Poetry Tip: Don't Communicate

[Todd]

Here's another thing I took from that book of Richard Hugo's I'm reading (The Triggering Town).

Poem Tips: Don't Communicate

He made a comment that made me really think. He said that when writing (poetry was in view here), "Don't Communicate."

That sounds so counter-intuitive. Shouldn't we want to communicate? Hugo is not talking about poorly written abstract work. The point he is making is that when language exists for the sole purpose of conveying information that language is dying. Information takes precendence over the words themselves. He relates this to how we listen to stories on the News. Once we've been told about the ________ (fire, traffic, weather, etc) the words become unimportant. By understanding the words of the news article, by getting used to reading on a surface level we deaden the language. We get so used to limiting language to an information transfer that it can affect our own writing.

Hugo: "The relationship of the words to the subject must weaken and the relationship of the words to the writer (you) must take on strength."

When I read bad poetry. Let me emphasize further, when I read my own bad poetry. One of the reasons that it is bad is becuase I'm wasting precious words explaining things in a pedestrian non-interesting way.

The words are more important than the subject conveyed. We must watch out for the tendency to merely pass on information

I'll try to keep posting these points from various books I read that make sense to me. Hopefully, it will be helpful to think on.

[Leanne]

One of the habits of beginner poets (and many not-so-beginner) is belabouring a point to make sure that the reader knows exactly what the poet intended, and if the reader doesn't get the same idea out of an image that the poet thought was going in, the poet feels he/she has failed to communicate it properly. In fact, what the poet has done is befuddle the poor old reader, who has a whole other set of experiences and understandings and quite likes to impose those over the poems he/she reads, so that when he/she comes across a very specifically-drawn, overly explained image so much time is spent puzzling out what it means that the guts of the poem become completely irrelevant. I generally call these "closed images" -- they allow the reader no scope and actually don't give the reader a lot of credit for imagination, they just demand a single interpretation as if they're clues in a cryptic crossword.

I don't like them, can you tell? And I hate it when I discover them in my own writing, but we all like to be understood and accepting that the reader might get something entirely different from our poem is a very difficult step.

[billy]

sometimes, most times really; it's a hard thing to do, we all want to be understood to a point, narrative poems often are straight forward. for me it's the use of good fresh imagery that best puts the poem forward in the context of being fresh. Leanne's point i think is very valid.
we can overload the the reader with lots of stuff that means the same thing and we the reader spends too much time trying to decipher it.
i always try to make my work understood and often fail. maybe it's the fact i overly say what i want to; the fact/truth is, i'm not sure if i do or not. i can tell when someone belabours a point etc but when does expression become too much and when is it not enough. can it be taught? if so then i want to learn or try to learn about it.

[Leanne]

I'm not sure if it can be taught, but the belabouring thing can be un-taught You often don't realise you're doing it until someone points it out -- that's why these sorts of workshops are so very helpful.

[billy]

like most things i suppose., if you do it and people point it out to you, you'll have a good chance of noticing it yourself when you do a poem.

[grannyjill]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to this particular thread, but I am finding that the advice I am receiving on here mainly consists of 'cutting out dead-wood'...I, obviously, suffer from a tendency to labour the point. But, where does the scalpel stop cutting?
It reminds me of this old story. A village grocer puts up a sign saying 'Fresh Fish On Sale Here To-day' His first customer says 'Fine sign, Claude. But, you don't need the word 'Fresh' we know you wouldn't be selling stale fish' the customer doesn't buy any. Claude crosses out 'Fresh'. The next customers says 'Fine sign, Claude. But, you don't need the words 'On Sale' we know that you won't be giving them away.' the customer doesn't buy any. Claude crosses out 'On Sale'. The next customer says'blah, blah, blah you don't need the word To-day, we know you won't be selling them tomorrow (or yesterday)'. he also doesn't buy any. Claude crosses out the word To-day. The next customer says ' blah, blah, blah you don't need the word 'Here' where else would you selling 'em?' He doesn't buy any. Claude crosses out the word 'Here'. He is left with the word 'Fish'.....it is the end of the day. He doesn't need the sign. You can smell the fish from miles away!

Bye, grannyjill

[Touchstone]

I can't remember who or exactly what they said but I once saw a quote by some well known author to the effect that it's the words that are left out that make a good book a great book.

[billy]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to this particular thread, but I am finding that the advice I am receiving on here mainly consists of 'cutting out dead-wood'...I, obviously, suffer from a tendency to labour the point. But, where does the scalpel stop cutting?
It reminds me of this old story. A village grocer puts up a sign saying 'Fresh Fish On Sale Here To-day' His first customer says 'Fine sign, Claude. But, you don't need the word 'Fresh' we know you wouldn't be selling stale fish' the customer doesn't buy any. Claude crosses out 'Fresh'. The next customers says 'Fine sign, Claude. But, you don't need the words 'On Sale' we know that you won't be giving them away.' the customer doesn't buy any. Claude crosses out 'On Sale'. The next customer says'blah, blah, blah you don't need the word To-day, we know you won't be selling them tomorrow (or yesterday)'. he also doesn't buy any. Claude crosses out the word To-day. The next customer says ' blah, blah, blah you don't need the word 'Here' where else would you selling 'em?' He doesn't buy any. Claude crosses out the word 'Here'. He is left with the word 'Fish'.....it is the end of the day. He doesn't need the sign. You can smell the fish from miles away!

Bye, grannyjill

lets assume that instead of 'Fresh Fish On Sale Here To-day'
he writes 'look everyone, 'Fresh Fish On Sale Here To-day' it's on sale and it's here to day'

the latter is how many write narrative poetry.

the first is how it could/should be written. minus the 'here' excess words usually detract from good poetry. adversely, some poetry needs to be extended to be good.

[Todd]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to this particular thread, but I am finding that the advice I am receiving on here mainly consists of 'cutting out dead-wood'...I, obviously, suffer from a tendency to labour the point. But, where does the scalpel stop cutting?
It reminds me of this old story. A village grocer puts up a sign saying 'Fresh Fish On Sale Here To-day' His first customer says 'Fine sign, Claude. But, you don't need the word 'Fresh' we know you wouldn't be selling stale fish' the customer doesn't buy any. Claude crosses out 'Fresh'. The next customers says 'Fine sign, Claude. But, you don't need the words 'On Sale' we know that you won't be giving them away.' the customer doesn't buy any. Claude crosses out 'On Sale'. The next customer says'blah, blah, blah you don't need the word To-day, we know you won't be selling them tomorrow (or yesterday)'. he also doesn't buy any. Claude crosses out the word To-day. The next customer says ' blah, blah, blah you don't need the word 'Here' where else would you selling 'em?' He doesn't buy any. Claude crosses out the word 'Here'. He is left with the word 'Fish'.....it is the end of the day. He doesn't need the sign. You can smell the fish from miles away!

Bye, grannyjill

Jill,

Sometimes it may seem that all we do is chip away at words until were left with some minimalist thing. Your comment kind of holds the answer though: you cut out dead wood. Poems can be any length and they don't have to use the minimum words to express an idea. All the word choices though have to hold their own. They have to matter. Poems shouldn't have filler in them, and often we have to train ourselves to remove filler, cliches, or anything else that deadens the power of language.

Just my thoughts,

Todd

[grannyjill]

Thanks for giving my response serious thought, folks. I wonder if I hit upon something with it. Once all the dead-wood has been removed from a poem - perhaps the poet didn't really have anything much of importance to say anyway.

The fish stinks!

[abu nuwas]

I wrote a long response to this, a diatribe even, but presumably pressed the wrong button.

I would just say this. If people do not wish to communicate, good: that is very easily achieved, either by writing nonsense or writing nothing.

Poetry, and especially narrative poetry, is writing to communicate fairly precisely. That is why it is possible to recount the story of Homer's 'Iliad'. and that is why it is possible to translate poetry from one tongue to another. Leanne (who is away I think, so I can say what I like) places a lot of weight on ambiguity. It is argued that whatever the writer writes, the reader takes away something different in greater or lesser degree, because of his own thoughts ,background, environment. That in my view is not an argument for making a poem ambiguous, but for trying to make it as crystal-clear as possible, just because you know that the reader will not receive it as it leaves your mind.

Now dead-wood. In a long poem, an epic, or a narrative poem, the reader must be helped along. This is achieved by repetition, and by saying the same thing in a different way, so that the picture is well-painted, and re-inforced. In some cultures, this is par for the course. Arabic writers, perhaps addressing people from different parts, often will repeat something in different ways, which is v handy for the poor learner, struggling to make sense of the language. I am with Claude!

[bogpan]

“Poetry and Reading III
Poetry is what remains after the drastic personal intervention. It reflects by one poetry, what is tangible not a poetry. The intervention occurs each time when somebody reads the poem. What stays always the same. What stays and is always the same. “
Nasos Vagenas
literary critic
>: D <

[abu nuwas]

“Poetry and Reading III
Poetry is what remains after the drastic personal intervention. It reflects by one poetry, what is tangible not a poetry. The intervention occurs each time when somebody reads the poem. What stays always the same. What stays and is always the same. “
Nasos Vagenas
literary critic
>: D <

I do not understand all that. Are you sure it is a good translation? Or is it just me?

[Wildcard]

“Poetry and Reading III
Poetry is what remains after the drastic personal intervention. It reflects by one poetry, what is tangible not a poetry. The intervention occurs each time when somebody reads the poem. What stays always the same. What stays and is always the same. “
Nasos Vagenas
literary critic
>: D <

I don't understand this text either. It's intriguing but too hard for me to understand the grammar. It does seem like a poor translation, but maybe that's just me.

[bogpan]

Sorry, but we only have this translation.
The problem is probably not in translation but in the way of looking at another type of syntax.
If you can find another translation of the essay "Poetry and Language" will be well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasos_Vagenas

[bogpan]

"(3) The poem must, as Mandelstamm stresses, speak without addressing itself to a concrete and known interlocutor; it resembles, in this respect (in a comparison Celan takes up in the Bremen address), a message or letter cast adrift in a bottle, awaiting a destined but unknown reader to come."
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-...rrida.html

[Erthona]

"Poetry is what remains after the drastic personal intervention. It reflects by one poetry, what is tangible not a poetry. The intervention occurs each time when somebody reads the poem. What stays always the same. What stays and is always the same. “

This addresses intrinsic worth.

For me this is a spurious argument, outside of a specific topic and usage in literary criticism which speaks of "killing the author" (seems as though I remember a thread where Leanne had mentioned this). It is the idea that the reader creates the worth of the piece. To take it out of context and apply it to things in general, such an argument makes no real sense. Yes the reader does impose worth on a thing, but a poem is not read by just one reader. If many people read the poem, and say it has worth, then we have to look back to the writer and say that he has composed something of worth, that it must have intrinsic worth a part from the author or the reader. The reader allows us to determine this, but the reader does not in fact imbue the poem with worth. If a person who makes furniture is successful and has a lot of customers wanting to buy his furniture would we make the ridicules statement and say, "It is not good craftsmanship that makes this furniture good, it is only that people view it as good that makes it so!"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The problem is probably not in translation but in the way of looking at another type of syntax."


Good translation are about making the syntax of another language clear, just as a good translation must translate idioms so that they make sense, so yes, it is a poor translation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The poem must, as Mandelstamm stresses, speak without addressing itself to a concrete and known interlocutor; it resembles, in this respect, a message or letter cast adrift in a bottle, awaiting a destined but unknown reader to come."

In other words a poem should not be written as though to a specific individual. Did anyone not know this?

--and then the example is different than the statement. The person writing the note assumes that the person who will read it will know the language it is written in, and all that, that entails.
Other assumptions: The person will not be dead who reads the letter. It will not be a dog. It will be a person who can see. Even a bottle letter writer who must appeal to the widest of audiences still must assume limits on that audiences.

The truth is, is there is a wide gulf in terms of supposed audiences between writing it to your friend "Bob" and the audience of the bottle letter writer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Once all the dead-wood has been removed from a poem - perhaps the poet didn't really have anything much of importance to say anyway.”

Actually, I often think that is the case.

I also think it is the case that people suspect that is the case and are afraid to closely examine what they have written for fear it is in fact true. On some poetry site it claimed to have 100,000 poets, or something to that effect. Really? Seems to me we either have an overabundance of poets compared to the past, or an overabundance of people who think they are poets and are not. You may call me elitist if you wish, but when someone thinks that Hallmark is the apex of poetry, and the goal to which one should strive, I am generally going to be of the opinion that the person is not really a poet. Of course that does not even matter, as there are plenty of those places who will for a small transfer of money from you to them be happy to create and support the delusion that you are in fact a poet, when you are not.

--------------
Todd opened this with a teaser. "Poetry Shouldn't Communicate"

However the word "communicate" in how Todd characterizes the Hugo piece, is being used in the very restrictive sense of "solely to communicate information of a very mundane sort." Mainly, facts. Personally, I prefer my news to be more fact and less commentary as news is suppose to be, rather than the reverse--call me perverse!

The danger with this sort of statement is people will get it into their head that poetry shouldn't communicate anything at all, which I think is not what he is saying.

I definitely disagree on one point, it is not the language that is stale, but our descriptions, are metaphors, or that which we are talking about like the myth of Icarus! (that's for Leanne) And yes, when he uses the term "language" he is referring to something different than the English language, or what one assumes is the general definition of the word “language” (a body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition). He is referring to the "idiom of present communication", if I can be allowed to use the word "idiom" in an over-arching sense, rather than in a singular sense. So I mean it like in "idiom of the age". That is what it seems he means when he says "language", the “idiom of present communication”. However, as it is presented, that is not made plain. Personally I think it should be made plain. Using language inexactly is different than using “stale” language. Stale language is phrases that have been over used, and as a result, we are immune to their effect. All of us are at some time guilty of a stale usage of language, therefore we should strive from freshness in out description and metaphors and avoid trite or cliché phrases.

Points to write by:

If the author responds to something said about his poem with, know you just don't get what I am saying. I would suggest the fault is not in the reader, but in the author.

If an author means for the reader to understand something specific, then he should write in such a way that, that specific thing is understood by the reader. If he is not going to write in such a way that this will happen, then he should not take exception to whatever interpretation the reader imposes on the poem. In other words, if you write in such a way that the poem could been seen as inscrutable, then you should not take exception when it is called gibberish.

[billy]

"It is not good craftsmanship that makes this furniture good, it is only that people view it as good that makes it so!"

a good craftsman makes good furniture (unless he's pissing around) the people who view it give it acclaim. making this furniture good and making good furniture aren't really the same thing.

i hear how good ikea furniture is and yet i think it's shite. certainly not made by craftsmen. it's more the hallmark of the furniture industry.

on the other hand, i think the reader helps spot crap poetry and crap anything else. if most say "this is crap because" then the odds are it doesn't work.

somethings are good (well made) despite who or how many say they aren't good. sometimes it just takes a bit of time for humanity to realise the fact. jmo

[ellajam]

This is a frequent issue for me. Yes, I want to communicate something with the poem but for me it is difficult to walk the line between ambiguity and too much information. When readers here let me know that something is confusing I try to clarify and often bog the poem down, I am trying to learn to just say it a bit differently, maybe not closing every hole but still getting the reader somewhere near where I'm aiming. It's a challenge.

[rowens]

When you say something you believe clear and straight, the first thing people will do is either not believe you or disagree with you. Or they could agree with you, but only in a shallow way. Disbelief, disagreement and agreement put people in mindsets that distract from any true experience of a poem or story.