Actually I found this rather embarrassing. I still think a word like 'shaping' would be better than 'singing'. After all a poem is shaped in much the same way the wind shapes the sails of a boat. Doesn't the very word 'inspire' relate to that?
As for that direct quotation from the Bible, in the second poem, wouldn't it have been better to provide your own translation? Quotations can be like clichés. Unless they are well used they merely a exert a deadening effect on the poem. In other words some element of surprise needs to accrue to them, particularly in the way they relate to the rest of the poem. This I think you have failed to achieve.
I gather you are American. May I remind you that both Eliot and Pound fell foul of the American psyche. As it happens I've just written a short essay about this very subject which might very well have appeared on Substack if something hadn't gone wrong. Now I have rewritten it in an email to a friend. But the gist it was that you Americans on the whole are a bit too addicted to self-promotion. I have always felt it's better to adopt a more dignified approach and allow other people to do all that for one. The poet, on the other hand, can then devote their time to promoting the work of other people. There's a lot to be said for the civilised way of doing things. And a lot to be said against the vulgar. In the words of Yeats,
'That civilisation may not sink ,
Its great battle lost,
Quiet the dog, tether the pony
To a distant post.
Our master Caesar is in his tent...
Like a long-legged fly upon a stream
His mind dwells upon silence.'
Poetry isn't a fairground side-show where we need to shout our wares. Wordsworth's 'violet by a mossy stone, Half-hidden from the eye' is surely vastly superior to Browning's 'gaudy melon-flower'. All this vulgar screaming for attention will merely drive all the good poets away, and make good poetry impossible. (It's already difficult enough as it is.) Remember the Muse communicates her wise and memorable words in a voice quieter than silence. Remember too the story of Elijah and the 'still small voice'. That voice, make no mistake, was the voice of poetry. Subtlety may take a long time to penetrate, but, once it has penetrated, it stays a lot longer. And is then a million times more valuable.
I'll retype it for you and post it here - or elsewhere - on Substack, so you can see it and comment.
As for AI, I am distinctly unimpressed by what I've seen so far, both in the field of visual aesthetics and in the field of literature. As far as I can tell it not only churns out absolute rubbish but promotes it. This is not good! Artificial intelligence seems to equate itself with real stupidity.
And in any case I thoroughly dislike artificiality anywhere. Whether it's artificial behaviour. Or lawns. Or trees. Or flowers. (Or even - or uneven! - teeth.) (Or people.) Give me *Real* anyday! At least, whatever else you say about him, Charles Bukowski was real.
Artificial implies false. And false implies betrayal. Judas was artificial. That's surely the whole point. All the other disciples were real. Including Thomas. And Christ was the most real of the lot. Has anybody ever been more real? Nobody could ever make that up. Least of all something as abysmally stupid as Artificial Intelligence.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'll probably post it in this thread anyway, to avoid the possibility of being attacked by several irate US poets. Or, rather, rather more than I can quite handle in a single paragraph.
Elizabeth Bishop was an aquarian and was famously shy. She didn't even turn up to her first book launching! But seems to have done quite well for herself even so. Of course she chose Marianne Moore for her mentor, and this seems to have been a very wise choice.
I suppose that you're already aware that the US was founded by aquarians. Including Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, then, later, Abraham Lincoln and then, even later, FDR.
Feeling honored that Mr AI Eliot replied to my comment, but I fear he misread it as literary criticism. It was not. Just a friend sincerely responding with his (current) perception of reality after you sharing yours.
Actually I found this rather embarrassing. I still think a word like 'shaping' would be better than 'singing'. After all a poem is shaped in much the same way the wind shapes the sails of a boat. Doesn't the very word 'inspire' relate to that?
As for that direct quotation from the Bible, in the second poem, wouldn't it have been better to provide your own translation? Quotations can be like clichés. Unless they are well used they merely a exert a deadening effect on the poem. In other words some element of surprise needs to accrue to them, particularly in the way they relate to the rest of the poem. This I think you have failed to achieve.
I gather you are American. May I remind you that both Eliot and Pound fell foul of the American psyche. As it happens I've just written a short essay about this very subject which might very well have appeared on Substack if something hadn't gone wrong. Now I have rewritten it in an email to a friend. But the gist it was that you Americans on the whole are a bit too addicted to self-promotion. I have always felt it's better to adopt a more dignified approach and allow other people to do all that for one. The poet, on the other hand, can then devote their time to promoting the work of other people. There's a lot to be said for the civilised way of doing things. And a lot to be said against the vulgar. In the words of Yeats,
'That civilisation may not sink ,
Its great battle lost,
Quiet the dog, tether the pony
To a distant post.
Our master Caesar is in his tent...
Like a long-legged fly upon a stream
His mind dwells upon silence.'
Poetry isn't a fairground side-show where we need to shout our wares. Wordsworth's 'violet by a mossy stone, Half-hidden from the eye' is surely vastly superior to Browning's 'gaudy melon-flower'. All this vulgar screaming for attention will merely drive all the good poets away, and make good poetry impossible. (It's already difficult enough as it is.) Remember the Muse communicates her wise and memorable words in a voice quieter than silence. Remember too the story of Elijah and the 'still small voice'. That voice, make no mistake, was the voice of poetry. Subtlety may take a long time to penetrate, but, once it has penetrated, it stays a lot longer. And is then a million times more valuable.
As for Bob Dylan, the less said the better. The toute ensemble works pretty well. But considered purely as literature...?
I wish there were an edit facility on this app. I really don't appreciate leaving behind a trail of typos. It leaves such a careless impression.
Substack and its discontents ...
Sorry about the embarrassment. To make ends meet, I have a side gig running AI things through their paces, so I try to have fun with it.
I am American and, you're right, therefore prone to self promotion. But mostly tongue in cheek.
I'd like to read your essay and get a better handle on what you mean by Pound and Eliot running afoul of the American psyche.
I do appreciate everything you're saying -- and am pondering it.
I'll retype it for you and post it here - or elsewhere - on Substack, so you can see it and comment.
As for AI, I am distinctly unimpressed by what I've seen so far, both in the field of visual aesthetics and in the field of literature. As far as I can tell it not only churns out absolute rubbish but promotes it. This is not good! Artificial intelligence seems to equate itself with real stupidity.
And in any case I thoroughly dislike artificiality anywhere. Whether it's artificial behaviour. Or lawns. Or trees. Or flowers. (Or even - or uneven! - teeth.) (Or people.) Give me *Real* anyday! At least, whatever else you say about him, Charles Bukowski was real.
Artificial implies false. And false implies betrayal. Judas was artificial. That's surely the whole point. All the other disciples were real. Including Thomas. And Christ was the most real of the lot. Has anybody ever been more real? Nobody could ever make that up. Least of all something as abysmally stupid as Artificial Intelligence.
It's a pity I can't just take a screen shot of the essay and then post that in a reply. But that facility seems to be lacking as well.
You could do that if you’d like to post it as a note.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'll probably post it in this thread anyway, to avoid the possibility of being attacked by several irate US poets. Or, rather, rather more than I can quite handle in a single paragraph.
Elizabeth Bishop was an aquarian and was famously shy. She didn't even turn up to her first book launching! But seems to have done quite well for herself even so. Of course she chose Marianne Moore for her mentor, and this seems to have been a very wise choice.
I suppose that you're already aware that the US was founded by aquarians. Including Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, then, later, Abraham Lincoln and then, even later, FDR.
I do think there's something to it. Several of my closest friends over the years have been Aquarians.
If you'd like to send me the essay by email, that would be fine too. jonathan@waterspotter.uk
Feeling honored that Mr AI Eliot replied to my comment, but I fear he misread it as literary criticism. It was not. Just a friend sincerely responding with his (current) perception of reality after you sharing yours.