Cyril Darkcloud Posted March 9, 2003 Report Posted March 9, 2003 Note - I’ve spoken to Peredhil about taking a closer look at this poem. The goal here is to make what I hope are some helpful suggestions not only about specific details of the piece, but also about the process of rewriting a work like this. Again, I must stress that while I am going to speak in what might be perceived as a formal and authoritative tone, I am not a professional poetry critic nor a professional poet, I’m just a reader who’s willing to share what he’s picked up along the way on the off chance it might be useful. For those who would like to read Peredhil’s poem, it can be found here. Peredhil, rather than start with my perceptions of the piece as a reader, let’s take a look first at what you, as the author, have to say about it. I’ve taken the liberty of excerpting some of your remarks from the original thread for this purpose: This was a 'gut' post, I just kinda blurted it out and left it. Given that it is drawing responses, I feel I should actually try to tighten it up. I'm hesitant to edit the original poem because that WAS how I felt - at that precise moment. But I'm hoping to tighten it up, correct the meter, count the syllables, tweak the alliteration and tongue position transitions, etc, etc. To me, rereading, it seems as if the rhymes get weaker as they go, and the ending somewhat tapers off and lacks resolution - which I think I'll keep. Issues of this type often DO lack resolution and the closure so important to human minds... OK - given this, let’s try and lay some groundwork. From your statements about the piece the following points seem to be important: 1. It originated as a ‘gut’ piece, spontaneously written and posted in that spontaneity. 2. Given its origin, it bears something of the emotional weight of a particular moment, and this is something worth keeping. 3. There is a sense that wording and structure could be tightened up. 4. One structural and thematic dimension of the piece is a perceived weakening, or loosening, of structure that parallels a concluding statement that leaves issues raised by the poem unresolved, and this is a dimension that is worth keeping. Assuming this is a fair reading of your statements about the piece, these 4 points should provide a good set of guidelines for trying to rewrite it. In my next post or two I’ll try and put together some ideas about how to move forward with these points in mind.
Peredhil Posted March 9, 2003 Report Posted March 9, 2003 Cheers Cyril as Da Feedback MAN! Heh, I love your feedback - even if it were all an illusion - and you didn't think before you posted - you cause ME to think. Hugs and sits back to listen.
Cyril Darkcloud Posted March 9, 2003 Author Report Posted March 9, 2003 Some thoughts about working with visceral pieces: Pieces written ‘from the gut’ can be hard to rewrite due to the emotional associations the author has with the event and moment that gave rise to them. That being said, this kind of spontaneous composition tends to need rewriting just as much, if not more than, other kinds of writing. Why? 1. In the heat of the moment we often say what we don’t mean. Consider for a moment the experience of being both very concerned about and very frustrated with someone close – often we are frustrated precisely because we are concerned, a feeling I believe parents know quite well. It is frequently the case, however, that in the heat of a difficult moment, the heat of our frustration is expressed but not the concern which is the real issue. The frustration is a real feeling, but not the deepest feeling. Sometimes it is only after we ‘cool off’ that we can identify what the real issue is. 2. Just because the author feels strong emotions does not mean the reader recognizes them. Pieces ‘from the gut’ are often surprisingly weak in their emotional impact on the reader. This is sometimes due to the author writing primarily to name or vent something he or she is feeling, not to communicate it. This happens all the time in everyday conversation without our realizing it because being able to see and hear a person gives more information than simply reading what he or she writes. In face to face conversation, for example, the statement “I’m pissed off!” comes with a facial expression, a tone of voice, movements of the body and the opportunity to ask what the problem is. Those same words appearing in print lack all of the sensory information that conversation provides and really don’t serve to do much by themselves other than to state a piece of information. The writer feels something strong, but the reader does not feel very much until those words are expanded. 3. An experience that has not been reflected upon is an experience that has not been fully felt. This something of a restatement of the adage, “An unexamined life is not worth living.” Generally things done in the heat of the moment tend to be reactive in nature – the moment provokes and we respond. This is completely normal. But to truly own the experience one must revisit the moment, especially because we never immediately grasp everything that was present at the time. Poetry at its best has to do with life and so attentiveness to life is the necessary cornerstone of good poetic writing. Conclusion: The first step toward a revision of a visceral piece of writing is to return to the experience that produced it, not to process it away but to understand it and name it for what it is so that it can it be effectively communicated. Sometimes this requires some time and space and a writer needs to step away from a 'gut' piece for a while, on other occasions it can be done fairly quickly after the initial writing. 3 questions seem to suggest themselves: 1. What am I really trying to say and share? 2. How do I need to speak in order to say and share this effectively? Am I venting or am I communicating? 3. How well do I understand the experience I'm speaking from, or what confuses me about it? Are there dimensions to it that I left out? These questions will not always have clear answers. Their purpose is not to provide content, but rather to serve as guides in making decisions about what to keep or what to change in a piece of visceral writing.
Cyril Darkcloud Posted March 10, 2003 Author Report Posted March 10, 2003 (edited) A few observations about the poem: 1. Vowel Sounds In both versions of the poem long A sounds are very important. Of the 12 lines which make up stanzas 3-5, 6 of them conclude with a long A sound – lame, pain, same, way, lay, made. The neat thing about this is that it allows for a steady repetition of a sharp sound that is not monotonous – pain and way, for example, sound enough alike to be near rhymes of each other but are not duplicates. This use of sound can lend a feel of continuity throughout the piece. It might be interesting to explore ways of introducing a couple more of these sounds earlier, or to experiment with the use of the sound in the middle of the lines as well. Related to this are a couple fine uses of variant forms of rhyme: • eye rhyme – In stanza 3, again and pain are words that to the eye should rhyme, but do not rhyme when spoken [unless one really stretches the pronunciation of ‘again’ ]. A technique like this fits well in writing which faces the unresolved issues that this poem raises. • endline alliteration – In stanza 2, numb and harm present the ear with the similar sounds of a soft vowel combined with the letter M. A fine and subtle touch that fits the theme of the piece well. • shifting rhyme pattern -- This is very nice. Each stanza has some form of rhyme, but the combination of rhymes shifts from one to the next. Another fine example of form working well with theme. Suggestion: A good thing to consider with this piece would be the question of how this fine groundwork can be made even more effective – whether by using more sounds of similar type or by trying to amplify the emotional content of certain lines by use of sound. 2. Grammar One of the positive dimensions of the rewritten piece is that it is not so reliant upon contractions. The use of the contraction past’s in the first line of stanza 2 and the contraction m’dear should probably be changed as well. My dear seems to be quite a bit stronger in a place that strength seems to be called for in the piece. Similarly, it is usually a bad idea to contract a verb, even if it’s only an auxiliary such as has, since verbs tend to be the strongest words in piece. Conversational tone is a good thing and I thing necessary for this piece, but it’s not always easy to do such a tone well in verse. One of the problems is with contractions. We use them all the time without thinking about them in everyday speech, but they often weaken what we try to say in piece of verse so it’s worth paying attention to them. The final line of stanza 3 needs more work as problem in the unqualified absolute makes no sense here. If speaking generally, the plural should be used. If, which is likely to be much stronger, there is a specific problem in mind the definite article the should be used. In fact, this line might be a good place to use an adverb to emphasize the verb – if the problem simply stays the same. 3. The General and the Specific Consider stanza 1 in the 2 versions of the piece. Line 3 originally read very specifically: the lies, the tears, the resolutions. In the rewrite, however, this is now in the general absolute: lies, tears, resolutions. Personally I like the change. However, the question it raises is the movement between general statements and particular issues that one sees in this piece. Too much generality, for example, will produce a weak poem while being overly specific in places might risk losing the reader in the details of a private conversation. Lines such as those which conclude stanzas 2 and 3 are worth a look with this in mind. Is the speaking stating general principles or is he speaking about a specific problem and a specific set of choices? 4. Metaphors You make use of them in stanzas 2 and 4. At the beginning of stanza 2 the understated personification of the past by attributing numbness to it is a beautiful piece of writing. In stanza 4, however you are not so successful. The metaphor of the path coupled with the sense of losing one’s way works well, but it is overturned quickly by the metaphor of the cold bed which appears suddenly and with no clear connection to what had preceded it. A good metaphor needs a little space, or, if multiple metaphors are going to be used the relationship that obtains between them should be clear to the reader. Edited March 10, 2003 by Cyril Darkcloud
Peredhil Posted March 10, 2003 Report Posted March 10, 2003 And now I need to print this and compare with the poem. Very insightful and full of things I tend to do intuitively. I used to have to think about some of these things - and I should again. Reminds me of the Concert Pianist that discovered he had difficulty playing scales when he tried to teach his son. His comment makes a grand aphorism: "Always take time to relearn the basics." Thank you Cyril.
Recommended Posts