Discussion on Poetics - split off from previous thread.

[Seraphim]

I knew a guy who whenever he met someone who played guitar, he'd say they should get together and talk shop. I don't like talking shop because I didn't like him. My resentment drives me as much as my love. I learn all I can the better to ignore things should they sneak up on me. It's easier to accept Ignorance the more you come in contact with everything there is to come in contact with. I ignore it all, and what comes comes. As natural use of language creates things, things are named. Then they can be classified. Then they can be utilized. People can know what they're doing then, and other people can see that they're doing something and what that is. What it is. I like the part of horror movies when nobody, including the watcher, knows what's going on, only that something's going on. That's how I live my life. Only I like to know that others know things so I can travel through their context. The better to get by, like Mad Max, between and when there are no contexts.

I'm a simple person. I want to know how everything works.

[billy]

Seraphim asks:

billy

Thanks for chiming in. What do you do, if I may ask, to improve your poetry? What do you look at and try to change?

---

i read poetry, i read critique, i read threads like this. to be honest i learn little from threads like this apart from what's bull shit and what's not bullshit. for me. i learn more about people than poetry in threads like this one. i did learn there's more than 5 vowels after googling something that was written here, i also learn from good poets, things like an iambic pentametric poem such as a sonnet doesn't need more than three iambs in a single line, thank you milo and leanne. to see this you only have to read some shakespeare. i learn by seeing how poets take poetry out of the box and turn it metaphorically into a circle. i learned this by noticing good poets often learn about form in it's strictest sense before changing a form in their work. i've also learned and still am learning that often it's not the one who talk the most that know the most. i prefer to learn from good poets who lead by example. again, Leanne often replied with a poem. she's the one who did most of our practices pages. she was a great teacher, i suppose i learn most from good teachers. the only thing i learn from people who carry a big drum is what bang bang bang sounds like. i tend to trust their teaching about as far as i can throw them, not to say i don't google where i can what they say but in general is just ego from one's bottom. a breath of shit to giggle at. i learn from everyone who writes a poem on this site. and i learn from the feedback i give which i openly admit is not of the better quality, how do i improve you ask... i read people as well as words and ii think.

[churinga]

This is breif summery of an article about harmony in poetry.

There are three types of harmony in poetry:
the first is style, that needs to match subject matter, the tone between tragedy and comedy, lyrical poetry or the pastoral! etc

A second type consists in the relation between the sounds and words and the topic of the thought. Therefore do not use harsh words to talk about sweet things, or use pleasant words for hard and unpleasant ones. Sounds rarely contradict the spirit of the work.

The third type of harmony in poetry can be called artificial, unlike the other two. It is only clearly noticeable in poetry. It is a certain art that not only chooses expressions and sounds appropriate to their meaning, it also matches them in such a way that all the syllables in a verse produced by their sound, number, and quantity, together produce another type of expression which adds to the original meaning of the words.

[Seraphim]

Seraphim asks:

billy

Thanks for chiming in. What do you do, if I may ask, to improve your poetry? What do you look at and try to change?

---

i read poetry, i read critique, i read threads like this. to be honest i learn little from threads like this apart from what's bull shit and what's not bullshit. for me. i learn more about people than poetry in threads like this one. i did learn there's more than 5 vowels after googling something that was written here, i also learn from good poets, things like an iambic pentametric poem such as a sonnet doesn't need more than three iambs in a single line, thank you milo and leanne. to see this you only have to read some shakespeare. i learn by seeing how poets take poetry out of the box and turn it metaphorically into a circle. i learned this by noticing good poets often learn about form in it's strictest sense before changing a form in their work. i've also learned and still am learning that often it's not the one who talk the most that know the most. i prefer to learn from good poets who lead by example. again, Leanne often replied with a poem. she's the one who did most of our practices pages. she was a great teacher, i suppose i learn most from good teachers. the only thing i learn from people who carry a big drum is what bang bang bang sounds like. i tend to trust their teaching about as far as i can throw them, not to say i don't google where i can what they say but in general is just ego from one's bottom. a breath of shit to giggle at. i learn from everyone who writes a poem on this site. and i learn from the feedback i give which i openly admit is not of the better quality, how do i improve you ask... i read people as well as words and ii think.

But I learn a great deal from threads like these. Yes, a lot about the people involved. Understanding the people helps understand their critiques - where they come. But I’ve also experienced shifts in POV from hearing people’s opinions. I find interesting what they want they will talk about, and what they wish to avoid. I compare what they say in threads like these to the poetry they produce, compare it to their critiques. I see what they are sensitive about, how they respond. They are an audience to be understood before communicating with them. Do they try to analyze the poems they read to see why they work? Does their poetry change, do they try new things, or do they just keep producing the same thing over and over? Can they articulate their points of view? Do they even consider other POVs, or are they locked into their own little perceptions? Can one explain elements of their craft, or do they pretend it can’t be discussed? Is there a resistance to discussing the mundane?

Sometimes there’s bullshit, and sometimes there’s something to be considered. One separates the grain from the chaff. I’ve learned a great deal from other people - people who were willing to spend time discussing the little things.

But we all learn differently I suppose.

---

This is breif summery of an article about harmony in poetry.

There are three types of harmony in poetry:
the first is style, that needs to match subject matter, the tone between tragedy and comedy, lyrical poetry or the pastoral! etc

A second type consists in the relation between the sounds and words and the topic of the thought. Therefore do not use harsh words to talk about sweet things, or use pleasant words for hard and unpleasant ones. Sounds rarely contradict the spirit of the work.

The third type of harmony in poetry can be called artificial, unlike the other two. It is only clearly noticeable in poetry. It is a certain art that not only chooses expressions and sounds appropriate to their meaning, it also matches them in such a way that all the syllables in a verse produced by their sound, number, and quantity, together produce another type of expression which adds to the original meaning of the words.

I found the translation from the French to which you are referring, and I’m wondering if it apples to English, or if the concepts might be out-dated. A writer might make a point about something by describing ‘sweet things’ with harsh words. A form of contrast, perhaps. Harmony can be boring. I dug out my reference library the other day because there are a lot of concepts I haven’t explored, but I can’t find the term ‘harmony’ as it relates to poetry. So I haven’t gleaned any thoughts there. What I’ve read about style, the discussions tend to refer refer to individual voice, or ‘plain vs ornate’. The concept of harmony in the article might refer to one style predominate in the era the item was written. I don’t know, just rambling a bit. But I’m pretty sure I don’t agree with it in its entirety.