On the perils and amusements of writing class.
Verily I say unto you, when thou writest works that may be considered neo-Romantic, Metaphysical, or some other such school, consider carefully whether one who favors the strictest of modernism an ideal is one best fit to comment on your works that thous workest on. Verily.
In a more normal language:
I’m taking Poetry Writing for the second time at the University of Iowa. The first time I had an instructor who seemed to favor surrealist poetry. That worked out all right for me. Lots of indulgent images, perhaps, but there was some common ground. This time, the instructor seems to be quite a modernist. My poetry is not modernist, at all. Or, while some few may be, they are very untypical of my style. I favor more expressive metaphors rather than realist images. A different style, completely. However, what am I supposed to get out of his criticism? If his criticism basically boils down to: “this isn’t modern poetry,” my only real response is, “yeah, it isn’t.” How do you know, what criticism really centers on? Is it centering on the stylistic elements of the poem not filling his notions of poetry? Is it a bad poem? Is it merely too obscure for the audience? I certainly have written some shit poems, but the one I’m specifically talking around was not one of those. I was fond of it; I thought the use of images and cultural iconography allowed me to be very concise in text and present layers of meaning. So, bad poem, too obscure, or just not for him? How do I tell? What are your thoughts, you few who wander over here? The poem (originally this post):
Yearning
You and I
were
cherry blossoms
between
branch and ground.
I would undo Spring
to blossom again
with you.
His comments:
1. Why is “were” on its own line?
2. Off on the side: “We were falling blossoms…”
3. I believe continuing the above thought: “but lets bloom again? Doesn’t quite make sense. Think about tense: if we “are” falling blossoms (note: cherry blossoms in haiku-like poems are a cliche), then it would make sense to want to be blooming, on the branch, etc.”
So, what do you think? Terrible poem, obscure, not his thing? I’ve spent several days thinking about this and I have some thoughts, and I’ll put them a little lower down. First, I wrote a collection of senryu-like poems from the ire. Maybe not so much with the quality, but amusing to me nonetheless.
Senryu-esque reflections on Sakura
O cherry tree
your meaning is cliché
please blossom no more
Hana-mi in full swing
pages ripped from my notebook
left with the sakura they mention
falling cherry blossom
is cliché
but sakura chiru
is not
Spring has no impermanence
Prints of cherries on the walls
no symbol for
impermanent beauty
in autumn
such little, pale flowers
perhaps the pink
means they are communist
symbols must die
burn the flags, crosses
and cherry trees
So, to address his points (an aside: the poem, of course, has to stand on its own, but as the author, can I change something solely for others, or does my vision have to have preference in the revision process, a process I don’t usually indulge in).
1. “were” is on it sown line because I like to use line breaks to signify cognitive division points. It breaks the thought up into almost three separate thoughts: 1- “You and I…” (sets up a clearly direct address. Probably, given most poetry, a romantic involvement. Sets a mood), 2- “You and I were.” (Gives the twist to the first line. One, we anticipate something else, so the thought is hanging, grasping for meaning, but there’s a second meaning, a maybe-this-it-it meaning. These two “were” past tense, no more), 3- “You and I were cherry blossoms.”(The metaphor. simple). If I did the line breaks differently I don’t think all those readings would still be in the text.
2. This isn’t haiku-like. It’s tanka-like. There is, in point of fact, more than one style of Japanese poetry. And they all have different rules.
3. I fail to see how “cherry blossoms” are cliche. They are a cultural icon and have been written about for hundreds of years. It may be true, may, that American authors have misused the images and symbolisms to give their haiku an authentic feel, without caring about the actual referent of the trees. That does not make them a cliche. it may make them cliche (adjective), but even that would be exceedingly disrespectful of the cultural value placed on them in Asian societies.
4. Considering tense: the “we” are not anything. They were. In the past. There is no present tense, except the implicit one in which”I” express a wish.
I could continue, I suppose, but, eh… Despite the fact I like the poem, it is possible it just isn’t any good. I don’t agree with his comments, though, and I would suggest he assumed it was written without care and forethought to the placement and choice of words, thus coloring his interpretation into that of someone reading a poem he expects to be not good preventing him from even considering that there are levels and not just ink on paper. I am most curious for all of your thoughts on this. Please?