The Coast, Part II: The Waterside Lounge

[tonyv]

The Coast, Part II: The Waterside Lounge
                                           --for Lexi

No, she won't be my plainjane, she's a frump!
She's got her panties in a bunch, and she
won't party at the Waterside with me.
She won't get high; it's inexplicable
why she won't party. She, in shambles. Me,
intoxicated, scheming. Bottle service,
more Cristal and Hennessy for we.

[Tinker]

16 hours ago, tonyv said:

No, she is not my plainjane, she's a frump!

Oh my!  She doesn't sound like the one for this guy.

16 hours ago, tonyv said:

She, contractions.

Huh?  She shrinks the speaker?  I don't mean that physically, I mean, she makes the speaker feel less?  

These two are definitely on two different paths and I'm curious how or why they are together at all.    There are a lot of "me"s in this poem.   I get the feeling there is a problem with the partying and drinking. It is not just partying and drinking, it is a dominant theme, excessive.   There is no compromise  here which in order for the two to have gotten together in the first place there had to be a meeting ground.  It sounds to me that over time, the excesses got out of control and got in the way of the relationship.   This is really a sad poem and I fear for the speaker who seems focused on his need to party to the denigration of someone he must have cared for at one time.     

The poem has a nice rhythm in your expert use of iambic pentameter.  There are a lot of "me" end words and one "she" which technically are rhyme but they don't read like rhyme.

It does fit as an extension of the Coast Part I although this one I felt more comfortable with.  It just made me mad at the speaker.

~~Judi

[A. Baez]

I get the sense that this is your indirect way of responding to my latest comments, Tony.

[tonyv]

Hi Judi,

On 12/6/2019 at 1:15 PM, Tinker said:

These two are definitely on two different paths and I'm curious how or why they are together at all.

They are not together! The companion in part 1 is one of the speaker's boys, and the two of them are on their way from the massage parlor to the club in search of female companionship, and "she" is more likely a target for a one night stand.

On 12/6/2019 at 1:15 PM, Tinker said:

There are a lot of "me"s in this poem.   I get the feeling there is a problem with the partying and drinking. It is not just partying and drinking, it is a dominant theme, excessive.

It's definitely me-centered.

On 12/6/2019 at 1:15 PM, Tinker said:

It just made me mad at the speaker.

Good thing I'm not always the speaker when I write a poem! 

Thank you,

Tony 

[tonyv]

A. Baez, we hook up again at The Lounge ...

On 12/6/2019 at 6:52 PM, A. Baez said:

I get the sense that this is your indirect way of responding to my latest comments, Tony.

You have inspired entire three act plays. Don't get greedy! 

I'll add a dedication line to the poem to eliminate any confusion. 

Thank you for reading and commenting,

Tony 

[Tinker]

54 minutes ago, tonyv said:

hey are not together! The companion in part 1 is one of the speaker's boys, and the two of them are on their way from the massage parlor to the club in search of female companionship, and "she" is more likely a target for a one night stand.

Wow, I misinterpreted this whole scenario.   But as we have often said, the reader brings their own baggage to the poem.  
 

55 minutes ago, tonyv said:

Good thing I'm not always the speaker when I write a poem! 

No Tony,  I wouldn't want to be mad at you. 😲  I always try to separate the speaker from the poet. I'm not always successful.  I write from my own experiences but sometimes I provide a fictional character or scene.  But even then there is a part of me in there.  We all have a dark side, a wild side, irreverent side and when they surface we need to accept they are part of what makes us human.  😈  They also make for interesting reading.

The poem made me feel something which is what a poem is supposed to do.  It doesn't just tell me about a night out with a guy trying to pick up a girl for a one night stand, which would be a kind of ho hum story to me.  It made me angry with his behavior and disrespect.  I wanted to smack the guy and say grow up.  This guy is calling a woman names and insulting her because she doesn't want to serve his needs.  That is her choice and it doesn't make her uptight or a frump, it shows good judgement in my opinion.  What does this guy offer?  Booze, a one night stand and me, me, me.  She'd have to be pretty desperate or have very low self esteem to want all of that.  No thank you on all counts.

And Tony, You know I love you. 😘 
~~Judi

[tonyv]

Judi, Welcome back to the V.I.P. We'll get one of these girls in a corset to get us another bottle with one of those sparkler thingies on top. 🥂 

23 minutes ago, Tinker said:

The poem made me feel something which is what a poem is supposed to do.  It doesn't just tell me about a night out with a guy trying to pick up a girl for a one night stand, which would be a kind of ho hum story to me.  It made me angry with his behavior and disrespect.  I wanted to smack the guy and say grow up.  This guy is calling a woman names and insulting her because she doesn't want to serve his needs.  That is her choice and it doesn't make her uptight or a frump, it shows good judgement in my opinion.  What does this guy offer?  Booze, a one night stand and me, me, me.  She'd have to be pretty desperate or have very low self esteem to want all of that.  No thank you on all counts.

^This!!! Again, maybe I am not the speaker, maybe I am. 😂 I'll take this as a high compliment, because a poem makes the reader feel something ... even if it's disgust. 

23 minutes ago, Tinker said:

And Tony, You know I love you. 😘 

Right back at you! 

Tony 😊

[A. Baez]

Quote

You have inspired entire three act plays. Don't get greedy! 

I'd be more than happy to have this creation bear no association with me! But since you didn't respond directly to my last comments on this, which included statements expressing shock at the type of lifestyle you said you considered normal, and in light of what each of us had both already said about this topic (which happens to mirror perfectly the respective stances of your narrator and your female character in this poem), and because this poem's direction departed significantly from that of Part 1; and undoubtedly, too, because Juris had recently written a poem to respond to me in a satirical vein, my deduction seemed a fairly natural one. 

It does appear to me that you're playing games:

Quote

Good thing I'm not always the speaker when I write a poem! 

Quote

Again, maybe I am not the speaker, maybe I am. 😂

If I were you and I did not consider myself to be the speaker, I would be tripping over myself to assure everybody (i.e., Tinker and I, for the moment) that I was not that speaker!! (Or at least that not more than a "part of me" was!) What exactly is funny about this?

So, yes to everything that Tinker said. Regardless of who's speaking, this poem contains material that would be repellent to the average woman. That being the case, the question arises, what was your intent in writing this poem?

Question 2--How much distinction is there between a "plainjane" and a "frump"? You cast the former as though it were somehow desirable, in contrast to the latter. For my part, I perceive them as being basically equivalent.

Question 3, which Tinker also alluded to--What do you mean here by "contractions"? Are you okay with this being eminently unclear? Hopefully some gigolo hasn't already gotten this girl pregnant.

Quote

Wow, I misinterpreted this whole scenario.

I did too, and I don't think it's just a matter of bringing personal baggage to the poem. "My plainjane" suggests a level of familiarity beyond that of someone just picked up moments ago. And if she was just picked up, why would she have even gone with this guy if she had no interest in any part of his agenda?

 

 

[tonyv]

Hi again A. Baez,

1 hour ago, A. Baez said:

I'm more than happy to have this creation bear no association with me!

LOL that's why I added the dedication line under the title into the first post in the topic.
 

1 hour ago, A. Baez said:

But since you didn't respond directly to my last comments on this, which included statements expressing shock at the type of lifestyle you said you considered normal, and in light of what each of us had both already said about this (which happens to mirror perfectly the respective stances of your narrator and your female character in this poem), and because this poem's direction departed significantly from that of Part 1, and undoubtedly, too, because Juris had recently written a poem to respond to me in a satirical vein, my deduction seemed a fairly natural one.

Well, that was in part 1, and I didn't realize the observations/remarks weren't merely rhetorical. But I will add that I do like your deductions. I don't think this part 2 departs at all from part 1, as I explained to Judi in a reply above that the former is Friday afternoon evening, and the latter is Friday night, to start off the weekend.
 

1 hour ago, A. Baez said:

Now that that is out of the way, I can actually comment on the poem. Yes to everything that Tinker said. Regardless of who's speaking, this poem contains material that would be repellent to the average woman. That being the case, the question arises, what was your intent in writing this?

I had just read Frost's "The Pasture." While I "liked" that poem because I appreciate perfected works of art, I couldn't see what the hullaballo is when it comes to it. Though "The Pasture" is beloved by many, I just found it a bit boring; but that goes only to a sense of taste, and I have no negative criticism of that poem, of the art itself. My intention when writing part 1 was to elicit a compare/contrast of the two poems, "The Pasture" and "The Coast." Why is "The Pasture" as a poem, so great in the eyes of many? Might "The Coast" be equally as great? Your own first reply to part 1 went mostly toward taste; you liked Frost's poem and didn't like mine. I love that, because I'm soliciting all kinds of replies, but my intent in writing/posting the topic failed, because I got neither any valid reason as to why "The Pasture" is better nor an admission that "The Coast" is equally as good; the most I got was a statement that both poems were technically arguably equally matched. From this I can only conclude that some (or maybe many) people think that only certain subject matter is what a good poem makes. I was asking my poet-peers. For matters of taste, I could have simply asked laypeople. Part 2 is a legitimate follow-up to Part 1, as explained, the narrative, the events of Friday afternoon leading to the events of Friday night.
 

1 hour ago, A. Baez said:

Question 2--How much distinction is there between a "plainjane" and a "frump"? You cast the former as though it were somehow desirable, in contrast to the latter. For my part, I perceive them as being basically equivalent.

A lot. I love the plain Jane -- that's why I said she is not my plain Jane -- but I'll pass on the frump.
 

1 hour ago, A. Baez said:

Question 3, which Tinker also alluded to--What do you mean here by "contractions"? Are you okay with this being eminently unclear?

Yes, it was my intent to leave that unclear and completely up to the reader. Wouldn't have it any other way.

[A. Baez]

I edited my above comments some after your responses to Tinker's came in--probably while you were responding to mine. Check out the updates, and then I'll respond to your comments. 🙂

[tonyv]

2 minutes ago, A. Baez said:

I edited my above comments some, probably while you were responding to them. Check out the updates, and then I'll respond to your comments. 🙂

Going back now to address the additional questions (to the best of my ability). 

[tonyv]

3 hours ago, A. Baez said:

It does appear to me that you're playing games ... If I were you and I did not consider myself to be the speaker, I would be tripping over myself to assure everybody (i.e., Tinker and I, for the moment) that I was not that speaker!! (Or at least that not more than a "part of me" was!) What exactly is funny about this?

Well, this is the Poetry Playground. It's supposed to be a little fun/funny. This poet versus speaker/narrator stuff comes up all the time in discussions about poetry, and that's why I find it appropriately funny that it's coming to a head in a topic where I'm starting to feel a bit like I'm being baited into making personal admissions. I'm perplexed as to why it matters at all whether I am the speaker. Are some of my fans triggered SJWs trying to determine whether I'm an unchecked misogynist? Of course, if you genuinely want to know, please ask again specifically. I don't understand the issue. Are you asking me if I'm the speaker? So far, I've been taking the "art demands no explanation" approach when it comes to the speaker.

I did the best I could comparing the original and edited replies. If I missed anything, please point to it.

(The smilies in this reply have been omitted by me.)

[A. Baez]

Quote

I'm perplexed as to why it matters at all whether I am the speaker.

Because Judi and I are women and women who've been dealing with you. And as far as I'm concerned, you've already made enough personal admissions: we already know you like to party, as evidenced by certain comments and emojis, and you said that the lifestyle you described in Part 1 "feels normal to me" and that

Quote

I do like your deductions

which implies that you are indeed the speaker in both of these poems and that you may well have intended to reflect me in "Lexi."

Too often, "art" is used as a smokescreen for behavior that would not be tolerated in the plain light of day. It starts to feel like disingenuous gaslighting. 

[tonyv]

29 minutes ago, A. Baez said:

Because Judi and I are women and women who've been dealing with you. And as far as I'm concerned, you've already made enough personal admissions: we already know you like to party, as evidenced by certain comments and emojis, and you said that the lifestyle you described in Part 1 "feels normal to me" and that

I'm fascinated with this take. It's possible for some parts to be true, and for other parts to be fabricated. For example, it's possible for a person to enjoy partying in the club without using recreational drugs.

29 minutes ago, A. Baez said:

Too often, "art" is used as a smokescreen for behavior that would not be tolerated in the plain light of day. It starts to feel like disingenuous gaslighting.

I completely disagree with this. Or at least I can't think of any examples, not even this poem.

In any case, I've aspired to highbrow poetry in the past, and sometimes I might have fun with this kind of lowbrow stuff. I have read your recent fine poem "Stones and Bones"  a few times already and will reply meaningfully this week. Unfortunately, right now my brain is a bit too fried to do that. I will need to read it a few more times and process it some more. Just wanted you to know that it hasn't gone unnoticed.

Thank you again,

Tony

[tonyv]

Okay, I have become aware of something that might clarify some of the perception here.

3 hours ago, A. Baez said:

"My plainjane" suggests a level of familiarity beyond that of someone just picked up moments ago. And if she was just picked up, why would she have even gone with this guy if she had no interest in any part of his agenda?

I explained in a reply above that the referenced woman was a target for the speaker's proposed hookup/one night stand. She rejected him, and he's bent. I'll change "is not" in L1 to "won't be" to better reflect that.

[Tinker]

First I want to say, I'm finding this thread kind of fun but I'm also concerned that you, Tony, might be feeling a little ganged up on by two feminists. I didn't mean to come on so strongly. I am very happy to have another feminine voice here. AB gets where I'm coming from. But we're here to discuss our writing not to use this forum for a soapbox, nor do I with to be a morals judge.  And I don't want to be judged either.    I don't want to appear to be ganging up on anyone.  The banter is meant to be just that, fun banter.

4 hours ago, tonyv said:

My intention when writing part 1 was to elicit a compare/contrast of the two poems, "The Pasture" and "The Coast." Why is "The Pasture" as a poem, so great in the eyes of many? Might "The Coast" be equally as great? Your own first reply to part 1 went mostly toward taste; you liked Frost's poem and didn't like mine. I love that, because I'm soliciting all kinds of replies, but my intent in writing/posting the topic failed, because I got neither any valid reason as to why "The Pasture" is better nor an admission that "The Coast" is equally as good; the most I got was a statement that both poems were technically arguably equally matched.

I may not have said it the way you wanted to hear it but, I thought I addressed why.  I'll take another stab at it.  First Frost is a well known, well respected published poet. Anything with Frost's name on it slips however precariously into to "great" category because he is a great poet.   Your poetry doesn't have that luxury.  Your poem represents a slice of life that probably 50% of those who read it will not relate to.  Frost's poem is a natural setting which he is known for and  even those who may not have been exposed to the scene can imagine and relate in a positive way.  Is Frost's poem boring?  I don't think so, it was a pleasant moment of reading and most of us who love Frost, know he writes a lot from nature and that is why we read it.  Is it a great poem, not in my opinion in comparison with other of his works and in other poems I have read by others either.   But I would read it again because it is a pleasant read.  Your poem on the other hand was not so pleasant a read and I probably wouldn't return because it really didn't speak to me. Greatness is arbitrary, it requires exposure, starting with publication and it needs literary recognition. What ever that means. Your poem has neither.   I wouldn't call either poem "great" but Frost has the edge.   If it makes you feel any better, I don't like Ginsberg's Howl either.

3 hours ago, tonyv said:

Well, this is the Poetry Playground. It's supposed to be a little fun/funny. This poet versus speaker/narrator stuff comes up all the time in discussions about poetry, and that's why I find it appropriately funny that it's coming to a head in a topic where I'm starting to feel a bit like I'm being baited into making personal admissions.

 I agree, it is the playground and it should be fun, and I am sorry if you felt baited to admit anything.   We have gone here before on speaker vs poet and because this poem was striking a negative feminist chord I felt it necessary for myself to separate the two in my comments.   I wasn't asking. I never for a second thought less of you personally when reading your piece.  It was not the voice of my long time friend who has always demonstrated respect for me and from my observation over the many years I've known you, all women who have happened upon this forum.

2 hours ago, tonyv said:

I will need to read it a few more times and process it some more. Just wanted you to know that it hasn't gone unnoticed.

Me too Tony,  my case for the Like button.  It says I read it and may be back with comment later when I have the time and energy. 😍

~~Judi

[tonyv]

Judi,

I never thought, even for a second, that you were ganging up on me. In fact, I've enjoyed the discussion and all your input, and that of @A. Baez, too. I haven't found your replies to be outrageous or unexpeted, but I still very much appreciate your thoughtful concern -- thank you! (Same goes for Ms. Baez.)

Thanks also for coming back with some additional thoughts about Frost's poem vs. my poem.

3 hours ago, Tinker said:

First Frost is a well known, well respected published poet. Anything with Frost's name on it slips however precariously into to "great" category because he is a great poet. Your poetry doesn't have that luxury.

Though not a valid reason as to why his poem is in any way better than mine, what you are saying is, sadly, one hundred percent true.
 

3 hours ago, Tinker said:

Your poem represents a slice of life that probably 50% of those who read it will not relate to.

Agreed.
 

3 hours ago, Tinker said:

Frost's poem is a natural setting which he is known for and even those who may not have been exposed to the scene can imagine and relate in a positive way.

Agreed. Even I like his poem and relate to it in positive ways: I like that it's a short, lyrical poem; I like its meter; and I like animals i.e. the cow and the calf.
 

3 hours ago, Tinker said:

Is Frost's poem boring?  I don't think so, it was a pleasant moment of reading and most of us who love Frost, know he writes a lot from nature and that is why we read it.

I, too, like it. I find it a little boring, and that's why I wouldn't return to it over and over or even often.
 

3 hours ago, Tinker said:

Is it a great poem, not in my opinion in comparison with other of his works and in other poems I have read by others either.   But I would read it again because it is a pleasant read.

Now, this is bit unexpected, because I thought for sure you would classify it as a great poem when even I, who find it a bit boring, consider it a perfected work of art. But your taking it in comparison with his other works raises the response to another level.
 

3 hours ago, Tinker said:

Your poem on the other hand was not so pleasant a read and I probably wouldn't return because it really didn't speak to me.

This is a valid statement that goes to taste, and I have the utmost respect for it.
 

3 hours ago, Tinker said:

Greatness is arbitrary, it requires exposure, starting with publication and it needs literary recognition. What ever that means. Your poem has neither.   I wouldn't call either poem "great" but Frost has the edge.

This is where I disagree re the part about needing exposure/publication/literary recognition. Yeats' "Leda and the Swan" is a great poem even if it had never been published. I don't much care for Dickinson's poems, but many people now consider her works great when they weren't even circulated during her lifetime. I mean, seriously, Wild Nights - Wild Nights?!? Come on! Would poetry lovers actually think that one is great, and "The Coast" is not at least as good? (Judi, you don't have to waste time on this, I'm asking rhetorically. Of course, I think "The Coast" is at least as good as "Wild Nights - Wild Nights!")!
 

3 hours ago, Tinker said:

If it makes you feel any better, I don't like Ginsberg's Howl either.

I gave it a chance, but I didn't like it either.
 

3 hours ago, Tinker said:

I agree, it is the playground and it should be fun, and I am sorry if you felt baited to admit anything.   We have gone here before on speaker vs poet and because this poem was striking a negative feminist chord I felt it necessary for myself to separate the two in my comments.   I wasn't asking. I never for a second thought less of you personally when reading your piece.  It was not the voice of my long time friend who has always demonstrated respect for me and from my observation over the many years I've known you, all women who have happened upon this forum.

Again Judi, no explanation needed, not even for a second. I know you, and I'm always clicking the figurative "Like" button on all your posts. But thank you.

With appreciation,

Tony

[A. Baez]

Quote

I'm fascinated with this take. It's possible for some parts to be true, and for other parts to be fabricated. For example, it's possible for a person to enjoy partying in the club without using recreational drugs.

Well, you said it all felt normal for you, so I took you at your word. For the record, what prompted this statement of yours was not a probe on my part into your personal life, but an attempt to answer your question about what, if any, were the essential differences between Frost's poem and yours: I had to address the qualitative vibes of both poems, which happen to be radically different.

It would seem strange for you to go to complex narrative lengths of blending fiction with fact as you describe above simply to question the distinguishing virtues, if any, of Frost's "The Pasture;" I could shrug that off, but that expressed intent does nothing to explain the sudden appearance of a Part 2, which isn't intended to do the same, which has no other intent that I can yet understand, and which contains remarkable coincidences in carrying forward a theme in our comments. And if ambiguous identities are the going currency, then of course "Lexi" could be a fiction, a fact, or a pseudonym (including for me). At the least, you were not going out of your way to avoid misunderstandings. I don't have the benefit that Judi has of long familiarity with you; I have very much enjoyed and respected you in our conversations up to this point, but I have to take each thing as it comes, and this set off a ton of red flags for me. 

Quote

I completely disagree with this. Or at least I can't think of any examples, not even this poem.

What if I were to write a poem that seems, by both context and content, to caricature you in an unsavory light while portraying myself as contemptuously mocking you, then deny any such intended correspondence when you bring up the matter, and then treat you like you've gone ballistic when you express concern at the seemingly gratuitously offensive sentiments expressed in the poem?

Quote

I explained in a reply above that the referenced woman was a target for the speaker's proposed hookup/one night stand. She rejected him, and he's bent. I'll change "is not" in L1 to "won't be" to better reflect that.

I saw that (I always read all comments on anything I'm commenting on), but I'd somehow gotten the impression from the writing that the woman was continuing to hang around at the party scene--just not doing what the guy was hoping for. On viewing the poem anew, though, I see that there's nothing explicit to that effect. I guess "won't be" is slightly better, but I think you have a problem here similar to "Cashmere" in that you're operating on the very tenuous assumption that most people consider "plain Jane" to be a positive thing like you do. That's just not the accepted connotation.

7 hours ago, A. Baez said:

Question 3, which Tinker also alluded to--What do you mean here by "contractions"? Are you okay with this being eminently unclear?

Quote

Yes, it was my intent to leave that unclear and completely up to the reader. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Again, I think you're revisiting some of the problems with "Cashmere" here: there is nothing gained by this kind of ambiguity.

About your stated intent in writing "The Coast," which I actually think is very worthwhile and interesting--I agree that the first time I read "The Pasture," I also kind of scratched my head thinking, "So this is all it takes to write a good poem?" You're right, it's very simple. But I think its charm lies in how it so faithfully captures the simple charm of nature. Grass isn't too complex; leaves aren't too complex; calves aren't too complex. And yet all are charming. You might argue that Frost is being a quintessential modernist here in reducing a poem to its barest essentials.

Quote

Your own first reply to part 1 went mostly toward taste; you liked Frost's poem and didn't like mine. I love that, because I'm soliciting all kinds of replies, but my intent in writing/posting the topic failed, because I got neither any valid reason as to why "The Pasture" is better nor an admission that "The Coast" is equally as good; the most I got was a statement that both poems were technically arguably equally matched.  From this I can only conclude that some (or maybe many) people think that only certain subject matter is what a good poem makes.

I think that taste (which you equate here with subject matter but which is, of course, broader than that) is a perfectly valid reason for considering one poem to be better than another. While the subject matter as such plays some role in my preferences in art, the mentality that the writer brings to it and the way that he/she expresses it are equally and sometimes more important. There's no getting around it---a poem written in an uplifted, enlightened, intelligent, and humane consciousness is always going to be more magnetic to me than one written with a dark consciousness. We've already discussed how poetry is more than the sum of its parts--certainly far more than mechanics. One would have to be very cold-blooded indeed to boil everything down to simple meter, form, and grammar. So what's left? Taste! And this "taste" becomes preeminently important in the case of two poems that are too brief to bring other factors into play very much.

Quote

Greatness is arbitrary, it requires exposure, starting with publication and it needs literary recognition.

I'd say that there's very little that's arbitrary in true greatness, and I would think that anyone would agree at least in principle that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." I'm not into brand names; I recognize that they do sway people's perceptions about things, including poems, but scientifically speaking, in no way can accumulated recognition somehow make great a particular poem that did not in itself contribute to that accumulated recognition.

 

[A. Baez]

I just edited the above so if anyone has looked at it already, please refresh the page to see the latest version. Thanks!

[tonyv]

Thank you, A. Baez, for returning.

1 hour ago, A. Baez said:

It would seem strange for you to go to complex narrative lengths of blending fiction with fact as you describe above simply to question the distinguishing virtues, if any, of Frost's "The Pasture;" I could shrug that off, but that expressed intent does nothing to explain the sudden appearance of a Part 2, which isn't intended to do the same, which has no other intent that I can yet understand, and which contains remarkable coincidences in carrying forward a theme in our comments.

Well, I do that all the time with my poems. I rely heavily on my imagination. So, if I'm going to write a poem for any purpose (even for a topic like this one re Frost etc) I'm going to do that. That's just the nature of my work most of the time. And part 2 really is just a follow-up, a sequel. There was my original intent which I made known in the second post of the first poem's topic, and then there was this derivative work of sorts, this part 2. I don't see anything wrong with a topic digressing from its original, primary intent and giving rise to additional work and discussion. Perhaps I found the discussion, the replies, your reactions, Judi's reactions, etc. inspiring and I was prompted to write a sequel. What's wrong with that? (Well, other than the fact that it might have been taken the wrong way.) I'm already contemplating a third and final part. There's no part 3 in the works yet, but it might be time to get excited, because I'm already going over some ideas in my head.
 

1 hour ago, A. Baez said:

Again, I think you're revisiting some of the problems with "Cashmere" here: there is nothing gained by this kind of ambiguity.

About your stated intent in writing "The Coast," which I actually think is very worthwhile and interesting--I agree that the first time I read "The Pasture," I also kind of scratched my head thinking, "So this is all it takes to write a good poem?" You're right, it's very simple. But I think its charm lies in how it captures the charm of nature, which can also be very simple. Grass isn't too complex; leaves aren't too complex; calves aren't too complex. And yet all are charming. You might argue that Frost is being a quintessential modernist here in reducing a poem to its barest essentials.

I agree that my use of this word ("contractions") is a nod back at Cashmere, but I disagree that it's any kind of a problem. These two poems, part 1 and part 2, are much more clear than Cashmere, and I'll suffer one ambiguous word this time, in this poem, whether the reader likes it or not, even if doing so is only for my own pleasure and somehow, slightly, for some people (or many people) to the detriment of the poem.

I mentioned Dickinson's "Wild Nights - Wild Nights!" in my last reply to the Judi. I could/should have included that one in this topic also: "The Coast" is no worse a poem than "The Pasture" or "Wild Nights - Wild Nights!" I would posit that the events portrayed in "The Coast" are richer and clearer than whatever is being contemplated in Dickinson's own boring, "wild" nights.
 

1 hour ago, A. Baez said:

What if I were to write a poem that seems, by both context and content, to caricature you in an unsavory light while portraying myself as contemptuously mocking you, then deny it when you bring up the matter, and then treat you like you've gone ballistic when you express concern at the seemingly gratuitously offensive sentiments expressed in the poem?

I would probably second guess myself and consider the possibility that I overreacted. I mean, the parts you seem to have taken offense with couldn't logically be attributed to you. A frump is an unattractive woman who wears dowdy old-fashioned clothes -- I've never seen you, so I can't possibly know that -- and I've already admitted that I find the plain Jane type (among many other types) attractive.
 

1 hour ago, A. Baez said:

I think that taste (which you equate here with subject matter but which is, of course, broader than that) is a perfectly valid reason for considering one poem better than another. There's no getting around it---a poem written in an uplifted, enlightened consciousness is always going to be more magnetic than one written with a dark consciousness. While the subject matter as such plays some role in my preference in art, the mentality that the writer brings to it and the way that he/she expresses it are equally and sometimes more important. We've already discussed how poetry is more than the sum of its parts--certainly far more than mechanics. One would have to be very cold-blooded indeed to boil everything down to simple meter, form, and grammar. So what is left? Taste!

I believe that taste is a perfectly valid reason for liking one poem better than the other. I've already made clear I think the subject matter of "The Pasture" is more boring than "The Coast" (taste), but I can't say anything negative about "The Pasture" i.e. its composition; it's a world class, perfected work of art. Hell, I even like a lot of things about it, but "The Coast" is just as good ... or just as bad.
 

1 hour ago, A. Baez said:

I'd say that there's very little that's arbitrary in true greatness, and I would think that anyone would agree at least in principle that "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." I'm not into brand names; I recognize that they do sway people's perceptions about things, including poems, but scientifically speaking, in no way can accumulated recognition somehow make great a particular poem that did not in itself contribute to that accumulated recognition.

I'm thinking Judi was referring to greatness in the eyes of the masses.

Okay, I've been working on this since before you posted your edits. I'm going back to check your edits now.

[tonyv]

I couldn't find anything I hadn't addressed between the original reply I worked with and the edited reply, but I'll expand upon this point which I may have missed.

1 hour ago, A. Baez said:

... but I'd somehow gotten the impression from the writing that the woman was continuing to hang around at the party scene, but just not doing what the guy was hoping for ...

Yes, that is the correct impression. He targeted her, and she rejected him. He's not taking rejection well and has resorted to name calling. She is still there and having a good time, just not with him.

[Tinker]

 

6 hours ago, tonyv said:

A frump is an unattractive woman who wears dowdy old-fashioned clothes -- I've never seen you, so I can't possibly know that -- and I've already admitted that I find the plain Jane type (among many other types) attractive.

I'm disappointed Tony, you are attracted to plainjanes, which I have never been, in my youth I was a fox,  🦊 now in my old age my granddaughter's 19 year old boyfriend called me a cougar the other day.😹  Then he gave me a big hug and asked me to adopt him so I could be his grandma.  I am now officially an old lady.

~~Judi

[tonyv]

"I'm disappointed Tony, you are attracted to plainjanes..."

Well Judi, they're the only ones I can't get, and I like a challenge. 

[Tinker]

Tony,  Sorry to veer from the literary discussion, my brain was becoming fried from the heaviness of this thread. 😜  This is the playground, I needed a giggle.  Personally, I think you'd be a great catch for any plainjane or fox, when you are ready to commit. 😍  Just the cougar in my talking, I am the same age as your mother.

When I was responding to the question of The Pasture vs Part I in this thread I didn't go back and reread them both at the time.  I may go back and do just that, with only that question in mind.  Anyway, I'm done with this conversation and moving on to something else.  Can't wait for Part III.  I love that you are writing more often. 

~~Judi

[A. Baez]

Quote

Perhaps I found the discussion, the replies, your reactions, Judi's reactions, etc. inspiring and I was prompted to write a sequel.

Yes, that was what I was getting at--that this poem was on some level responding to Judi's and my reactions--and in that light, it becomes my challenge as to what degree it is appropriate to take it personally. I know you don't know what I look like, but you do have some sense of how I act; now I have to wonder to what extent this made you imagine a "frump." This is why I asked what was your intent in writing this poem. Just to paint a portrait? Or to convey some idea? Perhaps to speak to the experience of some friend named Lexi (for whom your comments seem to indicate sympathy, though that's not the impression I get from the poem)? I know there are some people who write more or less just to write. What I was seeking for was any deeper mission you had in mind. Personally, I find that writing with some deeper mission is more satisfying, and I find that more mature poets tend to share that sentiment. I thought that you might be one of them, but I couldn't extract any such intent from the poem itself, unless it be to mock uptight people.

Quote

I agree that my use of this word ("contractions") is a nod back at Cashmere, but I disagree that it's any kind of a problem. These two poems, part 1 and part 2, are much more clear than Cashmere, and I'll suffer one ambiguous word this time, in this poem, whether the reader likes it or not, even if doing so is only for my own pleasure and somehow, slightly, for some people (or many people) to the detriment of the poem.

Okay. "Suffer" is the operative word. You're hobbling your poem with that word for self-serving reasons. Well, I've done what I can.

Quote

I could/should have included that one in this topic also: "The Coast" is no worse a poem than "The Pasture" or "Wild Nights - Wild Nights!" I would posit that the events portrayed in "The Coast" are richer and clearer than whatever is being contemplated in Dickinson's own boring, "wild" nights.

This discussion has already gotten so involved that I prefer to stay focused on its initial premise.

Quote

I believe that taste is a perfectly valid reason for liking one poem better than the other.

Fundamentally, what we're arguing here is whether there are any objective criteria that define good art. I think that ultimately, the answer is "no." Even standards of proper form, grammar, meter, and rhyme, and the appropriateness of poetic license in these, can and have been debated endlessly. I'd argue that all barometers simply operate on a spectrum of objectivity/subjectivity. At the end of the day, there's no absolute difference between one poem being better than another, and one poem being liked better than another.

Quote

I'm thinking Judi was referring to greatness in the eyes of the masses.

Well, she began identifying things that made a poem good or great in her eyes, which I thought spoke directly to your question, and then she segued into thoughts that seemed to bear more upon the greatness of a poet him or herself (whether that greatness be fundamental or perceptual), and how that reflected back on a reader's experience of a particular poem of that poet's. I was trying to refocus onto your initial question of what made a poem, in and of itself, great.

One last point that I keep forgetting to highlight: Frost's refrain of "You come too." Judi touched on this in her latest comments. I think this is a critical aspect of his poem that pushes it above yours. This refrain lends a songlike, incantory feeling to the poem that's gentle and soothing and introduces the sense of a higher level of meaning to the phrase and to the poem as a whole. It functions as an invitation that extends the orbit of the poem beyond its surroundings to directly include the reader. In its repetition, it also suggests a broader implication of inviting human beings to attend to the simple beauties of nature, generally. Your poem doesn't do anything similar and that's one more reason that to me, it feels comparatively closed off and shallow. I really agree with all of Judi's thoughts (including those that she just posted on that page) about why your poem has narrower appeal than Frost's. You expressed that the poem was intended to capture a carefree T.G.I.F. mood, but parts of it, at least, ring sour at least in some ears. In contrast, I doubt that Frost's poem rings sour in any ears--it may be a little boring to some, but probably as many, I'll take boring over sour.

 

P.S. Thanks for mentioning and planning to comment on my latest poem. Did you see my last reply to you on the Juris thread?

 

[tonyv]

Thanks to this dirty week, I haven't had any time to participate here, but I hope to catch up this weekend. I did get one idea for a minor change that will yield a major improvement, and this poem is too good to not take advantage of the opportunity. In L5 I took "contractions" away from her. 

[A. Baez]

So glad you came up with a substitute that you can feel good about. Now you have a "presence" in this space that works for you, adding clarity, instead of a sucking void that leaches meaning away. Yes, one word can make all the difference, and we cannot afford to throw away the opportunities that each one offers.

Wishing you plenty of suds till Friday!