Silence

[dan2100]

When you wake in the night and know

no one is there -- no one to share

your joys and sorrows with and the

weight of darkness, that separates

the days and stops life itself, is

silent -- never answering your many

whys -- tries to smother you

and you feel some small release

in knowing nothing matters, that life

itself is unconcerned with anything

but itself, that all eyes turn finally

inward and care not for you

or your feelings and the stars

should they be seen by you

are only furnaces -- not pieces

of crystal or magic your mother

once told you they were -- and your

heart so full it could burst

is just a pump and you but a

sack of bones and muscle and nerves

and lost hopes -- then will there

be a moment of grace -- or

will the silence and the loneliness

never end?

[George H. Smith]

Dan,

I like this piece a lot; it's an excellent account of loneliness and the feeling of despair that sometimes accompanies it.

So how would you characterize this format? Blank verse? A "prose poem"? I hesitate to guess because JR might denounce me for my ignorance in literary matters. It's happened before.

A long time ago on Atlantis 2, I called "On the Nature of Things" (Lucretius) a poem, largely because that is how it has traditionally been classified, and still is. JR upbraided me for my ignorance of what qualifies as poetry, and a nasty flamewar ensued.

If I emerged from that flamewar bloody but unbowed, I also emerged less willing to stick my neck out again. A better option is to let you stick your neck out, so JR can jump on it.

Ghs

[onlyjeanbean]

That's pretty beautiful, sir.

[dan2100]

That's pretty beautiful, sir.

Thanks!

[dan2100]

Dan,

I like this piece a lot; it's an excellent account of loneliness and the feeling of despair that sometimes accompanies it.

Thanks, George.

So how would you characterize this format? Blank verse? A "prose poem"? I hesitate to guess because JR might denounce me for my ignorance in literary matters. It's happened before.

A long time ago on Atlantis 2, I called "On the Nature of Things" (Lucretius) a poem, largely because that is how it has traditionally been classified, and still is. JR upbraided me for my ignorance of what qualifies as poetry, and a nasty flamewar ensued.

If I emerged from that flamewar bloody but unbowed, I also emerged less willing to stick my neck out again. A better option is to let you stick your neck out, so JR can jump on it.

Ghs

I believe most people who dabble in prosody and the like would classify this one as blank verse. There is a certain looseness in it at times -- so it's not like strict metered verse. (Then again, even amongst instances of blank verse, there's almost always much playing around with the meter. I'd bet that the best examples do much playing around -- and this has given people something to argue about for generations.)

I don't recall Jeff Riggenbach's pronouncements on this subject. Would you care to reference the messages on A2?

[Xray]

Dan,

I like this piece a lot; it's an excellent account of loneliness and the feeling of despair that sometimes accompanies it.

So how would you characterize this format? Blank verse? A "prose poem"? I hesitate to guess because JR might denounce me for my ignorance in literary matters. It's happened before.

A long time ago on Atlantis 2, I called "On the Nature of Things" (Lucretius) a poem, largely because that is how it has traditionally been classified, and still is. JR upbraided me for my ignorance of what qualifies as poetry, and a nasty flamewar ensued.

If I emerged from that flamewar bloody but unbowed, I also emerged less willing to stick my neck out again. A better option is to let you stick your neck out, so JR can jump on it.

Ghs

The key is, as always, to check the premises on which a person bases his/her claim. J. Riggenbach believes that there exist "objective" standards for judging literary quality, ignoring that every standard is the result of a subjective choice involving specific criteria which again are subjectively chosen, i. e. they don't exist objectively "out there", awaiting discovery.

For example, there have been times in which Shakespeare was by no means valued as highly as he is today because he did not meet certain "standards" required back then.

Just curious: Have you asked JR for a concrete demonstration and analysis with text quotes to illustrate why he believes Lucretius's "On The Nature of Things" is not a poem?

If yes, what answer did you get?

Dan Ust: Your poem conveys a poignant authenticity; no doubt what you wrote poured out of your soul. Thank you for sharing.

Interesting that you used a religious term here: "Grace".

I would like to explore this further. Who or what do you have in mind as the source of this "grace"?

Edited May 7, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

I don't recall Jeff Riggenbach's pronouncements on this subject. Would you care to reference the messages on A2?

I don't even recall the year that our discussion occurred. Moreover, given the acrimonious nature of our discussion, I would rather not dredge it up again. If JR reads this and would like to restate his position, that would be fine with me, but I will probably stay out of it. As much as I like a good fight, I am not especially interested in how different types of literature should be categorized.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

J. Riggenbach believes that there exist "objective" standards for judging literary quality, ignoring that every standard is the result of a subjective choice involving specific criteria which again are subjectively chosen, i. e. they don't exist objectively "out there", awaiting discovery.

I agree with JR on this issue, generally speaking.

To call standards "objective" doesn't mean they have to exist like rocks and trees and birds. Many standards are conventional, but that doesn't make them arbitrary.

Consider the standards for good grammar. Suppose I were to write, "Me like subjectivism. It good. It explain everything. Nothing objective."

Now, suppose someone were to chastise me for using bad grammar. I suppose I could reply that the criteria for good grammar are subjectively chosen, i.e., they don't exist objectively, "out there," awaiting discovery.

It's true that the rules of grammar don't exist "out there" in the same way that rocks and trees and birds do, but that doesn't make them "subjective" in any meaningful sense. The rules of grammar are conventions , and as such they can be "discovered" by a student of grammar who wishes to write and speak correctly.

The same reasoning applies to many disciplines, including literature. The distinctions and standards that apply to literature have evolved over a long period of time, and within that context it makes perfect sense to speak of objective standards by which we can distinguish "good" from "bad" literature. Again, these standards may be conventional, but that doesn't make them arbitrary. Nor does it make them a matter of subjective feelings, e.g., "I like this book, so it is good literature."

At some point you should put aside your proclivity to call every value judgment "subjective" -- as if that explains everything -- and engage in a more thoughtful analysis of the subject matter at hand.

Ghs

[imurray]

"or your feelings and the stars

should they be seen by you

are only furnaces -- not pieces

of crystal or magic your mother

once told you they were"

Dan,

You're a very talented man. I enjoyed this poem very much, especially the lines I quoted above.

Sincerely,

Ian

[dan2100]

Dan,

I like this piece a lot; it's an excellent account of loneliness and the feeling of despair that sometimes accompanies it.

So how would you characterize this format? Blank verse? A "prose poem"? I hesitate to guess because JR might denounce me for my ignorance in literary matters. It's happened before.

A long time ago on Atlantis 2, I called "On the Nature of Things" (Lucretius) a poem, largely because that is how it has traditionally been classified, and still is. JR upbraided me for my ignorance of what qualifies as poetry, and a nasty flamewar ensued.

If I emerged from that flamewar bloody but unbowed, I also emerged less willing to stick my neck out again. A better option is to let you stick your neck out, so JR can jump on it.

Ghs

The key is, as always, to check the premises on which a person bases his/her claim. J. Riggenbach believes that there exist "objective" standards for judging literary quality, ignoring that every standard is the result of a subjective choice involving specific criteria which again are subjectively chosen, i. e. they don't exist objectively "out there", awaiting discovery.

For example, there have been times in which Shakespeare was by no means valued as highly as he is today because he did not meet certain "standards" required back then.

Just curious: Have you asked JR for a concrete demonstration and analysis with text quotes to illustrate why he believes Lucretius's "On The Nature of Things" is not a poem?

If yes, what answer did you get?

Dan Ust: Your poem conveys a poignant authenticity; no doubt what you wrote poured out of your soul. Thank you for sharing.

Interesting that you used a religious term here: "Grace".

I would like to explore this further. Who or what do you have in mind as the source of this "grace"?

Why does this matter?

[dan2100]

I don't recall Jeff Riggenbach's pronouncements on this subject. Would you care to reference the messages on A2?

I don't even recall the year that our discussion occurred. Moreover, given the acrimonious nature of our discussion, I would rather not dredge it up again. If JR reads this and would like to restate his position, that would be fine with me, but I will probably stay out of it. As much as I like a good fight, I am not especially interested in how different types of literature should be categorized.

I'm somewhat interested. I'd like to see Jeff state his position if not present extensive support for it.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Dan Ust

[dan2100]

"or your feelings and the stars

should they be seen by you

are only furnaces -- not pieces

of crystal or magic your mother

once told you they were"

Dan,

You're a very talented man. I enjoyed this poem very much, especially the lines I quoted above.

Sincerely,

Ian

Thanks. As I put some effort into those lines, I'm happy to see others appreciate this. I'd probably attribute more of the success of this poem to effort and some amount of luck than to talent.

[Rich Engle]

I missed this one. Too busy cranking out a gumshoe story. Yes, I like this too. Stylized blank verse? You are working with in prose what would be pushing run-on's. A little Joyce-like that way.

Do you read ee cummings? "Etc." is still my favorite book of poetry, and boy do you see him experiment in there.

The love poems are to die for. I adore all of them, here's a favorite, if you haven't read it:

i carry your heart with me

i carry your heart with me(i carry it in

my heart)i am never without it(anywhere

i go you go,my dear; and whatever is done

by only me is your doing,my darling)

i fear

no fate(for you are my fate,my sweet)i want

no world(for beautiful you are my world,my true)

and it's you are whatever a moon has always meant

and whatever a sun will always sing is you

here is the deepest secret nobody knows

(here is the root of the root and the bud of the bud

and the sky of the sky of a tree called life;which grows

higher than the soul can hope or mind can hide)

and this is the wonder that's keeping the stars apart

i carry your heart(i carry it in my heart)

[dan2100]

I missed this one. Too busy cranking out a gumshoe story. Yes, I like this too.

Thanks.