Poetry Forum

Possessing Nothing

Possessing nothing, least of all
This small, new, unlearned life.
I hold your chin against my shoulder.
Outside, all the night
Is turning, changing, gaining color,
As the dawn appears.
I breathe as slowly as the ocean,
Calming all your fears.
Possessing nothing, I am certain
You will not recall
The calm and strength I have to give,
But you can have it all.

This is lovely. Perhaps a few too many , for me and I wasn't sure about

Calming all your fears.


For some reason I tend to think its the parent that has the fears? Maybe my instead of your - just a thought.

I think it's quite dull for an Experienced-section poem; no offense. It's heartfelt but it doesn't seem well-crafted. Does the ocean breathe?

I'm with ben, I just find this really dull. Maybe make it more personal rather than relying on generic sentiment?

B.

I think there's way too much pomp and intellect in contemporary poetry. The ordinary human emotions, which everyone has felt since the dawn of time, are shied away from as "sentiment." It's as if the poets are scared to feel their own emotions for fear of being seen as silly or melodramatic, so everyone writes these carefully-crafted little poems containing dry little musings on modern life and erudite references to foriegn films and places in Italy. Yet if you open a book of poetry from the T'ang dynasty, what are the poems about? Missing an absent friend, the heartache of exile. If you read any poetry in English from before the twentieth century, what are the poems about? Lost love, heartbreak, and heroism. Big emotions, big themes. Modern poetry has become small, and even though it's often good that's still a loss.

RE: "Does the ocean breathe?"

Do poets use figurative language? I would have thought the connection between breathing and the ebb and flow of the tide would not be such a stretch.

I didn't think that those who complained of the poem's dullness were being dismissive of the sentiment or its simplicity. I thought "Outside, all the night
Is turning, changing, gaining color," and"The calm and strength I have to give," could have been made more interesting. Like clarabow says "calming all our fears" may be better than your fears.I like the sentiments expressed, the last line most of all.
"

My issue with the ocean breathing is that it can be as still as a mill pond, or as violent as a daddy long legs on speed, or anything inbetween.

The poem generally came close, but just missed for me. That's an emotional, not intellectual response.

Nicky B

For me it works pretty well. Agreed, the sentiments expressed are not exactly new or startling, but at moments like the one described, I think, we come as close as we ever do to feeling pretty much the same as everyone else has ever felt about these emotions. The poem strikes me as an honest and touching reflection of that. It's almost folklore rather than poetry.

My thoughts, anyway.

As an afterthought, these feelings can be made dizzyingly and brilliantly personal - http://unix.cc.wmich.edu/~cooneys/poems ... rayer.html - but we can't all be Willie.

Thinking I missed the mark is fine with me- I've never known two people to think exactly the same thing about a poem anyway. But to dislike it because it's "sentimental" or "not original" represents an aesthetic philosophy I strongly disagree with.

benjamin wrote:Does the ocean breathe?

Errr...no. I think you'll find it's meant metaphorically - sometimes, poets do that, you know. That is, move away from the literal; speak metaphorically. To me, it is a good image - the distant, and slow, sound of waves crashing can sound like breathing.

On the other hand,

But to dislike it because it's "sentimental" or "not original" represents an aesthetic philosophy I strongly disagree with.

Que? Disagreeing with those who don't like your work won't make them like it, CS. The responsibility is on you, as a poet, to make them like it. You can't write any old thing, and say "you must like this, because it has the right aesthetic philosophy." (whatever the hell that might mean).

For my part, you don't need such over-defensive and oddly-constructed arguments. Becasue I quite like it, whether or not I have the right aesthetic philosophy (which I doubt). Its theme might be shopworn, but most poetic themes are - I think you made your point nicely, with some imaginative phrasing. I especially liked

This small, new, unlearned life.

All the same, I can't help feeling that you won't come to love it as one of your best, in years to come.

Cheers
peter

Well no, I don't think it's one of my best. My argument isn't really in defense of my own poem or an attempt to force anyone to like it. But I do see a tendency on this forum to present an attitude to poetry that I see as being antithetical to the spirit of just about all pre-modern poetry, as if there's this huge break in continuity between then and now.

Just to clarify, my dislike of the poem has nothing to do with it being "sentimental" or even that it is "unoriginal" but more that the sentiment is described in a bland, uninteresting way, relying on abstract ideas to convey a recognisable sentiment. I would never argue that a writer should avoid time-worn themes (how could we?) but surely we have a responsibility to approach those themes in fresh ways that resonate with contemporary readers? If that is an aesthetic philosophy you oppose than I am more than happy to remain in disagreement.

B.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "contemporary reader" as opposed to just a reader. I'd rather try to write something that could speak to a person from any time rather than just this time we happen to live in. Clearly you don't think I've succeeded in that, but that's neither here nor there. It seems to me that trying to write for the "contemporary reader" ensures the poem will have nothing to say to anyone outside this little stretch of time.

I mean contemporary readers as in those alive at the time the poem was written. Shakespeare wrote for his contemporaries and his sonnets still resonate . . . don't they? Maybe not . . .

B.

Well, they do for me, so we agree about that much anyway. What I meant was that I don't ever try to write for my contemporaries, I just try to write what I personally like. That may not be in sync with what anyone else likes, or it may be that I can't achieve what I'm trying to achieve, or it may be that I just haven't found the readers that I would be in sync with yet.

I like it despite the comments of dullness, unoriginality. It's written in a way that I felt touched. The language is simple, unadorned, which sometimes is the most moving.

I hold your chin against my shoulder
I breathe as slowly as the ocean,
But you can have it all.

These lines I like best.

Thanks for the read.

Lake

This poem won't appeal to everyone - it doesn't have to, and you have a snap shot of views here which if translated to the wider world I think you would find the same sort of responses. I liked it because you touched a memory. as for sentiment I think it needs to be simple, straightforward and touching. I know some here know that feeling so you may not have touched everyone and it is something to consider - is any poem finished or perfect?.

Du Fu was considered too simple, too straightforward in his words and actually considered himself a failure - today he is considered China's greatest poet. Wordsworth also suffered from same similar criticism. But consider Lucy - simple, straightforward his Lucy's poems. So maybe I am not intellectual enough or modern enough, don't care - still love his Lucy poems.

"But I do see a tendency on this forum to present an attitude to poetry that I see as being antithetical to the spirit of just about all pre-modern poetry, as if there's this huge break in continuity between then and now."


I think there is a wide range of styles here? And maybe some prefer 'modern' but I think most just know what they like and that's true anywhere? Respectfully CB

CSThompson wrote:But I do see a tendency on this forum to present an attitude to poetry that I see as being antithetical to the spirit of just about all pre-modern poetry, as if there's this huge break in continuity between then and now.

I'm not aware of any distinction between the spirit of "pre-modern" poetry and that of "modern" poetry. The mode of expression, yes.

I'm not just being argumentative. I'm prepared to be convinced that there is such a distinction, but I'm not at all convinced at the moment.