Posted by Prufrock on March 25, 1999 at 22:37:44:
In Reply to: ð~ð I wrote a poem... ð~ð posted by tomika skanes on March 25, 1999 at 12:56:49:
tomika & wendy--
hi to both. nice to meet you tomika; and hi again wendy! thank you for
posting I WROTE A POEM (IWAP) and A WRITER HUMBLED (AWH), respectively.
these two poems hold similar views. in IWAP, tomika points out the limitations
of poetry (and uses it as a metaphor for the unresolved relationship). whereas
AWH delved into why the poet is inadequate when compared to the reality that it
mimics--or perhaps the humility of the poet when compared to the masters such as
shakespeare (a poet who flew too close to the sun).
first let me talk about IWAP. what i most appreciate about this poem is how
it mocks the purpose of poetry--but in the process of its mocking, constructs
a poem that is full of the attributes of a stereotypical 'poem'. for example,
after claiming the need not to rhyme, the poem does just that: "you" in line 3
with "through" in line 6; also "rhyming" in line 4 with "trying" in line 7. so
the use of the poem as an external device in itself to prove the point is stunning.
the paradox in the first 3 lines is thought-provoking:
I wrote a poem
in prose
for you
here skanes is setting the reader up to view IWAP as a casual note, rather than
a 'poem'--despite the fact that IWAP _is_ a poem. so skanes claims that she
indeed wrote a poem--a prose poem. "i wrote a poem" as written as a line in IWAP
implies that skanes is not referring to IWAP as this "poem" that she just wrote.
so the paradox is rich because it fractalizes upon itself. that is...the poem
is about a poet who wrote a poem, etc. but as said above, what makes IWAP genius
is that it utilizes IWAP as an object to make the point of the paradox. IWAP
becomes the message that skanes is trying to convey as a poet--but cannot do so
because of the limitations of poetry. this inadequacy of poetry is underscored
by skane's admitting that her "poem" is written in "prose."
so that was the first part of IWAP--setting up the reader to agree that poetry
is inadequate. then skanes turned to exploit the points made in part 1. that is,
she (or he, not sure by the name...sorry) proceeds to use poetry as a metaphor
for unresolved relationships. it is also interesting that skanes opted to use
the _simile_; the direct method of this literary device seems to work in this
case because the tone towards poetry is so sarcastic:
And like our love
it was over
before it had begun
so here, the 'inadequacy of poetry' so carefully teased out in part 1, is used
as an analogy to "our love" in part 2. and like the poem that skanes was
reluctant to write (or was unable to write), "our love" neither began or ended.
poetry did not begin because the poet is always the fool--s/he can never
differentiate the words from the reality. however, nor does poetry ever end
because the pursuit of expressing the reality is boundless. so perhaps it is
this undefined quality and the evasive spirit of poetry that makes it inadequate.
but as with all deconstructionist interpretations, the good comes with the bad.
here the bad is that poetry is inadequate for the above reasons. however, these
same reasons also make poetry powerful: it is the seamless distinction between
poetry and reality that gives the poet enough insight to 'translate' reality into words.
and it is the endless pursuit of the perfect (but non-existent) translation that
keeps the poet writing. so in IWAP, this deconstructionist twist is manifested
by:
Still somehow
our passion grew
but, burnt us
like the sun
so now perhaps it is the inability to say what love is that makes us capable of
finding love. and it is our high expectations of love that makes us passionate to
pursue it. however, i must admit that this last stanza was worded in an awkward
way; i was also disappointed with the cliche, "burnt us like the sun."
now let me discuss AWH. so where IWAP viewed POETRY as inadequate, AWH claims
inadequacy in the POET as well as poetry. the bookworm (and the mole) are
metaphors of the 'perfect translation' that is unattainable. in theory, the
'perfect translation' should be equal to the reality that it translates. this
concept is emphasized by using nature and mathematics (worms & trees and fibonacci
integrals, respectively). i most appreciated the statement that mathematics is
the true language of nature (or reality):
Then curling back, he counted his rings
in Fibonacci integrals,
And compared himself to the cone
of a douglas fir,
Precise and steeped in mathematical scale.
here, the worm--a symbol of nature, and reality--is showing the poet that the
way of real poetics is the mathematica. in making this statement, wendy is also
saying that the language of the poet is not mathematics, and thus is not the
absolute language of nature. thus, not only is poetry inadequate as deciphered
in IWAP, but the poet is inadequate because s/he does not assimilate to the
true language of reality--mathematics.
then the poem turns to a diversion with the mole. i must admit that i did not
find the mole segment enticing, nor essential. i would delete it. i also was
not fond of the worm quotes. they were too explanatory--it squeezed out all the
juice in the fruit and threw away the pulp. i think that it just simply tells
too much.
And he snorted at me,
He with no nose,
Shrugging the soil in slinky bellows,
And sneered, "My friend the blind mole
is more poetic than you."
Then I watched the mole,pink and brown
in five inch mole homliness,
Wordlessly laboring in rhodent overtime
as he dug deeper than I,
Deeper and grittier than I will ever be,
And shovelled beneath the gnarled roots.
now just like in IWAP, the situation painted by AWH seems dismal for the poet.
but again like IWAP, the poem allows for a deconstructionist interpretation.
so the poem thus far is saying that the poet is inadequate because s/he speaks
in words rather than numbers. but the ending implies the irony--that the worm
in all its purity, in all its true manifestation of reality, chooses to quote
shakespeare--a poet, a man of words, not numbers. so yes, the worm points out
that the poet cannot attain the 'perfect translation', but wendy is saying that
poetry is no slouch. poetry may not be the 'perfect translation', but it gets
damn close, and words are beautiful in their own rights. there is even perhaps
the idea that it is the faults of poetry that make it fascinating.
The bookworm recited something from Shakespeare,
And slid into an opening in conversation,
Never looking back.
so to recap, IWAP points out the inadequacies of poetry by using sarcasm, and
objectifying IWAP, the poem. and within the context of IWAP being a poem, tokima
uses the limitations of poetry as a metaphor for broken love. AWH also points
out the limitations of poetry. here, wendy (a la bookworm) shows us that poetry
cannot be reality because the two entities speak different languages. and because
the poet speaks in words, thus the poet cannot truly express reality. both poems
show an optimistic spin. they both acknowledge that the same reasons that limit
poetry, also make poetry potent.
well, what more can i say? perhaps i can calculate my adoration for these poems?
by ways of fibonacci integrals, and partial derivatives? my threshold has been
reached--with this i write the words with the numbers in my mind. thank you
both: tomika and wendy. don't fly too close to the sun--please send my best to will.
--prufrock [032619990128]