Posted by Prufrock on February 16, 1999 at 12:21:22:
In Reply to: Reality, please posted by Oklahoma on February 16, 1999 at 05:48:42:
oklahoma--
hi, nice to meet you; thanks for posting REALITY, PLEASE. i must admit that i
cannot extract much semantic interpretation from the content of this poem as
it is written. perhaps, i lost my secret decoder ring. the vorticism--the
2-dimensional orientation of the poem on paper--is straight forward; it begs a
desperate randomness that is clearly ordered (two words per line). the rhyme
scheme is primitive in most respect; although you fooled around with some broken
rhymes that would have made dickenson smile (whether or not approved is another
matter that only she could answer). e.g. "bubbly faces/padded mazes." from the
cadence aspect, there were a few points where i got choked: e.g.
"photographed feelings/telivision peelings."
what i found interesting about the poem is that the simplicity of the vorticism
allowed for a variable reading of the poem--a complex result. what i mean is that
i was tempted to read one line and associate it with a line that did not immediately
follow the line that was read. it felt like a matching word game. and if i
dare go out on the limb, that is very much like how the mind thinks when one
conjures upon the gods of metaphor. one object is visualized, and then a
selection of another object to express the visualized object is assigned an association,
irrespective of contiguity. the selection from a list, echoes the sentiments of
jakobsen--"the axis of selection."
however, what i found the most appealing about the poem are the lines, "reality please/
reality please."--though i would have changed the latter to "reality pleases."
i am interested in literary ambiguity. in this case, the ambiguity is dependent
on syntax. a classic line that illustrates this point is from eliot, "eyes that
last i saw in tears." is eliot conveying the ultimate encounter with these eyes?
or is he implying the eyes 'last' in the sense of longevity? and are the 'tears'
that of the 'eyes' seen by the speaker, or is it the smokescreen of the speaker's
own eyes? therefore, the syntax lends itself to ambigious interpretations. perhaps
to a lesser extent, your lines hint of this literary mechanism. do you mean "reality
please" as an expression equal to "please give me reality," or "reality pleasing the
perceiver." i have also written a poem (PARTITIONING THEORY) using this
literary mechanism; i just might post it.
so anyways, i had fun reading the poem; although i'm sure i read into it deeper
than was intended. i too can appreciate the superficiality--and almost trite--
presentation of your poem. but to me, perhaps a poem relays an alternate message
that may or may not be intended--but equally legitimate. i would be curious to
know the process of your writing; i welcome any discussion. bye for now.
--prufrock.