can anyone tell what they think this poem means. Im having a tough time with it so far and i need some help. thanks
This poem is seriously handicapped by its lack of words.
Pat Hathaway wrote:
This poem is seriously handicapped by its lack of
:-) You just don't understand modern poetry, Pat. ;-)
I'm trying. I realize that an in-depth critique of this poem would have to address the dearth of imagery and rhythm as well as some other significant flaws, but my main concern must remain the abscence of words. One could suggest adding a few words, but this kind of artistic decision is best left to the poet.
Happy holidays to you!
I think it has real promise Pat, it has real hidden depth and hidden meaning along with the hidden words.
Nothing but the blank verse of the present poem could have presented
a more unique vision of the spotless virginal purity of the empty page.
I think the poet should submit this work to Poetry.com, just to see.....
Errrrrr....I just wanted to drag this old, old thread back to the top as I still giggle whenever I think about it.
This poem transcends description. As a matter of fact it transcends words themselves. It is
I think we should set this poem to music, perhaps something by Philip Glass?
John Cage appreciates the joke -
Um, very powerful and moving.
"Everything that is strong in feeling and everything that excites a sudden reaction from a remote source immediately dislocates the complex mechanism of language: silence - blankness - the eloquence of the moment." (Valéry)
Geeez! Am I going to be the ONLY one to disagree? I'm sorry, but this is completely transparent. It seemed like it was over before it even started. This piece says NOTHING to me. It is completely lacking in meaningful content. I would say it needs 'punching up' a bit, but I don't even know where to start!
Nonsense! This masterpiece won the world's title for the shortest poem, beating out such close contenders as,
Sez it all, far as I'm concerned.
I agree with Hugh.
Jack, even when there's nothing to argue about, you find something!
I have read this poem aloud several times, something Chesil always advises, and find that the caesura seems exceptionally poignant and extensive. This poet has brought the art of understatement to new, heretofore unheard of, heights.
I agree with Jack. This poem lacks something; I just can't quite seem to put my finger on it. Does anyone know of other work by this author?
"Unheard of" is definitely the operative phrase here. Again the poet takes the notion of obscurity to such murky depths that not even a rescue party can find its true meaning.
I'm glad you asked. Please read this attatchment. You will notice the author is nothing, if not consistent.
Thanks for the attachment, Jack. I've put it my "favorites" folder for future perusal.
The ghost of Christmas past.
Aaaah, the good old days..........nice bump
I find this poem reflects the mind of a troubled spirit.
The author lacks direction in his personal life and his obvious abundance of empathy with his natural environment overpowers the poem's concrete nature.
The rhyme sceme is too rigid: however, he compensates with a clear and concise word pattern.
On the other hand, I find his last line ambiguous and this is what belies his less than perfect existance; nonetheless, it is what he intended and it fits perfectly.
I wouldn;t change a thing.
I always found the lack of punctuation to be unusually fitting for this poem.
There are those who would say the poem lacks substance, but this is the stuff dreams are made of...
Gives new meaning to the phrase "negative capability."
This poet has carried on and improved the e. e. cummings style. Not only has he eliminated punctuation and capitalization, he's done away with all those other troublesome elements created by inserting words into the body of the poem.
Finally---all the intricate nuances of free-form poetry captured in one stunning artistic endeavor! Jason has never been better. Bravo!
I don't find the last line at all ambiguous. This is one of the few examples where the repetition (even in the last line) really WORKS for me.
You have mentioned his obvoius lack of punctuation, But if you look closely you may pick up on the fact that the author composed this entire piece without the use of VOWELS!
Wait a minute.
I just double-checked.
No consonants either!
Is your medication working yet?
lol, I visited this board for the first time in forever.. and i noticed almost all the threads had "new" next to them except this one...
much ado about nothing!
Read between the lines.
The author is mentally ill.
Actually, his mind is blank.
I've been giving this thread a lot of thought.
Becareful, Stephen. When it comes to poetry, OVER-interpretation is just as bad as too-hasty dismissal.
Oh, don't worry about me.
I dismissed the thread entirely from my mind BEFORE I started thinking about it.
Oh, I see. The Zen school of criticism.
Never have so many commented so much about so little.
But I like this thread anyway.
I wonder what Jason would say about all of this.
His lips are sealed!
a hitherto undiscovered version of the original has been unearthed: interpertate?
It's just a bit verbose.
Couldn't you trim it down to 'O'?
I agree with Jack, even though the "h" adds emphasis, it is highly overated as a completer. A simple "O" would suffice and would be in keeping with the spirit of this piece.
Maybe if the author is reading this, he'll go, o, oh k.
I'd have to agree with Jack? and others who have weighed in on this subject. I wonder if the original poem was the inspiration for Sounds of Silence?
Less said the better.
Actually, I think the original poem is the ultimate interpretaion of "Sounds of Silence," rather than its inspiration.
For any fans of John Cage's work, BBC Radio3 is broadcasting a concert from the Barbican Hall, Friday 16th January, starting at 19-25 GMT.
The final item is a performance of 4'33" arranged for large orchestra.
According to Radio Times engineers will have to disable the emergency back-up system that switches other music on if it detects a period of silence that lasts more than two minutes.
This is a pretty good discussion actually, bumpworthy