01-07-2012, 05:15 AM
(a) there is no muse, that's just plain bollocks and anyone who says differently is a silly person who may or may not be sunburnt. Or a bible salesman with a limp. Whether my brain is a gift from God or some other cosmic wish-granting fairy is neither here nor there -- what my brain filters, registers and sends forth to spew out the ends of my fingers is entirely my own internal process and I'm giving no credit whatsoever to anyone who can't make themselves visible.
(b) without the filter of the human mind, there is no such thing as truth -- it is a concept invented by humans, as animals don't need to ponder whether or not they deserve to be eaten. It is entirely possible for two contradictory truths to exist simultaneously without the universe imploding or without the observer turning into a small hamster called Geoffrey.
© I read and then promptly forgot where I read -- but I think it was Ray who wrote something to the effect that everything has layers and it's a poet's job to minimise those layers. I would agree, but for one small change: it is a poet's job to direct the reader to at least two of the most obvious layers, but leave room for further exploration should the reader feel like wandering off into nuance and subtext on his/her own, on the understanding that he/she does so without a guide and becoming lost is a very real possibility with no guarantee of personal safety.
(d) being obscure for obscurity's sake is the sign of a lazy, perhaps excessively arrogant writer -- but by the same token, assuming that because a poem's meaning is not obvious on first reading, or indeed assuming that a poem only has one single meaning and can have no other, may well be the sign of a lazy reader, or one unused to the subtleties and nuances inherent in poetry as a medium. On the internet we generally have the luxury of being able to ask the writer questions about the text directly and I feel that although that is a valuable learning tool, it can also have the effect of lessening one's ability to reason things out for oneself.
(b) without the filter of the human mind, there is no such thing as truth -- it is a concept invented by humans, as animals don't need to ponder whether or not they deserve to be eaten. It is entirely possible for two contradictory truths to exist simultaneously without the universe imploding or without the observer turning into a small hamster called Geoffrey.
© I read and then promptly forgot where I read -- but I think it was Ray who wrote something to the effect that everything has layers and it's a poet's job to minimise those layers. I would agree, but for one small change: it is a poet's job to direct the reader to at least two of the most obvious layers, but leave room for further exploration should the reader feel like wandering off into nuance and subtext on his/her own, on the understanding that he/she does so without a guide and becoming lost is a very real possibility with no guarantee of personal safety.
(d) being obscure for obscurity's sake is the sign of a lazy, perhaps excessively arrogant writer -- but by the same token, assuming that because a poem's meaning is not obvious on first reading, or indeed assuming that a poem only has one single meaning and can have no other, may well be the sign of a lazy reader, or one unused to the subtleties and nuances inherent in poetry as a medium. On the internet we generally have the luxury of being able to ask the writer questions about the text directly and I feel that although that is a valuable learning tool, it can also have the effect of lessening one's ability to reason things out for oneself.
It could be worse