Growing

Liked it too.. Only one who has given birth can be allowed the liberty of considering how much it has cost them in real terms.. It is life transforming.. Thankfully most mothers rapid next thought is how they would not have it any other way.. Thanks God for soft Mums.

you are exactly right gerry... we all, every one of us have thoughts as to where we would be, who we would be with, had we not our children to hold us back... of course, the thought of being without them terrifies us, but we often roll the idea around the mind like a sweet dark chocolate... we would not be human if we thought otherwise.

I think chant ought to be given credit for his unserving review skills. not only does he highlight a good piece of work he also sets out his explanation/interpretation of the piece for us all to absorb and comment upon. I wish I had the learning to do the same.

Maybe, chant, it is that very assumption of which you speak ".....a woman's life is completed by her family" that causes a woman's hair to stand on end and her teeth to grind! Masterful poem in this mum's opinion - and she's been there, done that times five. It's our biology which places us in this role, not necessarily a well thought out choice, nor yearning for that which completes! And it's the loss of a sense of separate self - the persons we were becoming 'before family' - that we mourn. This doesn't mean we don't love our kids. That's another story. And, incidently, men can experience this too, but from a different perspective - though few come to the conclusion that a man's life is 'completed' by fatherhood.

cheers, Storms!

thanks first to chant whose incisive comments i always appreciate ... the thing i most absorb from chant's comments is the matter of the IDEA ... it has been something i have been thinking about and talking about lately ... some people i KNOW begin with the idea ... i dont i just begin with some image or phrase and then the poem unwinds itself ... i find out through the writing of it what that subliminal idea is that drives it ... (which is rather the point of writing for me i suppose ... to find out what i am thinking ...) ... i think i am becoming more interested in trying to express the things that are difficult to say ... particularly in terms of womanhood i think ... growing turned out to be dealing with a few different things ... and i think britgrrl is right ... it is a mourning for the sense of self as seperate ... but also for me the dealing with this baby that has turned into an almost adult when i feel i am only just getting there myself ... i think it is mirrored by the other piece "child" which looks at relating to the lover's child or children ... and is equally as difficult a subject ... full of defiance of traditional role and of vulnerability too ... thanks all for comments ...

"which is rather the point of writing for me i suppose ... to find out what i am thinking." i think this has been, for me, a bit of a weakness in your recent poetry. traditionally, the personal poem is supposed to begin with the personal/particular, and move outwards towards the abstract/universal. though you are perfectly accomplished at doing this, you tend to want to give the emphatic concluding lines of any poem to yourself. it is as if you are saying, well, at the end of the day, what is most important is ME! and you try it on in this poem too. you start with your son and move from him to yourself, and conclude with yourself. here though, your son steals the show, as children often do. for though you give the concluding lines to yourself, the force of those lines - the wish for the non-existence of the child - gives the child the final emphatic moment, rather contrary to your authorial wishes, i suspect. the reader's thoughts go to the child at the end of the piece, not the mother. you can get away with this because your style is so warm and inclusive. others couldn't. is this piece too autobiographical, too hinged on the personal to be 'Great' poetry though? i offer these comments in all seriousness as a critique of someone whose work i admire very much and whom i consider to be a professional poet. so no "i think Fish is a wonderful person and her poems are lovely" comments, please.

chant's comments have made me think, as usual. the 2 fish poems about children appealled to me as both good poetry and because they are so bravely personal. however i'm vaguely aware of the personal/universal notion that chant mentions. here's a poem on the same theme which i think achieves that connection. The Children of Separation - Brian Jones While waiting for you to come, I imagine you sitting in a stopped train between stations, feeling at peace in no-man's land, where there is no need to say "we" or "our" or "home", or other impossible words, where the poppies among the corn recall distant universal pain cushioned in history and innocence. How unusual it must be now for you to enjoy silence, with no-one to crave your assurance, no-one to grasp your hands, stare into your face, and guiltily ask "Are you all right? Are you unhappy? Will you say?" No-one you must gratify with tears, or the absence of tears. Suddenly, you are among the rank of those who once seemed as unlikely, as remote, as the handicapped, the poor, the mad - the children of separation, those who are given two christmases to halve the pain and find it doubled, those who are more prey to nostalgia than old men, who have been betrayed by language and now handle it like bombs, for whom affection is a thicket of spies, and surnames amputations with the ache of wholeness. Every book taken down is inscribed by loving parents, and albums of photographs refuse to be otherwise. What can be done with memories? What remains of the self if everything that was is now framed in the inverted commas of "seemed"? I imagine the brakes sighing to the inevitable, and the train resuming the purpose of the rails. Soon you will step out into my story whose pages for too long I have kept closed to you. We will walk through fields I am still making mine, and when the time comes for someone to say "Let's go home" no-one will say it. On the platform, we will wait to be parted, your hand clutching a ticket to somewhere rejected.

chant you really are a thorn in my side ... you are my own personal Jiminy Cricket ... it makes me uncomfortable that you make me think like this with these confronting things ... i agree with you that poetry has to have the personal to universal shift ... and i just wonder how its possible to pull it off ... the poem above by brian jones is wonderful i think ... it pulls it off wonderfully ... and it makes me think what IS the point of poetry ... of writing it ... and how does anyone get astride the Poetry Gazelle and take the big leap forward into being Good Enough? anyway gimme a break mate ... its exhausting ...

Fish's poem is interesting because she talks about the branched out tree (gloriously IMO)that she is now.. in that moment.. was she wondering what other sort of other trees she could have become.. or whether she would have been better of branchless.. to refrain from asking questions is bad.. to ask questions is better.. but ultimately, to divorce who you are from the question is folly.. perhaps all resolutions of this sort lead to this sort of blandness. I am rapidly changing my mind about poetry as I write this... I now think great poetry or great art is a successful attempt at breakimg out from the universal.. The universal is bland. *Yes I do believe that if we are going to hold out ideals for manhood and womanhood then mothering and fathering would be somewhere in there for completeness.. of course not necessarily through your children only.. Mother Theresa.. Nelson Mandela.. to quote some big examples of these universal principles at work*

personally.. and all critiques are indeed personal reflections.. what makes Alisons work so bloody good, is her ability to write very much about the personal. She does it in a way that makes the reader believe that it is also about them, not just her. Its the putting into words the feelings that so many people have. What is wrong with often (not always by any means) keeping the closing lines to herself? is it not simply fishs style?

Hmmmmm great poetry for me would be about giving me a taste of an emotional cocktail 'I' have not experienced before.. not about comforting identification at all.. more about a learning experience.. Fish's poem is interesting on many counts not least about the title 'Growing'.. both of her sons physical presence and herself internally.. in realising how far she has come in to accepting her role as mother..

.. in that she can now question it more or less comfortingly..

I think Alison is a wonderful person and her poems are lovely. Those closing lines: I didn't necessarily feel more for the child more than I did the parent, so chant's assumption about the dominant personality/moral product of the poem is possibly wrong. And the universal i didn't see much of here, apart from at the level of potential experience like Blake or Verlaine, which is a very general mode, not really giving fish enough credit. I interacted with the poems on a personal level, because i think most know the uncertainty of what having a family does/would bring to a person. It’s a very unique feeling much unlike any thoughts on mortality or sexuality since this is an extremely intimate social unit fish is dealing with, the possibility of autonomy being smothered inside a relationship with a dependent. At the most general we could probably draw parallels between familial love/loathing and the same feelings in a tempestuous sexual relationship where there is a co-dependence or an unequal relation. I remember from very first reading ‘insider’ or much else from fish's "drum" abc when the site had not long since started, that there is an overwhelmingly personal thread of narrative running through all these 'stories', you could argue that what she is best at is taking something very personal and unique and forging a link to what everyone has experienced or daydreamt of; the binding and sometimes crippling reminders of current and past relationships, their strands of responsibility, pruning the branches of the tree if you like, but growing new ones also. i don't believe that ‘child’ or ‘growing’ are nihilistic despite the feelings of geas or taboo assoc. with these thoughts which prevail in both literature and post-Pill philosophy, but are potentially heartening when given this kind of personal reading, especially to take a step out of the plot and consider that the branches ARE thriving under any extent of scrutiny ivory puts them under. In my opinion, like

richardw...well hello to someone who seems to understand what the term 'universal' really means. This is exactly the point. Fish has an incredible abilty to take an experience and find unique ways to tell us about it so that we undergo an AHA moment. THIS is what relating on a universal level means! Something speaks to us at an in-common, or collective conscious level - or it doesn't. Happens in all art forms. Think of any great musician, think of architectural designer, Maya Lin (Vietnam Wall Memorial, Wave Field). On another point. There are many poets...and well known poets at that..who admit that their poetry emerges verse by verse or even line by line; Fish is not unique in this. As I see it, at this point in her life she happens to focus on certain issues. Next week she may change direction. She may write something from her son's, her kids father's, her mother's or chant's perspective! That's the creative process. But whatever she writes will always be through the filter of her own eyes. We can only tell a story as we see it. That poem about the child (above) IS good. Its narrator is deliberately 'looking' through the child's eyes. This does not make it 'better', more moral or more universal in its impact than Growing.

Bit deep for me this - I think one of Alison's strengths is that her pots have her thumbprints on them, but they still hold water for other people. (Oh God, this is why I never use metaphors) They are deeply personal, they are exposing inner thoughts, they are packed with emotion, but I think there is an artist's distance as well. The interesting comparison for me is with someone like Eddie - the two are certainly in the same league in terms of talent and nobody could describe Eddie's work as lacking in emotion, yet he feels to me some distance from his poetry. This is hard to get across properly - the core of Alison's work is Alison, I think, but the core of Eddie's work is an Eddie style and sensibility, but not actually Eddie himself. Does that make any sense ? And there's all sorts of people who tread other paths, or middle grounds. I would say that Ralph veers more towards the Eddie route, Fay mouse more the Alison route. Richard and Chant a more cerebal reflective type, using emotion as a scalpel rather than a blunt instrument (no more metaphors for me, ever) What has interested me in this debate is that I could feel ideas forming, and being discarded as I read through people's views.

i posted up the brian jones poem earlier because i think it illustrates what chant said about what for him is the weakness in fish's 2 poems. fish's are absolutely about herself. i don't think that that is a bad thing, and i think we've seen in this thread that for many readers the intensely personal flavour of the poems is what helps make them so appealing, but maybe the question is whether the personal approach, the "to find out what i'm thinking" approach, is a limiting one. i can't imagine that it could produce much better poetry than the 2 we're now talking about, because they *are* terrific poems, but can it produce lines like brian jones' What remains of the self if everything that was is now framed in the inverted commas of "seemed"? i'd not thought about any of this before...it's all chant's fault...

well done fishbone! top quality poem there! you must be good for chant to be speak so gracefully about it, after the mauling he gave my work i fear to write again! so rest assured our educated chant likes your work, others therefore will follow. congrats hol x

The comparison between Fish and Eddie's work was interesting.. Fish bares her soul for all to see in her poems with startling imagery and the use of sexy words.. Eddie is a skillful wordsmith and a brilliant comentator whose poems have a polished sheen on them, however he rarely lays himself on the line in his work.. (In Lake Como, a personal piece, for example.. he does not even hint what the bell sounded for, only that it did a pure note)... ..When he does (as in Doves) it is quite breathtaking. IMO, More of the latter please Eddie.. and from Fish.. from personal poems, personal resolutions rather than open ended pieces.

this is ridiculous - now people are dictating how fishs poetry should be? ! For goodness sake, get a grip.

now I'm certain that I'm out of my depth. I can't comment like you wise people and I read a poem and enjoy it for the way it speaks to me and nothing more. fish you write poems that speak to me. why you wrote them is not myconcern the enjoyment of them is totally me concern

janus dont worry.. just because you are not a) hyper intellectual. or b) ludicrously ATTEMPTING to come over as hyper intellectual, doesnt mean you dont have a valid point..

Liana...I'm with you on that one girl. Let's roll Mozart over and ask him what the h*ll he thought HE was doing!

hey Janus! Just throwing in my two cents worth and when I turned around there you were! Good to see you here...

thanks janus ... ALL responses to work are valid and very welcome ... this thread has been really interesting and helpful to me ... it has done more for me than any other in helping me to understand how my stuff communicates ... and THAT is brilliant and i am grateful to everyone ... it really has made me think too about what i can and cant do ... and my friends know i am currently struggling a bit with how to get the work UP a level ... i DO see a real difference between the stuff i write and the stuff i admire (such as the brian jones poem above) ... i WANT to improve it ... i hope the thread is useful to others too tho ... it is good to have a serious discussion about this sort of thing ... and i think its one of the reasons for HAVING the forums ... (will ignore the mail i got yesterday from a kind concerned taler telling me to stop preening round in the forums and write some f.ucking poetry ...)

Thanks Fish.. as you know, I am a fan. I would be flattered if any of my work was discussed and dissected in such detail.. it means that I provoked time and thought and the consideration of others.. surely the purpose in writing anything.. My comments in return are there only to return the compliment and provoke thought.. if they have served in that and that only then I consider it worthwhile in laying myself on the line with less than flaccid comments..

hello britgrrl nice to see you too. Liana you're right Iam NOT an intellectual and I have no wish to be. Yes I have a degree and several other qualifications but the most important qualification i possess is the ability to read and therefore enjoy other people's words and pictures.I hated literature in school because i could see no point in dissecting a poem for its inner meaning. Whoever wrote it wrote it because they wanted to say whatever in those words. My duty was to read it and enjoy it or not and perhaps in enjoying it, marvel at the talent of the person who did it. That's what i try to do on here. You, fish, britgrrl and several others have that talent that makes me marvel. That's the level I'm on and that's the level I want to stay. fish I admire your endeavour to improve your skill. I'm sorry that I will never comment on that aspect of your work.

*thanks lucky stars he didn't open a thread entitled "Skimming Stones" as he'd been considering doing!* here is a poem by Philip Larkin that examines the same theme as "Growing", but from a different angle. Dockery and Son 'Dockery was junior to you, Wasn't he?' said the Dean. 'His son's here now.' Death-suited, visitant, I nod. 'And do You keep in touch with-' Or remember how Black-gowned, unbreakfasted, and still half-tight We used to stand before that desk, to give 'Our version' of 'these incidents last night'? I try the door of where I used to live: Locked. The lawn spreads dazzlingly wide. A known bell chimes. I catch my train, ignored. Canal and clouds and colleges subside Slowly from view. But Dockery, good Lord, Anyone up today must have been born In '43, when I was twenty-one. If he was younger, did he get this son At nineteen, twenty? Was he that withdrawn High-collared public-schoolboy, sharing rooms With Cartwright who was killed? Well, it just shows How much . . . How little . . . Yawning, I suppose I fell asleep, waking at the fumes And furnace-glares of Sheffield, where I changed, And ate an awful pie, and walked along The platform to its end to see the ranged Joining and parting lines reflect a strong Unhindered moon. To have no son, no wife, No house or land still seemed quite natural. Only a numbness registered the shock Of finding out how much had gone of life, How widely from the others. Dockery, now: Only nineteen, he must have taken stock Of what he wanted, and been capable Of . . . No, that's not the difference: rather, how Convinced he was he should be added to! Why did he think adding meant increase? To me it was dilution. Where do these Innate assumptions come from? Not from what We think truest, or most want to do: Those warp tight-shut, like doors. They're more a style Our lives bring with them: habit for a while, Suddenly they harden into all we've got And how we got it; looked back on, they rear Like sand-clouds, thick and close, embodying For Dockery a son, for me nothing, Nothing with all a son's harsh patronage. Life is first boredom, then fear. Whether or not we use it, it goes, And leaves what something hidden from us chose, And age, and then the only end of age.

chant and ilk may draw some admirably straight lines, but it's those who dare to scribble OUTSIDE the box who grab the heart's imagination, who help the rest of us soar...... go fish...go...

I do NOT regard myself as an intellectual.. people who think of themselves in terms of any labels are only self limiting, IMO.. However, I do 'think' and do have opinions if provoked.. ..and in doing so, I can accord no greater respect to anyone than to the give them the benefit/or not of my thought processes..

sorry if it appeared i was getting at you chant, thats not so. i love to see formal and informal discussions on all aspects of writing, and have contributed. what i do find bordering on the ludicrous is when people think they should dictate style and content of a writers work... that simply cant happen...can it? Loved the above poem. Historiclly I have not been a fan of Larkin, but similarly to Hughes, have come across some work lately that has startled me and made me re appraise my perceptions. What annoyed me earlier was the suggestion that writers can somehow start to *write to order* writers DO need to examine their work, and look at the reasons it is how it is.... doesnt always mean that they can alter it though. I have been trying for long enough, god knows. anyway.. apologies if you thought i was grrrrring. i wasnt.

britgrrl I don't think I could EVER draw straight lines. I just LOVE to scribble. Perhaps this can go some way to explain why I feel intimidated

what else is literary criticism BUT the dictation of style? however you may dress it up, the critic is saying that the artist has gone wrong - in this case, i am saying that Fish has allowed her poetry to become too self-focused, that while she may legitimately discuss herself and her feelings, as Larkin does in the above poem, the canon of 'personal' poetry consists of poems that go on to transcend the personal, as Larkin manages in his concluding lines, rather than reaffirm it, as Fish tries to. this move outwards is an important one, i think. it is a capacity that we have lost in the century of the self. capitalism teaches us to be entirely self-focused - the satisfaction of the self is all that matters. MY FEELINGS, MY DESIRES are all that matter. that is how advertising works. it instills in us a desire for a product we don't need, and encourages us to buy it on the basis that by pursuing our desires we are acting 'genuinely', and in accordance with our selves. all that this in fact brings about is the alienation of the self. in my view, poetry should combat this mind-set. it should combat it in the first place because poetry should be humanistic, and the totally self-oriented perspective is not a humanitarian one. it should combat it in the second place because poetry should be subversive, its role being to challenge the orthodoxy of the day (and what orthodoxy needs challenging more than today's one?). that is the point of poetry for me. the content of a poem - whether the poet chooses to write about flowers or children or electric fans, is, of course, entirely at the writer's discretion, the proviso being that the poem should not merely be about flowers or children or electic fans if it is to be of interest to the critical mind. naturally, all this does not mean that the criticism (mine, or anyone else's) is valid. it is open to be challenged in exactly the same way that the validity of a piece of work is open to be challenged. isn't that what the serious discussion of poetry is all about?

chant you are saying, if i have interpreted you correctly, that your criticism of Fish's work is based on your philosophy of poetry and its connection to the world of today. I for one, do not see poetry in the same way. I think it should definitely be subversive but subversive of the parameters that are placed upon poetry itself. If Fish wishes to be self focused and totally self focused then surely that is her perogative. We as mere onlookers should say no more than I do or I do not like that particular piece of work. What I think is more important is that we support the writer fully and positively. Why the hell should anyone conform to literary rules? Surely that's the joy of being able to write your OWN poetry

literary criticism the dictation of style....where the writer has gone wrong....???????? chant, I think you've 'gone wrong'...responsible criticism is not necessarily about what's failed...it's also about what works! Anybody can throw mud. It's discernment and sensitivity that count. You are way off base when you try to tell someone else HOW to write. You can only say 'this doesn't appeal to me, doesn't work for me, and this is why' ...then let the chips fall where they may..you are not the last word on this. Other critics will undoubtedly have entirely different opinions, and those opinions will be just as valid as yours.

Sean, scribble away....that's where we all start..I have some really weak stuf posted here myself! Hey, that's the process.

case in point...'stuf'...only has one leg......*grin*

Chant: "naturally, all this does not mean that the criticism (mine, or anyone else's) is valid. it is open to be challenged in exactly the same way that the validity of a piece of work is open to be challenged. isn't that what the serious discussion of poetry is all about?" Britgirl (1 post on): "Other critics will undoubtedly have entirely different opinions, and those opinions will be just as valid as yours." do you actually read what i post, Britgirl?

Janus, thank you for a serious post. it makes a change from the handbag waving! "What I think is more important is that we support the writer fully and positively." well, that's what i am doing. i haven't picked any old poet to critique, and open up a discussion around as to what the nature of good poetry is. i've picked one of the best on the site! and what i am talking about when i say 'professional poet', and refer to 'the canon', is looking at ways in which the standard of that poet's work might be raised in order to be included in 'the canon', 'the canon' being Wordsworth et al. if your view of supporting a writer is just to say 'you're marvellous' all the time, well, i think you've misunderstood the nature of the discussion. Fish is an experienced writer, a teacher of creative writing, not some blushing schoolgirl posting her stuff for the first time. your general view of literature is of course, the orthodox one today - about everything. nothing is good - there are no standards - all that matters is whether I like it or not, whether it rubs me up the right way or not. if i like Terry Pratchett more than Graham Greene, then, for me, he is better than Graham Greene. this is relativity theory gone mad - the argument by which Shakespeare is ushered out of the classroom, and the song lyrics of Slim Shady are ushered in to replace him. at the end of the day, and i may be mistaken about this, Fish is looking to be a better writer. now i opened this thread by saying that i liked the poem. on consideration, i have attempted to say where, for me it falls short - falls short that is of being a 'Great' poem. i have said that this is only my opinion. i have said that my criticism is open to criticism itself. this kind of serious discussion about what makes poems good, and what makes them 'Great' is one reason i log on to the site. on this thread, it is something that only about four of us have been doing, one of whom being the author of the piece in question.

snip <> so everybody elses contributions are invalid chant?

yup. go on, slap me! you know you want to!

thanks for that....

God, you're beautiful when you're angry!

*has left the arena*

i am not sure the role of constructive criticism is to DICTATE anything ... for me it is absolutely about pointing out where something can be improved (in the critic's opinion) ... and the writer can take it or leave it ... confidence and experience in writing ... and an awareness of one's own strengths and weaknesses ... mean that you as a writer can be discerning about criticism ... i am most interested by the comments about "writing to find out what i am thinking or feeling" and about the distance between the writer and the subject ... it raises questions about the reasons for writing and the making public of writing ... we should ALL be striving to improve our writing whatever level we are at ... i am painfully aware that i dont WORK hard enough at my poetry and have been thinking about and discussing the use of form ... some poets i admire are masterful with form ... simon armitage for one ... and the fitting of the poem into the form calls out some extra quality in the work for me ... i feel this too about some of eddie's poems ... the question of how self centred the poetry is and how this might affect its ability to communicate with other people is a new one for me raised by chant and something i will be thinking about carefully ... these are all questions of craft ... and that for me is the key ... if a poem strikes a chord with the reader through some resonance with the readers own experience then that MAY be some sort of universality at work ... but response to writing does have to be more than just the immediate and personal ... the poem has to stand up to critical scrutiny to be "great"... someone can tell you a story at the bus stop that will move you and with which you can identify on a human level ... this doesnt make it literary ... i suppose what DOES worry me is that criticism seems to be the intellectual property of the academic ... something that distances the rest of us ... ownership of it is taken up and its own language can be exclusive ... i am not an academic ... my own constructive criticism of people's work is entirely practical and hands on ... it is the only way i can do it ... thus chant saying "it is all too self centred" is useful criticism to me ... whereas relating my work to the canon is less useful to me personally ... but like it or not our work does exist in a tradition ... i don't know enough about it to talk about it in an informed way ... but in the end as i said already ... i want it to be BETTER and i welcome any assistance in this gruesome task ...

*wheels on critique of "Skimming Stones".

Hee hee.. Chant evidently no.. some of those very comments did provoked you to come up with excellent posts.. How did we get down to Creators v Critics here..? All gris to the Creators I say, they are the risk takers, the forgers ahead, the makers of the future.. And the Critics.. the distillers who through their critical thinking against orthodox (all) standards and constant revisioning ensure that the best works in the canon of human knowledge filter to somewhere near the top.. And if you cant see that they can be the one and the same person albeit at different times, that they are both required and that there is a feed back loop at work here than well.. you need to emerge from your coccooned existence..

bring it on chant....

Yes I read your messages chant..just seems you don't hear what you yourself say...it bears repeating back to you. And your sexist, dismissive remarks are insulting and offensive.

I dont find them sexist. dismissive, patronising and exclusive, yes. Chant i answered your email earlier with a promise to write back once i wasnt quite so busy, with the reasons i found some of your ideas to be wrong. Instead, I'll do it here, so if you dont mind me posting the email you sent me? I think others may perhaps find the resulting discussion something they would like to contribute to.