Moment

[tonyv]

The sun is out, and it's a brand new day.
When logic of expression's not enough,
the ones who love us hunger for cliche
of thought and rhythm, baby, that's the stuff!
But will you love me, tell me off-the-cuff,
when all the ones I love have slipped away?

[badger11]

This entertaining write spoke to me of that line between staleness of familiarity and the warmth of familiarity; language inadequacy and yet the smile 'spontaneity' of stuff/cuff; the context of meaning, our definition in how we relate with others.

 

badge

Edited December 30, 2009 by badger11

[dr_con]

Tony,

 

Solid. A wonderful reflection on the depth of truth and your ability to capture an unsaid question.

 

Abso-freaking-lutely loved it.

 

DC&J

[waxwings]

Nifty. The rarity of rhymed free verse? Love the idea. Few small quibble-points follow, punctuation-wise.

 

Double-em dashes:

a) should not be flankes by spaces,

b) should be paired if the matter they mark is mid-sentence, i.e. not forming a sentence starting/ending interjection/aside

c) should not be used when commas will do, i.e. when the disruption of the sentence is more severe.

 

Obviously, this is my take re style/ortography, not your artistry. Which word processor do you use?

 

..........of thought and rhythm, baby, that's the stuff!

But will you love me, tell me off-the-cuff,

when all the ones I love have slipped away?

[tonyv]

This entertaining write spoke to me of that line between staleness of familiarity and the warmth of familiarity; language inadequacy and yet the smile 'spontaneity' of stuff/cuff; the context of meaning, our definition in how we relate with others.

 

badge

Thank you, Badge! It makes me smile that you liked the poem, especially stuff and cuff.

 

Tony :)

[tonyv]

Tony,

 

Solid. A wonderful reflection on the depth of truth and your ability to capture an unsaid question.

 

Abso-freaking-lutely loved it.

 

DC&J

 

Dr Con,

 

Thank you for your enthusiastic comment. I wrote this really fast and was hesitant to post it, but I'm glad I did.

 

Tony :icon_cool:

[JoelJosol]

Tony, structure-wise, it's a form where you reverse the rhyming in the end. The content also pose the contrast of others and the reader and the reversal of relations. I think that's clever.

 

Your poem referred to "who love us" but apparently did not include the reader. This "who love us" are content with cliche. If you choose not to give it to them, they slipped away? Well, the reader is still here for you :-)

[tonyv]

Thank you, waxwings, for your helpful input. I do like your suggestion of using commas in lieu of the em dashes in this one. I'll adopt it forthwith. I considered that option before I posted the poem, but hesitated. I'm glad my first instincts weren't entirely off the mark, and I like the cleaner look.

 

I understand your preference for em dashes not to be surrounded by spaces. I have several style guides, and the majority of them say, as you do, that there should be no spaces. However, I do have one which states that:

 

"Style varies as to spacing around the dash. Some publications insert a space before and after the dash, others do not. Our evidence indicates that the majority of publishers style the dash without spaces." (Webster's Compact Writers Guide)

Since I'm copying and pasting from a WordPad document, I'll continue to use the spaces that I've been using around dashes here on the site -- that's always been a conscious decision on my part -- because I like the less-cramped look. I'll also offer this, which, for the most part echoes what you stated:

 

"According to most American sources (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style) and to some British sources (e.g., The Oxford Guide to Style), an em dash should always be set closed (not surrounded by spaces). But the practice in some parts of the English-speaking world, also the style recommended by The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (due to the narrow width of newspaper columns), sets it open (separates it from its surrounding words by using spaces  or hair spaces (U+200A)) when it is being used parenthetically. Some writers, finding the em dash unappealingly long, prefer to use an open-set en dash. This "space, en dash, space" sequence is also the predominant style in German and French typography. See En dash versus em dash below." DASH

 

Again, thanks, as always, for your helpfulness when it comes to my poems. Your discerning eye and experience are not taken for granted.

 

Tony

 

 

 

(Original Version)

 

The sun is out, and it's a brand new day.

When logic of expression's not enough,

the ones who love us hunger for cliche

of thought and rhythm, baby -- that's the stuff!

But will you love me -- tell me, off-the-cuff! --

when all the ones I love have slipped away?

[tonyv]

Tony, structure-wise, it's a form where you reverse the rhyming in the end. The content also pose the contrast of others and the reader and the reversal of relations. I think that's clever.

 

Your poem referred to "who love us" but apparently did not include the reader. This "who love us" are content with cliche. If you choose not to give it to them, they slipped away? Well, the reader is still here for you :-)

I love your analysis, Joel. Yes, I guess these "ones who love us" are content with cliche. :)) But do they really even love us if they're content with cliche? Or do they love the cliche? Are they "in love with love"? I dunno ... Now I'm really confused. But okay, I'm left with the reader. Even one feels like a million hits on youtube. :icon_cool:

 

Thanks again, Joel!

 

Tony :D

[Aleksandra]

off-the-cuff, --- yesss :D

 

 

Tony I read what you wrote in the last reply to Joel :) and you made me smile.

Do you think that to love is cliche :D? I think it is :D.

So this poem is a moment when you deal with the cliche. But you wrote this poem with original and unique fountain pen -- which is not a cliche.

You're referring to the cliche to the real world repetition...

The first line is kind of soft and hopeful and positive expression that gives a nice start and support to the poem. You are using very truthful and real points in this poem.

 

At the end, I would add that I would, why not. :D You are wonderful poet and a pleasure to the soul ( even when you write such a complex and hard poems :) )

 

Well done.

 

Aleksandra

[waxwings]

Just to see how others work and think/feel is a pleasure. I find most anything (beyond merely separating words one from another) as superfluous. I find it difficult to read poems--no matter how excellent I judge them to be in all imaginable other aspects--difficult if punctuation and other typographical oddities (e.b., upper case letters where they are not called for by contemporary practice of good writing.

 

I use MS Word and prefer it over all others because I can get all the extra characters/symbols/etc. w/o any rigmarole. To write in Latvian, all I need is to shift+tilde and when I hit the letter key the right diacritical mark shows.

 

Now, I need to ask you if my quibbles about writing practice/style are likely to offend members, esp.f I first let them know I like, enjoy and admire their artistry and my quibbles are only about the mechanics.

 

I know my preoccupation with such is almost an ailment. Unfortunately, it has been my bad luck to have been pressed throughout my life to do copy editing. I was offered a job to do that for a publisher in Atlanta but refused, for I like living in a colder clime.

 

There are many style manuals, all are right, but disagree, wherefore I prefer to do what seems more pleasing to my eye or seems least obtrusive to me.

 

I like your style to writing and thinking about poetry. Scream if I go overboard in anything. I hope members will tolerate my 'analysis' as long as I explain why I think/see the way I do. It is not meant to be a maxim they have to live by.

 

Happy New Year to you and all.

[waxwings]

I feel pushed into commenting on ideas expressed as a consequence of subject poem.

 

The rhyme scheme, ababba, is just one of the quite numerous options for a sestet as a generalized six-line stanza. I fail to see a rhyme reversal, a notion I am not familiar with but would like to know more about.

 

I think the poem poignant enough w/o any clear reversal of meaning between the initial and final parts, but would like to hear some arguments for that.

 

And I do love the notion that is made perhaps more obvious when written as I have below.

 

"the ones who love us hunger for cliche / of thought and rhythm / when logic of expression's not enough, ..."

 

As I see it, the cliche tony speaks of is the entire thought I have underlined. I think he means that 'logical expression is NOT enough' (and, methinks, possibly impossible) when one is in love, and what one may want is the assurances we often get from clichees, verbal concoctions we grow up with as being more significant than simpler, more genuine but seemingly too plain statements.

Edited January 2, 2010 by waxwings

[tonyv]

off-the-cuff, --- yesss :D

Ah ... still my sweet-:heart: :icon_sunny:

 

Tony I read what you wrote in the last reply to Joel :) and you made me smile.

Do you think that to love is cliche :D? I think it is :D.

I think it's patient, all-suffering, and will endure all ... even cliche. ;)

 

So this poem is a moment when you deal with the cliche. But you wrote this poem with original and unique fountain pen -- which is not a cliche.

Indeed, that would be considered an eccentricity by most people these days, those "non-writers."

 

You're referring to the cliche to the real world repetition...

The first line is kind of soft and hopeful and positive expression that gives a nice start and support to the poem. You are using very truthful and real points in this poem.

Yes, I remember the moment I "penned" that line -- okay, I typed that one on my keyboard, because I was driving, lol -- and it was exactly that type of day: a cliche day! :))

 

At the end, I would add that I would, why not. :D You are wonderful poet and a pleasure to the soul ( even when you write such a complex and hard poems :) )

Okay, we shall see after a few of my more obscure ones, lol. Only time will tell.

 

Thank you, Alek. :) I'm pleased with your thoughts here and always ... well ... most of the time. :icon_razz:

 

your Tony :)

[tonyv]

Just to see how others work and think/feel is a pleasure. I find most anything (beyond merely separating words one from another) as superfluous. I find it difficult to read poems--no matter how excellent I judge them to be in all imaginable other aspects--difficult if punctuation and other typographical oddities (e.b., upper case letters where they are not called for by contemporary practice of good writing.

I like your minimalist style, waxwings. While there are plenty of times when I want to take advantage of the subtle differences that creative and correctly used punctuation has to offer a poem, this was not one of them. The poem definitely "flows better" with the commas.

 

I use MS Word and prefer it over all others because I can get all the extra characters/symbols/etc. w/o any rigmarole. To write in Latvian, all I need is to shift+tilde and when I hit the letter key the right diacritical mark shows.

I have the "Language Bar" activated on my computer. All I have to do is hit Alt-Shift, and the keyboard's key layout toggles between English and Estonian depending on which one I need in the moment. I switch to Estonian when I need the following characters: õ, ä, ö, ü.

 

Now, I need to ask you if my quibbles about writing practice/style are likely to offend members, esp.f I first let them know I like, enjoy and admire their artistry and my quibbles are only about the mechanics.

 

I know my preoccupation with such is almost an ailment. Unfortunately, it has been my bad luck to have been pressed throughout my life to do copy editing.

I can only speak for myself and say that it doesn't offend me. I find your comments helpful, even if I don't always agree. However, I should stress again, now, that the board is primarily a showcase. Members who want critical commentary will post their poems in the Workshop forum or put CA after the titles of the poems for which they desire criticism. Then, as you may have noticed, there are members who do neither but nevertheless seem to welcome critical input. There's a harmony in the member poetry sections, and a delicate balance exists. I'll let you know if someone complains.

 

I was offered a job to do that for a publisher in Atlanta but refused, for I like living in a colder clime.

I do, too. Must be the Estonian in me, lol.

 

Happy New Year to you and all.

And to you, too!

 

Tony

[tonyv]

I feel pushed into commenting on ideas expressed as a consequence of subject poem.

 

The rhyme scheme, ababba, is just one of the quite numerous options for a sestet as a generalized six-line stanza. I fail to see a rhyme reversal, a notion I am not familiar with but would like to know more about.

I must confess that I didn't give the form a whole lot of thought. What I mean is this: I didn't set out to write in any known or common rhyme scheme; it just came out that way. What I did observe was this: if one takes the first four lines by themselves, he is left with a quatrain like from an English sonnet (abab); if one takes the last four lines (again, by themselves), he is left with a quatrain from and Italian sonnet (abba). It's like a sestet comprised of "interlocking" quatrains.

 

I think the poem poignant enough w/o any clear reversal of meaning between the initial and final parts, but would like to hear some arguments for that.

I like this observation of yours. I tend to agree. The poem is too short (and not tight enough) to have too many layers or too profound of a "turn."

 

And I do love the notion that is made perhaps more obvious when written as I have below.

 

"the ones who love us hunger for cliche / of thought and rhythm / when logic of expression's not enough, ..."

Yes, your reversal of the syntactical units does convey an ever-so-subtle difference in nuance or even meaning, and it imparts a slight modicum of clarity.

 

As I see it, the cliche tony speaks of is the entire thought I have underlined. I think he means that 'logical expression is NOT enough' (and, methinks, possibly impossible) when one is in love, and what one may want is the assurances we often get from clichees, verbal concoctions we grow up with as being more significant than simpler, more genuine but seemingly too plain statements.

I like this analysis very much. Thank you, again, for taking a close look at this. I did not expect this little poem to engender this much meaningful discussion.

 

Tony

[waxwings]

I am much in favor of the shorter poem. If done well (as this one is to my lights) a shorter poem is bound to have more surprises and delights to the deliberately careful examiner/reader.

 

I forgot to mention that there are (if my memory of combinatorics is still valid) some ten (10) possible 2-rhyme schemes for a sestet. I am especially delighted to know you did not set out to deliberately use that particular scheme.

 

It is the blind repeating the more obvious rhyme schemes that has brought good rhyming to a unearned disrepute.

A good poem happens when the rhyming words are natural/native to the subject and scheme, rather than a poem written around rhymes picked out of the rhyming dictionary.

 

But, pray, would you be so kind to send me a PM describing the exact mechanics of inserting those quoted parts. There must be a shorter, quicker way than just copying the whole message to my reply and then doing all that 'secretary pool' thing (as I now do) to make it easily seen as yours is. Have mercy on this geezer.

[tonyv]

I am much in favor of the shorter poem. If done well (as this one is to my lights) a shorter poem is bound to have more surprises and delights to the deliberately careful examiner/reader.

I have a penchant for the short poem. I don't think I could write a long one if I tried.

 

But, pray, would you be so kind to send me a PM describing the exact mechanics of inserting those quoted parts. There must be a shorter, quicker way than just copying the whole message to my reply and then doing all that 'secretary pool' thing (as I now do) to make it easily seen as yours is. Have mercy on this geezer.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I think you are asking whether there is a convenient way to break up a quote (the way I did in this reply of mine). Unfortunately, I know of no convenient way to do it. I hit reply, add tags wherever necessary, and delete the parts I don't intend to quote.

 

Tony