Pre-emptive Cherry Strike Game

don't stop chant!

I felt Praha to be very different in feeling when I heard you read it, also I wish we could have a detailed crit of a poem on here every day : As Chooselife says, it would be really helpful to see how the best writers, as Ivory and Chant have here, approach work? ABC has brilliant writers, would be wonderful if they could share their skills and experience Arg, Chant, haven't written anything remotely ok for a year, will only give you a fit of the dismals looking at misstree stuff, but thanks for offering :0)

well, i've read through the 'Now' set. just a question of choosing the top 2. couldn't rate any of them, i'm afraid, because did it at work yesterday, and i can't log into abc from there. come to think of it, i may not have read all of the Now set, because age rated ones won't be visible.

it's hard to judge speed esp. when your mobile explodes (something about clouds)

It's hard to judge what speed we're travelling at but we're moving fast as the doors close behind us on Tottenham Court Road. (the train would be stationary at this point) (are they getting on or off the train?) Abandoned on the seat there's an abused Metro that lies devoured and waiting (pathetic fallacy* - magazines don't wait) that has passed through many hands today and will welcome many wild-eyed travellers through the night. (will be welcomed by - magazines can’t welcome) The lights are buzzing as you tell me that everything's permitted and we buy some chips (how can they buy chips on an Underground train?) and talk and I'm telling you that the Lord God judges over all of us (judges all of us) but you're not really listening. Your mobile explodes and you won't bin it (do mobiles explode?) as I want you to and it's hard to judge what speed we're travelling at as I roll a cigarette (this reads as if they are still on the train) to share and you're texting someone I don't know and the smoke plumes out like angel wings on the breath of the traffic (good image - assuming it’s exhaust fumes viewed on an overground part of the journey) and the city swings on. But standing and smoking under the hood of the tube (the tube train or the tube station?) we watch the people walking and in that quiet mood and scarcely talking and burdened by their many hours on Yahoo and AIM (major assumption here - how do you know?) that has drained them through the working day and that calls them home now. (what calls them home?) And when you tell me again that everything's permitted I feel the wind change and swear that you're a godless soul and have misread Dostoevsky and you're laughing and aging as the lights go red and a taxi halts and someone shouts and the city seems to tremble like a palace of surreal lights (good image) in a painting by Monet or someone like that (sloppy line - why 'someone like that'?) for a second. And then the clouds collapse into rain. (good image) *Pathetic Fallacy [1856: coined by John Ruskin in Modern Painters]. A phrase associated with the figure of speech personification, a pejorative comment on the inclination common among poets to attribute human qualities to nature: the spendthrift crocus; the cruel, crawling foam. The term 'pathetic' refers to the arousal of feeling, not to pity. Ruskin coined it to comment on 'the difference between the ordinary, proper, and true appearance of things to us; and the extraordinary, or false appearances, when we are under the influence of emotion, or contemplative fancy'. He objected to such usage because, however attractive or dramatic it may be, it 'morbidly' imputes life and human intent to nature and is part of 'a falseness in all our impressions of external things'. *

actually envisaged them getting off the train. originally wrote 'behind us on the seat..' which gives a stronger impression of departure, but then realised i'd included 'behind' already, so exchanged it for 'abandoned'. as i said above, it's the speed the characters are burning through their lives, rather than the speed they're walking at that i'm interested in. still, i clearly need to find a way of making it clearer they're getting off rather than on. the pathetic fallacy is a tricky one. it is clearly a rational mistake to attribute emotions to non-sentinent things. yet we do do this. and here i'm producing a stream of conscious piece, not a factual essay. the words are also there to emphasise the super-emotional state of the characters - their emotions are not neat, precise, English ones, they spill over into the non-sentient world. but, most importantly, they're there because they sounded right for the lines, and it is the emotional effect of the sound of the poem i was trying to conjure, rather than an effect derived from its logical meaning. will exchange the adjectives for non-pf ones though, and see how the poem reads. yeah, used 'explodes' because it fitted really well into the rhythm and i couldn't think of anything that would go as well. should probably remove it though. "we watch the people walking and in that quiet mood and scarcely talking and burdened by their many hours on Yahoo and AIM" well, i think office workers do tend to do pretty similar things at work. some inductively reasoned description not unallowed, i think - it is a poem, not a factual account. or do you want to lose imagination from poetry altogether? "and that calls them home now." maybe just me, but i find the burden of worked hours inside me pulls me home. it's getting away from the office, i suppose, but because the weight of the day is inside me, rather than back at the office, that's the way i experience it. one never really leaves the working day behind, i find. "in a painting by Monet or someone like that" wanted to be irreverential. the characters know about art, but don't care about art. it reflects a state of mind. thanks for taking the time to think about the poem, 134! much appreciated.

I would say there are far too many questions in the Blake poem, that's where I would start on rewriting it, but it does have a cracking opening. I'd rather read Blake than Wilfred Owen any day.

Thanks Chant, that is noble of you :0) Eddie's (?) crit of your poem is really good. I'm glad it is someone tough enough to take all this :0) I agree about "over" us, and was also confused at first about chips. Maybe could make it a bit clearer that you have left the underground? However, I found the speed bit clever, all the way through, though I thought it was the level of your attraction to each other that was getting nearer to er consummation, until the lines about aging? Which added another level of desperation to it. Also, I found something scary, bleak about the newspaper, as if it symbolised something haven't understood yet - the casualness of a relationship which is just filling time? the idea news is dead, waiting to be devoured again, like a vampire needs blood it has to be read to exist? Nwespapers DO seem extra significant somehow, on an empty carriage, you DO imagine all the other people who have and will read them until tomorrow when they will be like dead moths

ps mobile phone? explodes into sound, intrusion of another exploding into your privacy. It seemed clear to me?

*coming up for air* i've been thinking about the "city seems to tremble like a palace of surreal lights" line. i think it was a bit churlish of me just to say it didn't engage me, without any explanation. i note also that bashoverthehead, who seems to know something about poetry, says it is a good image. some of my difficulty is with the word surreal. the lights seem to indicate that the line is meant to convey a visual image - that the effect of the lights viewed from the moving window is to make the city appear to tremble, and that part i think i am ok with. the lights might appear to be moving or flickering. but for the lights to be surreal, shouldn't they be doing something else, something completely unexpected? why a palace of surreal lights, and not a palace of lights? i think more to the point is that the words seem very carefully chosen, as if to give a certain feeling about the city, yet i was left uncertain what this feeling was. first there is the trembling, which suggests something unstable or weak or maybe angry. then the palace, suggesting the opposite of these things. then the surreal lights, by which time as a reader i am disengaged. am i being fair, or do i deserve another dunking? [i should add here that my comments are in the context of chant knowing that i consider him a skilled writer]

fair point. i think the idea i was aiming at was the questioning of the physical world. 'tremble' and 'surreal' suggest something magical, something made out of the imagination. the lights are surreal (images with the chaotic incoherency of a dream) because i feel lights are like that - when you look at many of them you lose track of where one ends and another begins. many lights dazzle us and confuse our visual sense, i think. maybe we have different ideas about the word 'palace'. you seem to see it as something solid, stable. for me, it is a word out of fairytales. it belongs to dreams and stories, not the real world.

What I find interesting in this thread is that chant, initially defensive about his words (don't deny it), is now taking on board 'some' of the comments made. Chant is avoiding (just) the danger of critique. The 'writer', having expected plaudits for his/her work and only finding criticism, albeit constructive, withdraws into their shell shouting 'You are all wrong! You do not understand!' The good writer, which Chant undoubtably is, will think over the points made and then discuss them rationally before deciding which comments to accept and which to throw in the bin. I find the debate over the word 'palace' of interest. The fact that two people have a difference of opinion over such a word would, perhaps, indicate that we should be more precise in our choice of poetical words. But would that not destroy the beauty of poetry?

not quite sure why, but Mykle hasn't given us the whole poem. "when the stars threw down their spears and watered heaven with their tears, did he smile his work to see, did he who made the lamb make thee? tyger, tyger, burning bright, in the forests of the night, what immortal hand or eye dare frame thy fearful symmetry?" unlike Fish, i think Blake a tremendously important artist and writer. the fact that the poem is a list of questions is in keeping with its theme, i think. imv, this is a poem about the divine, and man's relation to the divine. Blake wonders what kind of creator could make such a thing as the tiger - a killing machine. he is questioning the presense of the terrible in the world, and the benevolence of the maker of such things. and, in fact, faith is just one catalogue of questions - questions being perhaps the only way we can approach the divine. the divine is presented as a smith here - are we to think of Vulcan, a maimed god? and is the representation of anvil, hammer etc - technology in its early stages - a swipe against these skills in man; mirroring the creator, we use our craft to create things with destructive power. some unease about industrialisation?

How about "surreal palace of light", which conjures up a dry Handel's Water Music. I always think surreal , like strange is a tricky word to use, though more so in conversation , because it leaves it open for the "what is normal anyway!" brigade.

I'm not sure how the last two stanzas managed to get lost, Chant. By the time I'd noticed Blake had been pronounced "pants" and I saw little point in posting the remainder and, anyway, I was fairly sure most people were already familiar with the poem. The last two stanzas seem, to me, to be the key to the poem and I'm pleased that Chant has revived this thread to post them. I had always imagined that Blake was pointing out the difference between the crude machines of his time and the perfection of the Tiger - as people of the time used the analogy of the watch to infer the existence of the watchmaker . However I like Chant’s insight and I realise that I’ve never bothered to look beyond the obvious. Good thinking , Chant!

I think there is something of a misunderstanding regarding the popularity of classic poetry. In certain circles it is insinuated that classical poets are ‘old hat’ and no longer popular. However, like classical music, classical poetry survives the fads and fashions of a fickle public. The last I heard “If” by Rudyard Kipling was the most popular poem on the planet. Not bad for a poem written about 100 years ago - still it has had plenty of time to grow in popularity.

The thing is with "If" Mykle (and its irrelevant whether i like it myself) is that most people were taught it at school, also its been on adverts for about six different things... so when people are asked "whats your favourite poem?" the majority will no doubt say.. "er.. If!" simply because poetry is no longer a popular section of lit, and thats the only thing they really know or remember... sad but true.

I thought that line was fab! I don't know about surreal I guess it means super real? But it most oftens seems to mean Dali, whose most famous picture (?) is the one of the clock, melting. As lights melt into each other, and the poem IS about time?

I'm sure that's part of it, Liana. Of couse we don't know how the survey was conducted so we can only speculate. However, I find that most of my friends that are not poets tend to prefer uncomplicated, meaningful poems with a strong message. The other thing to take into account is that the classics have survived the test of time because they are the cream of the crop. No doubt there are many modern poems that will join the the ranks of the great and become classics themselves.

i don't think that you're exactly right in your analysis of the debate, Barnacle. i didn't come onto the thread expecting plaudits. i came onto the thread to explain why i had written the poem in the way that i had done, in an attempt to counter the assertion made by Fish, and supported by a thorough critique, that the poem was 'not up to standard' and 'sloppy'. i think that the explanation i gave was slightly more substantial than 'You are all wrong! You do not understand!' i did have reasons for writing the poem in the way that i did. those reasons are, of course, open to be questioned, but i think it was necessary to state them. the point is that some explanation was necessary in order to HAVE a debate. the hope is that by discussing the technique that one employs, the debate can move beyond a particular poem, and onto aims/methods of writing in general.

When does a critique of a poem become a discussion about semantics? Is a poem the ideas that the author is trying to express, the impression it evokes in the reader, or both? As I said earlier - I believe that 'Nobody knows more about a poem than the author'. That’s not to say that technique can’t be improved - but that other people should not try to tell an author what they are trying to say or how they should say it. Style is as important as content and only lawyers should strive to make their work so precise that it has only one, single, interpretation. Paintings like poems evoke emotions and sub-conscious affinities that cannot be logically defined. You can teach technique but not talent, verisimilitude but not vision. You can only really be sure what the poem means to you - it’s all a matter of taste. Chant has been berated by the Pre-Raphaelites for being an Impressionist ;o)

I don't think anyone's berating Chant. All the comments here seem to be constructive. Even my assertion that it is a sloppy piece of writing (echoing other's thoughts) is meant to be constructive. Nobody has slagged Chant off for being a bad writer - he's just produced a poem below his normal standard. Everyone does this. The poem is sloppy because it attempts a narrative that fails logically. Of course, poems do not need to be logical - Wallace Stevens and ee cummings are masters of the surreal poem, and have produced works of profound beauty. But they are invariably tightly written pieces that create their own kind of logic. Chant has, in this case, produced a muddling mix of narrative and mysticism which, frankly, doesn't work. All his best lines seem to be in the semi-mystical domain but fail to lift the poem into any semblance of art. What we are left with is pretty mundane. As is most of the poetry everyone writes. The task is for us all is to raise our sights. That's all I'm asking Chant to do. Got to go - my Mobile Lobster's exploded.

There is a diary journal story which is true called "why does my heart cry" by christianrouge and its absolutly brilliant, its very gritty and true as well, i think he will get one

not sure about that one, but who knows...can i have 10p on richardw's For Keeps?

Dear Chant, I think you misquote me. I said that you had avoided the danger to be found in critiques by not responding as many do. I did not suggest that you had 'come into this thread' with those attitudes. I was suggesting 'writers' who, having posted work and expected plaudits (why else post work if you think otherwise), react negatively to criticism no matter how constructive it is. I agree that explanation helps and adds to the debate but I feel there should be an accompanying comment on whether you agree or disagree with the points made otherwise it does come across as totally defensive. Now, up until Basho's post you purely 'explained' or refuted the points made. Thereafter you took on board some comments by Basho and Robert and said you would adjust the piece to see how it feels. That was the point I was initially making before I diverged into the world of semantics.

No don't change the poem Chant, don't listen to anyone. I hate it when people start saying a poem should be written in a certain way; from their own perspective that is. The poem is fine by me.. Go your own way, don't listen to anyone elses idea of what poetry should be, or how people should write. It's just their idea and nothing more. They aren't the law and authority on writing, though some people seem to think they are, they aren't; and another's way is just that - their way and doesn't represent the majority, who often remain silent. So don't write to please other writers.. write to please yourself. Keep the imperfections if there are any, I think mistakes make writing feel more human.. Creativity is about experimentation, and getting in touch with yourself. Artists don't create to please others, artists create for the sake of making art. Balls to criticism. Go your own way. Believe in who you are. (-:

Besides.. people often like to criticize cause it makes them feel superior. The thing is, if you put yourself into a piece of writing and it teaches you something; it can do the same for a reader. Without having to study dull, boring theory or technique; just raw, real emotive stuff.. without trieing to be clever; pretentious and 'Hey look how intelligent I am' madness. Just be yourself in your writing.. and you will be able to communicate with all kinds of readers, cause you keep it clear; andyour not creating something just for the snobby literature types.. you're creating something for everyone. anyway enough of my waffle.. thought the poem was good BTW.

So you would prefer bad 'instinctive' writing to good well-crafted writing, Funky? The purpose of ABC Tales is to help people improve their writing. This does not happen without criticism and feedback. The writer ALWAYS has the veto but, hopefully, will take on board any comments that he/she finds useful. If you don't want to improve your writing, what are you doing here?

I'm sure Chant would agree that this sort of criticism can only improve his writing. It helps to question what has been written, to see your work as perceived by other writers. Otherwise, what's the point in posting it. Chant has the choice to agree/disagree with anything that is suggested and has eloquently argued his case. Overall, I think the final version has lost some of the original fervour. I still prefer ‘as the doors close’ and ‘… mobile goes off ‘ is perhaps a little bland.

i don't think that funky's "don't listen to anyone" line is very helpful. all opinion is valid, whether it is my opinion about a particular line, or chant's opinion about my crit of that line. it's a mistake to think that anyone who offers a comment about a poem, apart from "i liked it", is being superior. it is fumky's attitude that is superior: i don't care what the reader thinks. i think the exchanges here have been beneficial to both the reader and writer of the poem. in respect of my own points about the poem, i found it interesting both to analyse my feelings about the poem and to see why chant had written it the way he had. crit, if it is done in good faith, is about discussing and learning...it's not a fight...

balls indeed funky ... it has nothing to do with superiority as robert rightly says ... the constructive criticism of a piece of writing IS beneficial to both reader and writer ... the school of thought which says "don't listen to the critics ... go your own way man ..." is helpful to neither ... criticism and again i emphasise CONSTRUCTIVE criticism ... is about developing the craft of writing ... and the craft is 90% of the thing i believe ... i would rather have one constructive comment than a hundred "hey that was great" type comments which while they are pleasant actually don't do anything at all towards anyone learning anything ... to say that any of the people who commented on chant's poem wish to make it sound like their own is clearly nonsense and a very badly thought out argument ... chant found the crits useful as he has said ... and i am with him in not wanting to live in a writing world where every piece is tucked up in cotton wool and praised without any trace of analytical thought ... that kind of woolly nonsense may befit a self help group wearing handknits but it is not appropriate in a focused writing environment ... which is what i would like to see abc being more like ...

yes, i'm still thinking over what to do with it, Choose, and have made some more changes since i last updated it. the problem is that what works better from the point of view of clarity of narrative undermines the emotional impact of the poem. reason and feeling are unhappily at war. "Chant has been berated by the Pre-Raphaelites for being an Impressionist." thought that was very elegantly put, Mykle. i do think that there is a fundamental difference of opinion here about poetic objectives. Barnacle wants to produce 'works of profound beauty'. he wants to crystallize perfect work on the page. but this is not my objective. my fear for 'works of profound beauty' is that they cease to live. the problem with the 'sloppy' charge, for me, is that it fails to enter into the spirit of the narrative voice, which is deliberately intended to be imprecise and diffident. it is an apporach that might try to 'correct' a passage of prose dialogue written in slang by rendering it in 'the Queen's English'. i think that more discussion needs to occur with regard to this idea of writing carrying a meaning beyond/apart from its logical meaning. the pathetic fallacy comes in here strongly, i think. a poet might employ a phrase like 'fractious sea' which conjures the sound of the sea very well, even though it makes no logical sense to attribute emotions to non-sentient matter. in this case, one should be listening to the sound of the words, rather than analysing their logical meaning. i think that the 'how do you know this?' criticism is a dangerous one to level at a writer. anyone who has studied epistemology will be aware that there is very little, if anything, that we can be said to 'know' (where know is classically defined as 'a justified, true belief'). we are on a dangerous sliding scale here, and one that denies the writer the use of imagination, induction, deduction - i'm not quite sure that a writer should be limited in this way.

Yeah.. the thing is I don't think myself superior; but I do get the impression critics like to criticize things because it makes them feel better about themselves. But if it helps it helps.. catch 22 as I am now criticixing critics for criticizing.. so maybe I am having a superioity complex, because it helps me feel confident or something. I hate criticism personally, because I don't like others pointing things out to me and telling me how they think I should write. It kills the fun of writing. I just write for the Hell of it, and not to please the crowds. I am here cause I like reading and writing. The things I post, nobody has to read if they don't want to, but is better to have my writing somewhere else other than my harddrive. But whatever people's opinions of my work are, they won't change the way i write, I write my way, and always will. Some people like to read my style, some don't. I just like to be creative, and not tied down by inhibiting rules. I kind of like doing my own thing, I'm like it in all aspects of my life I listen to others if I think what they say is valid, but I don't have to listen to everyone if I don't want to. I guess I was a bit heavy on people who are into the critique thing.. sorry for that. It's none of my business really.. not my scene.. I just get carried away soemtimes. If some people find criticism helpful then fairplay. That's what freedom is all about, everyone is free to say and do what they like.. well in an ideal world anyway..

Good one anyway Chant.. you is da man. To provoke so many diverse responses in a thread that isn't even about your poem.. is excellent.. Weell done. plenty of publicity for you there anyway m8.. I know you don't mind people criticizing your work.. I wasn't sticking up for you so much as just saying what I think, nobody has to agree with it like.. is just my own thoughts.. I'll keep out of the critique vibe from now on.. Kinda each to his own.. different strokes for different folks and all dat. I think I learnt my lesson, will stay out of debates in future. Still I did enjoy reading the responses, only cause I'm a bit mad like.. (-:

Here’s a poem that Blake bloke wrote now if it had been Avon it might have made more sense - at least he’d have spelt Tiger right! Tyger Tyger burning bright, In the forests of the night, What immortal hand or eye, Could frame thy fearful symmetry? In what distant deeps or skies, Burnt the fire of thine eyes? On what wings dare he aspire? What the hand dare sieze the fire? And what shoulder, & what art, Could twist sinews of thy heart? And when thy heart began to beat, What dread hand? & what dread feet? What the hammer? and what the chain, In what furnace was thy brain? What the anvil ? what dread grasp, Dare its deadly terrors clasp! I've always thought that poetry was more of an art than a craft but I'm willing to be convinced. Give us a critique on this then Fish.

I there such a thing as a critique of a critique? Just asking.. ~(O!O)~

I've just had an epiphaniotac moment. I saw myself for who I was. I am in fact a critic; I am criticizing critics and I am criticizing myself. In fact I am criticisng the whole darn world and society and well everything really.. so I am the epitome of critic-ness. and one of the worst kinds too... the more devious crafty sort.. which makes me kinda dark I guess. Maybe I should change my name to funky_owl or funky_fox.. or maybe I should just shut the feck up and get a life.. hehe

You know it aint easy being insane.. I know it gets a lot of press about how cushy it is to be mad.. but honestly.. it's like every waking hour of the day I am constantly debating this question in my heart. If you could be a drug; which drug would you be? and you know I don't know.. I really can't answer that question..

Mogadon.

PCP Gospel

Well you guys have obviously got it together a lot better than me.. 'Know thyself ' - a wise maxim spoken by a wise person.. Wisdom - an important thing to know about.. I shall be doing some serious soul-searching tonight. Perhaps I shall oneday return with an answer and on that day my eyes shall be gleaming with the hidden lost knowledge of our ancestors, and my mind be incredibly focused.

*knits jumper whilst waiting*

Never mind knitting, Fish. Please do a critique on the Blake poem.

Question What is Mykle's point? Bonus question What is the point of Mykle?

My point is that it would be good to get a positive critique - something that says now this is good because - so as to get some sense of balance. It's alright being told what not to do, or this is wrong because - but it would be nice to have something that's a known quality and to be told why it is good.

balls to blake i say ... that poem is pants ...

furthermore he couldn't draw either ...

The point is that a lot of people think that it's a great poem, Fish: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If someone had said to Blake that's "pants - tigers don't burn!" etc. he might have been discouraged and milllions of people wouldn't have had the chance to decide for themselves.

Dear Chant, I have only commented upon the discussion in this thread and not upon your poem. Scrolling up ... I see the 'works of profound beauty' quote is by 'Monet or (someone)'. In that post Monet refers to their 'sloppy' word which, scrolling even further up, appears to have been made by 'Bashoverthehead'. Bloody anon's. They cause such confusion. Think I'll give it all up... Think I'll buy me a football team. ps. I thought for a moment Mykle was making a Blakes Seven joke. Silly me. He meant the Avon Lady. Ding Dong.

*cursing loudly that was not around to discourage blake and thus prevent generations of people being exposed to pants poems and drawings*