thanks again for giving me so much to think about!
Take care,
Anna x
|
Written by Phil (8763 comments posted) 13th September 2007 | Actually, I didn't have a problem with this one. Liked it too.
There's nothing much for me to add to this debate, you already know, in some detail, what I think. It does occur to me though, that if anyone argued this line strongly enough, they could disappear up their own backside!
I still say questions are a valid response to a poem that wants the reader to respond in their own way. That is a response.
Anyway. Good piece.
Phil. |
Written by ellipinnock (1816 comments posted) 14th September 2007 | Well I liked this and got quite a lot out of it - the third line reads awkwardly to me - I think I'd have rephrased, 'cap at a weird angle'.
Once and future rain had a distractingly strong resonance of the white's 'once and future king' for me - I had to drag myself away from that. bit of an unofrtunate coincidene I guess.
E | Andy
Written by soulofanangel (8 comments posted) 14th September 2007 | You are the reason why I joined this site. Before I became a member I was browsing around and fell in love with your poetry. Great is not good enough to describe how I see you as a poet, but compliments aside, I am spellbound by your poetry.
This one is a certainly a mind bending one, in a way, because you do force the reader to read in between the lines. I've been reading a lot of Bukowski lately and so I got lazy, with the "straight out as is, in your face" ness of Bukowski.
I have to ponder on this poem a bit linger, but I already like the "effect" it has had on me.
Thanks for writing and sharing your wonderful poetry |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
Previous item
