Prescience

[ex-entangle223.livejournal.com]

Had I known that the heart
breaks slowly, dismantling itself
into unrecognizable plots of
misery,

Had I known the heart would leak,
slobbering its sap, with a vulgar
visibility, into the dress-up
dining rooms of strangers,

Had I known the solitude could
stifle the breath, loosen the joint,
and force the tongue against the
palate,

Had I known that loneliness could
keloid, winding itself around the
body in an ominous and beautiful
cicatrix,

Had I known yet I would have loved
you, your brash and insolent beauty,
your heavy comedic face
and knowledge of sweet
delights,

But from a distance
I would have left you whole and wholly
for the delectation of those who
wanted more and cared less.

-- Maya Angelou

Comments

[penguinboy.livejournal.com]

The heart is a trope that's been way over-used, especially in the ways maya angelou has used it here. It's cliche in the worse way. It's not bad for Hallmark.

[ex-entangle223.livejournal.com]

i disagree, but obviously you're entitled to your opinion.

[penguinboy.livejournal.com]

You disagree that the heart is a trope? Or that this trope is used in a cliche in this poem? Or that this poem is "bad" in the Hallmark way? Please explain why you disagree. We're all entitled to our opinions, but only through discussing our different opinions can we understand what's "great" about these "greatpoets".

[ex-entangle223.livejournal.com]

As an English student, I know how easy it is to get caught up in analysis of everything. But when it comes to enjoying poetry, I choose to enjoy it for what it is before picking it to pieces. For me it's about how the language works as a whole and what effect the poem has on me. This was the kind of poem that just stopped me and stunned me. It doesn't matter why. Sometimes I'll read something and it'll move me, othertimes it does nothing. This was the first kind.

[penguinboy.livejournal.com]

I think you can definitely get caught up in the analysis, but I don't think it decreases the enjoyment of the thing UNLESS the thing being analyzed does not stand up to scrutiny.

You said "It doesn't matter why" but perhaps it does. When you figure out exactly why something works (or doesn't), it helps your overall understanding of what the poem is saying. I'm not saying this must be your goal, but it's mine.

For example, you said you just enjoyed this for what it is. Perhaps you can point to some reasons. I can, and I don't even enjoy the poem. I can talk about the repetition (Had I known, had I known being a sort of refrain), the sounds of words (alliteration of vulgar visibility for example). But I can also point to flaws.

The images start from "heart" standing in for its usual typecast role (being broken, then carrying that metaphor further, leaking). Then it goes to solitude, loneliness... personifying the abstract is an old technique and it doesn't work here. But it doesn't make sense... for instance, loosen the joint? What does this suggest, or is this here just to sound nice? How does being in solitude loosen one's joints? It doesn't convey the feeling of solitude to me, but rather of a random physical ailment thrown in to continue the string of them that preceded it.

Again, analysis doesn't have to boil down to liking or not liking the poem, but it gets at why something works or doesn't work for us. I think it's lucky that all great art can be studied. By this I don't mean that we can reproduce art mechanically by following a step by step procedure. All great art has that something that you can't exactly reproduce. But that something exists within the constraints of a well formed well constructed work of craft.

[ex-entangle223.livejournal.com]

A serious question: do you write poetry yourself? I'm not going to say oh well if you don't you can't criticise or any of that crap, because I can't draw for toffee but still criticise art. The reason I ask is because I wonder if you know that these devices aren't always deliberate. I tend to just write, automatic writing almost, then realised I've used devices like repetition without even actually meaning to.

I honestly don't believe that a poem is automatically bad because it uses a popular or popularised theme. One of my favourite poems talks about hearts, you can read it here (http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/eecummings/icarry.shtml).

I guess for me one important thing is where the poem comes from, whether it seems to be heartfelt. And for me this one is.

Mechanical reproduction of art? Have you been reading Walter Benjamin by any chance?

To me it honestly doesn't matter why. It's about feeling. I care more about that than searching for meaning, which is very subjective.

Incidentally, your interests list is incredibly, incredibly offensive.

[penguinboy.livejournal.com]

yes i write. sometimes devices are deliberate and sometimes they're not. IN THE INITIAL draft, most of the times they're not deliberate. You're just trying to put something down, anything. but upon further revising, the poet IS CONSCIOUS of what he or she is doing in terms of device, diction, and any other artistic choice he or she finally chooses.

Or he or she is conscious of it after it has been written, in which case it is the poet's responsibility to guage whether that device fits the tone/mood/diction/etc. (an endless list of things to consider here) of the poem.

By your logic, anything heartfelt is good. How do we know if a poem is heartfelt? It's been said that all bad poetry comes from genuine feelings.

Also, I never said a poem is automatically bad because it uses a popularized theme. The theme is not the problem. Almost all poems are written on the same handful of themes. There's no avoiding it, it's just what humans are drawn to writing about. The way the poet constructs his poem around the theme, however, should be a new experience. How does a poet do this? By avoiding using tired phrases in the same way. A poet does not have to avoid using "hearts" in a poem, but his responsibility is to make that "heart" sing to us in a new way. We've all heard of the phrase "breaking my heart" or a number of variations on that. So using the heart in this way, or similar ways, does not stimulate us if we are reading poetry at a high level (i.e. looking for true originality, excellence, and depth in poetry).

e.e. cummings has written many better poems. I wish you had found one of them instead of this one.

I can understand if you don't care about analyzing poems further. I was just hoping to start a more active discussion of the poems posted here instead of a passive consumption of the poems regardless of quality.

~

[ex-entangle223.livejournal.com]

As a point of interest, I didn't just 'find' that one - it's one of my favourite e.e. cummings poems.