A problem of we, you and I in a poem

Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	on Nov. 18 2007 Without any specific comment on any of the poems referred to, I think I can speak slightly to the the use of 'you' and 'i' in poems. It is my experience that the type of poetry that is generally generated using that perspective or angle is usually lazier and less refined than poetry that does not use that. The general concept of 'showing' vs. 'telling' is much harder to do when one is talking from those particular voices. 'i' poems tend to be solely focused on internal feeling and abstract, and 'you' poems lean toward preaching. I'm generalizing here, I'm sure examples can be made of both types of poems that don't do any of those things at all, but I think the tendency makes it a wise rule of thumb to tread lightly on that ground. Poetry, in my opinion, at its best offers a unique angle constructed using concise concrete writing. Eschew the abstract in favor of the concrete images and then draw the parallells and build the metaphors that way. I think that's generally the best way to avoid lazy writing anyways. And it is lazy writing that quickly becomes unfathomable. The misunderstandings, I think, are always made worse when one tries to be vague and abstract. ----- stephan
Jones, Paganinifrom Hyde in Cheshire 385 posts	on Nov. 19 2007 All that is fair enough. I entirely agree. But I would argue that in these two the images are concrete rather than abstract. My niggle is that it appears that if 'I' and 'you' were replaced with 'he' and 'she' it would be both more ovious where the divide is and, I suspect less of a poem for it. BTW, you calling me a lazy writer
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	on Nov. 19 2007 I wasn't, but if you wanted me to, I would for you. I'm nice like that. I wasn't actualy commenting on any specific piece, I was really just making a general, hopefully relevant, observation on the pitfalls of using 'i' and 'you' in poetry. ----- stephan
Leanne Hansonfrom Just west of the lounge room Associate, 3708 posts	on Nov. 19 2007 I think what you have in the instance of your poem and the other you mention is not a lazy writer by any stretch, but a lazy reader. It is bleeding obvious that there's a conversation going on, just as there is in Shakespeare's sonnets -- did anyone tell the Bard not to be so general? Sorry but it just doesn't seem so tricky to me. And I'm afraid I very, very strongly disagree that the use of "you" is in any way preachy. That there is preachy poetry out there which utilises the "you" is undeniable, but it is not the address which makes it so, it is the tone, and the refusal to include the poetic voice in those accused. This is assuredly not the case when Pags writes. So there.
Stephan Ansteyfrom Lowell, MA Associate, 6232 posts	inspired from Leanne on Nov. 19 2007 Leanne: Let me refer back to my own honesty -- I said i hadn't read the pieces. I was generalizing. AND, I stand by the general verity of what i said. There's no reason a good writer can't use both 'i' and 'you' and use them well. BUT, frequently, those techniques make awful poetry, most likely due to lazy writing. Pags is not a lazy writer. Pags rocks. I am not saying anything about Pags writing, and i never was. I was clear about that from the first line of my comment. ----- stephan
Jones, Paganinifrom Hyde in Cheshire 385 posts	on Nov. 19 2007 Ah, Leanne, Anstey, how I love you both. (Obviously this is a broad generalisation and probably should be qualified to avoid legal action) Steve, I would be interested in your comments once you have read the poems too. Not least because, as far as one can tell on the internet, you are male and Leanne is female. There does seem to be evidence that men and women write very different poetry and I wonder suddenly if the particular issue of poems with one person both talking about themselves and addressing another person might be a very female form. Obvious to Leanne, me and other women but less obvious to male readership. Or am I talking through my hat here?
Melden Fred Associate, 1848 posts	on Nov. 19 2007 Dang Pags, you really DO have some interesting writes, and this is most definitely one of them - one of the reasons I love this site. You have cut off a large slice here, so let me itemize: First, In Danes' poem, the personal viewpoints are actually quite easy to understand. She begins in S1 by speaking of ‘you' and of ‘I'. In speaking of specific tools (L1&2), we know she is talking not of a plural general "you", but of someone specific. I agree here with Leanne: Definitely a lazy reader. Considering your poem, it was obvious there was someone you were talking to, but I did question the next-to-last stanza's voicing. The first "you" is obviously the person you're talking to, but it is not obvious at all with the second "you". You can see that the 2^nd. "you" could as easily and logically be a specific other person you're talking to; or it could be the general "you", meaning "one", as in, "I like hiking; it makes you feel so close to nature." We understand that the other person in your poem is not actually present, but we don't know you're talking ‘to' someone with dementia because you've provided no ‘setup' for it - no previous hint. Danes does so in her S1. It's an introduction that sets the psychological scene. In your poem, the child squashes the peas; the father is picking them up individually with his hands, so again we have no hint of a ‘second childhood'. You might solve the problem without excessive explanation by either changing your lovely title or better, by providing some setup about second childhoods, or ‘switched places', etc. It need not be at the beginning or end. It might just be a line or two beginning the same stanza. As to your other question, please note that in my critique, I gave it a thumbs up, discussed several aspects I liked, and described the fault as a "nit". In other words, I still think it's a flaw in that it is not sufficiently clear, but a minor one. I rated (and still rate) it as a poem of high quality. It's good that you want to perfect your poem, but I certainly DO NOT want to see you say overtly that you are "sitting down to a meal in Wetherspoons...(etc)". That would detract from it greatly. Considering the author of the poem critiqued by Tracey, I say, "fk him!" Anger and resentment at honest critiques is inappropriate. If he can't take the heat, let him throw his poetry in the river and jump in after it. Considering John Hartley Williams, I say, "Who the fk is he anyway?" I hadn't read his poetry, but my respect for celebrities reached zero a long time ago, and has continued to sink. Then I found this gem of his The Ship The light weakens toward death. Changes are bred in time. Out of the chalice, the silver bud, the frame of energy holds the line. Mazes. Stars. A clean abstraction lights the world with gleaming rivers. Forests, mountains vanish out of sight. Emptiness the dream delivers. Change from absence lets the heart know truth it can't admit. The next requirement is: look. The dark is close to where you sit. Here in time the form of it: a chair, perhaps, a mask, a loom? A woman combing pale hair? The devastation of a room? etc., etc... Please note the last line in S2: A fundamental error of rhyme, called ‘inversion'. PS: The rest of the poem sucks too. In my opinion, Dane's poem is great; yours is merely very good. And that ain't bad. Alcuin
Leanne Hansonfrom Just west of the lounge room Associate, 3708 posts	on Nov. 19 2007 Thanks for sharing that Williams poem, I now have to bathe my eyeballs iin carbolic.
Jones, Paganinifrom Hyde in Cheshire 385 posts	on Nov. 19 2007 Leanne, don't do that. You'll go blind. Alcuin, I too had not heard of John Hartley Williams. It appears that he is a published poet with eight books to his name, so he appears to know something about poetry - how to get published at least. I too struggled to find any of his poems that I could admire. The exercise he set for his workshop is a good one though. I will play with it when I have time to spare to it. What frustrates me about his comments on Dane's poem is that they were made in print and are there on the internet but I have no way to respond to them. I want to be able to tell her just how good I think it is. It's a poem I have kept a copy of for my collection. As to my own, you may notice I have already made minor changes to the stanza you refer too. But I agree it really needs a full rewrite. Actually i'm not happy about much of the poem, but perhaps that's another matter. When it has been reworked I'll let you know. Title suggestions appreciated by the way. The current one was never more than a working title. Also, one of the things I value highly about this website is that there are people here who are prepared to give honest opinion about each other's writing and give reasons. Keep it up and I'll try to do the same.
Leanne Hansonfrom Just west of the lounge room Associate, 3708 posts	on Nov. 19 2007 Funny you should say that, Pags, I've been googling Emma Danes to try and track her down and tell her the same thing! On the way I've found a few of her other poems and out of her and Williams, I know who I'd spend my money on. No luck on a contact address yet but I will let you know -- poets who catch my attention are not so numerous that I like letting one go!
Oldagyz	on Nov. 20 2007 Wow you have 'spoons in ausland, didnt know that
Ryan Wilbur	on Jan. 29 2008 The way that I look at it, is this: Someone or something speaks in every poem ever written. I forget who, but there's a man out there who distinguishes three narrative voices that parallel the three major and tradional syntaxes: the egopoetic, the narrative, and the dramatic voices. There are three persons and two numbers of voice: First, second, and third person speakers, and singular and plural numbers. Here's a table: Voice: Egopoetic Narrative Dramatic ____________________ Person: First I I, we I Second you, you (pl.) Third he, she, it, they Now, whether you agree or disagree, I'm just putting this information out there. The ego poetic voice is single angled. The speaker is taking a stance at the center of his or her world and telling about it from the first-person singular viewpoint. The egopoet's method is autobiographical in nature and exclusive in effect. There is but one angle of vision, and either the reader agrees with the poet or not. Those who do not agree are excluded from participation in the subjective, ego-centered relationship. Egopoets often use rhetorical methods, telling rather than persuading or showing. Most lyric poetry is written in the egopoetic voice, but tradionally the interst of the poem is carried by the music of the poem, by the sonic level which makes it palatable. THe narrative voice is a double-angled at least, depeding on the number of characters whose stories are being told in the poem. The poet relates someone else's or perhaps his own story by standing outside himself or herself and taking an objective viewpoint. The reader is not excluded by the narration because he or she is encouraged to empathize, at least with the protagonist --- the lead character. By the way the poet tells the story, there is no inclusive angle of reflection that tells us as much about the narrator, perhaps, as about the characters in the poem. The Dramatic voic is similar to the narrative voice, except that here the poet takes the reader inside another character's person, and both we and the poet become that person. We therefore see the persona's world in the same way that we saw the poet's world from the egopoetic viewpoint. The main difference is that we can still see the poet-speaker's viewpoint which the poet makes the persona speak. The dramatic viewpoint is the most inclusive of the three, for it is both objective and "subjective" (From the viewpoint of the character). The more personae the poet imagines in the poem the more inclusive it is. All three viewpoints and voices can be blended in a work of literature, and the effect is poetentially "Universal." Again, I apologize for the lack of resource. I found this little page in a folder of mine and suspect that it's from Lewis Truco. Hope this helps out and a reminder there's always an exception to the rules. Love, The unicorn.

A problem of we, you and I in a poem

Comments