Above and beyond

[bodkin]

Above and beyond

The sky is indescribable, and literally so.
In face of such reality, what can any words achieve,
however much time I spend
pushing them round my notebook with an HB pencil?

It is not dark. It is nearly so. The sky is neither black nor blue
but begins, high overhead, an intense blue-grey
of clear and deep, restrained luminance

that shades by grades completely even all the way
to a pure hue --
unique at every point on the horizon
between crisp, cut-out silhouettes of trees.

There are no clouds. The eye swings unrestrained
across the whole arrangement,
finds no flaw, and no point in the expanse
not perfect,
and perfect in relation to the others.

There is near-black at the eastern edge
and a colour in the west
which is in no hint orange,
except here, in comparison
with so many other shades of blue.



In the face of reality, what can any language do?
So I put the notebook down, and stand
square to the broadside
of living qualia

in a moment that extends
until, at length,
a first star appears
and I am wholly beyond words.

[ray miller]

How to say something new on the subject of how to say something new.Or should it be true rather than new? Twice, we have "In the face of reality" - I felt reality was too solid a word, something more equivocal was required acknowledging that reality is more subtle.But maybe that's your intent.

The eye swings unrestrained
across the whole arrangement,

I like that phrase a lot though the following 3 lines don't seem to add much.
shades by grades is pretty good, too.
Having referred merely to a faultless sky in my last poem I feel totally shamed.
Enjoyed this a lot.

[clarabow]

Hi Bodkin,

Parts of this I liked, especially the end verse, and other parts didn't quite work for me -

Anyway, just a thought on the first S and beyond (above and beyond - made me think of ...... the call of duty) I think you are telling too much so (delete) if it works ignore if it doesn't.


however much time I spend
pushing words around my notebook with an HB pencil
The sky is indescribable

(It is not dark. It is nearly so.) high overhead neither black nor blue
(but begins,),but an intense blue-grey
of clear and deep (,) restrained luminance

(that shades by grades completely even) all the way - not sure this line made sense as is
to a pure hue --
unique at every point on the horizon. Maybe stop here

Between crisp, cut-out silhouettes of trees
There are no clouds. The eye swings unrestrained
across the whole arrangement,
finds no flaw, and no point in the expanse
not perfect,
and perfect in relation to the others. - not sure who the others are here

There is near-black at the eastern edge
and a colour in the west
which is in no hint orange, - the negative here doesn't work for me
except here, in comparison
with so many other shades of blue.

In the face of reality, what can any language do?
So I put the notebook down, and stand
square to the broadside
of living qualia

in a moment that extends
until, at length,
a first star appears
and I am wholly beyond words.

[Arian]

Quite a big upside to this, in my view, Ian - I especially liked the subtle use of internal rhyme to maintain the rhythm. Some good lines, too, of which my favourites are:

There is near-black at the eastern edge
and a colour in the west
which is in no hint orange,

(is there a stray "in" there?)?

The downside, for me, is that the whole piece is too self-consciously ironic, trying too hard to make a point through self-contradiction. It strikes a false note, to my ear. The poet's voice is too intrusive. I could spell out the issues as I see them, but I suspect you see what I'm driving at. You're too good at this game not to.

I enjoyed reading it, though - eliminate the recursive irony and you'd have a decent piece, I reckon.

Cheers
peter

[bodkin]

Hi Ray,

Glad you liked it. It maybe feels a bit uneven to me?

You may be right about those two lines and the three that follow. I felt a need to say how flawless it was but, as you may have observed, words aren't really up to the job.

Thanks!

Ian

[bodkin]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your thoughts.

It is, of course, an interesting addendum to this that a photograph cannot easily capture it either. And more, that I couldn't wholly capture the experience of looking at the photo in words...

Ian

[bodkin]

Hi Clara,

I like some of your cuts, I will have to think on it for a while however...

That line you couldn't parse should read:
"that shades, by grades completely even, all the way"
but that seemed a bit overkill on the punctuation.

"which is in no hint orange" -- the point is that it wasn't orange, but colour is relative -- it was orange in relation to the other shades

The "others" were the other points/colours in the sky...

Ian

[bodkin]

Quite a big upside to this, in my view, Ian - I especially liked the subtle use of internal rhyme to maintain the rhythm. Some good lines, too, of which my favourites are:

There is near-black at the eastern edge
and a colour in the west
which is in no hint orange,

(is there a stray "in" there?)?

I didn't think so...

The downside, for me, is that the whole piece is too self-consciously ironic, trying too hard to make a point through self-contradiction. It strikes a false note, to my ear. The poet's voice is too intrusive. I could spell out the issues as I see them, but I suspect you see what I'm driving at. You're too good at this game not to.

Hmm, I think I'm not really aware of the irony you mean. There is an irony, that words cannot truly describe it and I said that. But the piece itself is not supposed to be ironic... I say I cannot describe something, and then I describe it, but I could hardly say it was indescribable and then not say what -- if nothing else it would be a very short poem

Can you explain more which features have the problem?

I enjoyed reading it, though - eliminate the recursive irony and you'd have a decent piece, I reckon.

Cheers
peter

Thanks!

Ian

[Arian]

Can you explain more which features have the problem?

Sure - I can certainly give you my slant on it, Ian. It would be unfair to make comments like I have without a supporting argument. Will be back in the next day or 2 (bit tight for time right now).

Cheers
peter

[brianedwards]

I'll be interested to read Peter's comments too, as I quite enjoyed this as it is . . .
Parts remind me of a great poem about the sky by Lance Lee. I'll try to dig it up.

B.

[Sharra]

Hi Ian, I really liked the feel of this and you have some great lines in here.
At the risk of completely changing what you are trying to achieve though, I’m going to suggest you lose the bits that describe you describing it, take away that mediation.

I feel that by starting by saying the ‘sky is indescribable’ you are weakening the images, especially as you then try to describe it, and I'd be tempted to start at ‘It is not dark’ – we would then inhabit this gorgeous world all the more .
In the same way I would take out the second to last stanza.
Nicky
x

[CSThompson]

The color you're describing is my favorite color in the world. I have no idea what it's called. As for the poem, I thought some of the images were evocative but felt there was a little too much discussion. If the goal is to talk about (or around) the ineffable, perhaps only a single powerful line should be devoted to the ineffability of it.

[Arian]

Hi Ian,
OK, as promised, here’s my personal - and probably solitary, by the tone of the thread – reservations on your piece. Before making my argument, I should emphasise that there’s a substantial, as I’ve said, part of it I like.

So what don’t I like? I’m not a professional poetry critic, so it’s not easy to articulate clearly, but I’ll have a bash.

In modern, and postmodern, poetry, there’s often an attempt to use recursive techniques – referring, that is, to a poem within the poem itself. This gives the piece a 2-dimensional structure – there’s the first level (the content of the piece itself ), and then the meta-level (the poem’s reference to its own content). Used well, the two levels can be set up to conflict with each other, which produces a variety of results, ranging from the downright paradoxical to pointed irony. Usually, though I’m no expert (indeed, very much an amateur!) the poet’s intent is to make a point through irony. It can be extremely powerful, and the line between success and failure is both subtle and highly subjective.

It seemed, and seems, to me - it hit me at the very first line – that you were about to take this direction. You were going to make your point of the “indescribability” of reality through the recursive irony of describing it, or failing to. You were going to use your piece as a point about the inadequacy of language. At least, that’s what I immediately thought, at line one. And, it seems to me still that that was your intention. But it didn’t work for me, for several reasons:

1. Too heavy-handed. Intention signalled too obviously from L1
2. Point 1 may not have been so bad if it hadn’t (to me) struck a note of literal unsoundness – the sky (or anything) is describable. One may describe it badly or inadequately, but it’s possible to give a description.
3. The philosophical cliché of dismissing words as “inadequate in the face of reality”. I know you meant this as a poetic device, but it’s also at the heart of the poem’s recursivity - the very point of the piece. Yet, as early as L2, it introduced (to me, a lone voice, remember) a clumsy motif. You re-state the point in the penultimate stanza, but it has, to me, a been-there-got-the-tshirt feel – the fact is that the relationship between language and “reality” is old hat, in poetry, literature and academia. Indeed, some people would argue that there is no reality beyond language. Ask Wittgenstein, next time you see him!

A lot of this is, in some degree at least, irrelevant. I’ve often argued, on PG and elsewhere, that a poem stands outside of its content. One can consider a piece to be poetic, even if one disagrees violently with its message. Message should be very much a secondary issue, if it is an issue at all, in the evaluation of a poem.

Yet with your piece, content is important. It lies at the very heart of the poetic conceit, the idea that language can’t cope with reality. That’s debatable, and a perfectly legitimate subject for your piece. What I found hard to enjoy was the well-conceived, but (to me!!) slightly heavy-handed, execution of your idea.

But this heavy-handedness refers only – only – the recursive element of the piece. I actually enjoyed (a lot) your description of the sky, which is both poetic and insightful in my view. Cut the self-referential element and it couldbe very good.

As you may, or may not, know, I’m not one for leaving great long dissertations like this, so I hope you’ll forgive the departure from my normal practice. I usually try to be succinct. But I thought I owed you an explanation for negative remarks (which I stick to) in the face of such positivity from others.

Cheers
peter

[bodkin]

Hi Peter,

Hmm....

but it's not a poem about the sky, it is about the indescribableness of real experience.

You call that a philosophical cliché, which maybe it is, but it is also an absolute fact and very relevant to poetry.

This poem is absolutely not supposed to be recursive, however. The only reason I am struggling so hard to describe the (indescribable) sky is just to give some hint at what it was that I couldn't do justice to.

Hmm....

I will bear this in mind, and possibly I can "lighten" the poem a bit. But it does seem that what you want is a totally different poem.

If it was just a poem about the unique character of the sky...

...which you know I believe to be indescribable ...

...how could that ever be anything except a failure to describe it?

Hmm....

Hmm, thanks for going to some length to explain what you really didn't want to go into. I appreciate the effort. I'm just not sure what to do with the information.

But thanks, I will dwell on it a bit.

Ian

[Arian]

Hi Ian

but it's not a poem about the sky, it is about the indescribableness of real experience.

Well, yes. I know. Which is why I said:

it hit me at the very first line – that you were about to take this direction. You were going to make your point of the “indescribability” of reality

Your intention was always clear to me - I was only questioning your execution, that's all.

As to

I'm just not sure what to do with the information.

That's easy - nothing! I never expect, or want, anyone to do anything with my remarks. I make them as a complete, and untutored, amateur, and I make them in the spirit of debate, not instruction. I enjoy the interchange with those willing to engage, like you, and I leave those who prefer their ivory towers - there are a few - alone.

Cheers
peter

[brianedwards]

"In modern, and postmodern, poetry, there’s often an attempt to use recursive techniques – referring, that is, to a poem within the poem itself."

I have a big problem with the quote above. Broad strokes like that, applied to poetry, never paint an accurate picture. And modern (modernists) wouldn't enjoy being 'and-ed' to the pomos. You've kicked a wasp's nest there.

I wonder, is Peter using the word "modern" in reference to modernism or does he simply mean contemporary? Either way, I don't think it would be so controversial to point to self-referentiality or meta-fiction as features of modernism, they simply are. Stylistic features that are shared with postmodernism too.
That said, such devices can be traced back much further than either of those two schools. Don Quixote is essentially a meta-fictional novel, and it wasn't unusual for Elizabethan poets to refer to the act of writing poetry. Edmund Spenser went as far as addressing the poem he was in the process of writing, urging his lines to woo his beloved:

Leaves, lines, and rhymes, seek her to please alone,
Whom if ye please, I care for other none.

Of course, the success of such devices, as peter notes, is "highly subjective."

B.

[Arian]

I don't think it would be so controversial to point to self-referentiality or meta-fiction as features of modernism, they simply are. Stylistic features that are shared with postmodernism too.

Thanks, Brian, you've put it more succinctly than I did.

And sorry, RLR (Rob?), but you've left me for dead. No idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid (don't worry, I'm a bear of very little brain, as anyone on PG will tell you).
You say:

And that's why I ain't a fan of metatext and poem-poems.

but your first reaction to Ian's piece was that it is "cool". Yet, applaud the technique or not, the poem is unarguably self-referential. What are we to make of your stance? Making it up as you go along, perhaps? If so, don't blame you. We all do, to some extent.

Cheers
peter

[Arian]

It's Rob, and yes the poem is cool, and yes I dislike poem-poems. A piece about an artists failure is a different animal. This ain't a gimmick like the pomos are apt to produce. It seems, to me, a heartfelt lament on the inability to express XYZ. Plus I changed the interpretation to a photograph anyway.

Sorry, Rob, I'm just completely and utterly lost as to what you're point is, or could possibly be. Your remark above seems to me to be just a random sequence of words. But I'm 100% confident that this confusion is my fault not yours. I am, as I've said, pretty dim and poetically niave. Still, one of the merits of the forum is that it encourages "debate" like this. One day (I'm convinced of this, really I am, which is why I contribute) I'll understand what it's all about. Poetry, I mean.

Cheers
peter

[BenJohnson]

One day (I'm convinced of this, really I am, which is why I contribute) I'll understand what it's all about. Poetry, I mean.

Wow, You'll get the Noble prize for that not to mention the money you'll make for books and speaking tours. I'd like first refusal to be your agent

[Arian]

Wow, You'll get the Noble prize for that not to mention the money you'll make for books and speaking tours. I'd like first refusal to be your agent

You're on, Ben. When (not if) I finally discover the secret, we'll clean up, you and I. We'll start off with a world tour, "The Puzzle of Poetry - Solved!", then write books about it into our dotage.

Until then,

cheers
peter

[Arian]

I have been know to be full of shit myself. I don't take crit seriously (enough?) If what I said doesn't make sense, it probably doesn't. But I still dislike poem-poems, and this isn't one of those!

I know what you mean, Rob, I've been guilty too, on occasion. That's why enjoy it, really. No absolutes. I enjoyed our exchange.

Cheers
peter

[bodkin]

I think comments about self-referential poetry do have some relevance. I actually was not thinking of that in this way... I describe writing, but I was not especially meaning the writing of this poem. Just some attempt to record the moment. I guess the connection to the text of the poem itself is natural, however.

I think, given the overall response, I have got away with it this time? I could make some reference to something else the writing is for? A letter? But that might take the poem off in a distracting direction.

I need to trawl all the comments and decide whether revisage is in order.

Maybe this evening...

Thanks all!

Ian

[ray miller]

What's a pomo?

[bodkin]

Permanent Open Market Operations

or a linguistic branch of Native American people in Northern California

Or POst MOdern

of course post-modernism is over now, as is modernism, and even futurism...

...the only conclusion is that time is over!

Or else those weren't very clever names