Modern and Contempory American Poetry

[Holsety]

Odd tangent that just poked me in the brain:
Does anyone seriously thing a model T is better than Lexus?
A Fokker E1 better than the coming F35?
But poetry and writing and philosophy in general are OBVIOUSLY crap, not "real" art...compared to the masters.
Hah.

Hmm.
I wouldn't agree with that second to last statement one way or another, much. I'd simply say that because they're made of stuff like letters they're not really made with the intention of being explained with stuff like letters. Maybe? It seems like poems may sometimes be written with the intention of explaining things in the way they do, and writing about them is more useful for letting you know what I think about them, than letting you know what they mean.

But I don't REALLY throw out the "what the author meant" thing...as something someone can do. There's a Millay poem I feel was absolutely meant to "respond" or at least appear to respond to a Yeats poem, because too many words are used in common between the two in too short an amount of text. And they both choose a sonnet form.

If you're curious, it's the Yeats sonnet "Leda and the Swan" and the Millay poem "I Being a Woman and Distressed."

And I don't necessarily feel confident every poem is targeted towards another poem, or that every poem is intentionally related to something else, or that a poem that avoids a subject is really talking about it, or a poem that talks about a subject is really avoiding it. In a way, the latter Millay poem, is a really winning way of dismissing that tension (as is Yeats's poem in wondering if it exists).

So there's the crap aspect. I just don't think it's worth calling that crap, or BS.

As for ussu, I guess that regarding the lower quality, I don't quite buy that particularly. Whatever is going on for them may well be much better for them, or certain of their readers, than what is going on for me. I appreciate Shakespeare's sonnet sequences more than his plays, except when his plays are performed on stage, and one of his plays I still think about a great deal is Titus Andronicus. It may be I actually accept melodrama more than drama in an age where every person seems to live an insignificant life on "the world stage," (i.e., on the internet, but also in a public setting with many acquaintances without much in the way of gaps bridged - not necc. here on KW) and if things matter, it's in a setting of relatively private or out-of-sight desperation.

I'd simply say that a lot of the metrics I - if not you folks - might like to use to appraise a tie between something written and other stuff - me, the writer, the subject, etc - start to fall apart, because more and more, in the absence of any particular reason to speak besides the enjoyment of speaking, at least for my part, I may say something because it seems enjoyable to say it, or fits my sense of aesthetics.

How much more attention to be paid, towards being silent and speaking, towards not posting and posting?

[Vraith]

I'm familiar with those poems, the possible connection never crossed my mind. I'll have to look into it...certainly there is a poetic tradition, probably born the day after poetry itself, to speak/respond to other poems [and other literature/art/etc...]

But this:

more and more, in the absence of any particular reason to speak besides the enjoyment of speaking, at least for my part, I may say something because it seems enjoyable to say it, or fits my sense of aesthetics.

Has me just smiling and smiling...you might be amazed at how often I post/speak [and the ways I choose to do so] only or primarily for the personal aesthetic experience of the act.

EDITED TO FIX QUOTING

[ussusimiel]

Good post, Holsety, thanks! It touches on many concerns relating to poetry and the aesthetic.

But this:

more and more, in the absence of any particular reason to speak besides the enjoyment of speaking, at least for my part, I may say something because it seems enjoyable to say it, or fits my sense of aesthetics.

Has me just smiling and smiling...you might be amazed at how often I post/speak [and the ways I choose to do so] only or primarily for the personal aesthetic experience of the act.

I think I might have mentioned upthread how Novalis says that the attempt at style whether in speech, poetry or prose always results in poetry. Maybe not always good poetry (except on the Watch, of course ) but when language attempts anything more than simple communication (such as pleasure in the act itself) the result is poetry.

And I don't necessarily feel confident every poem is targeted towards another poem....

George Steiner (in Real Presences) believes that all 'great' literature is a response to previous 'great' literature. (Don't ask me how the first 'great' literature was written )

u.

[ussusimiel]

I've been looking at the Stein poems again (I only skimmed over them during the course) and revisiting some of the course material about these poems and one of the things that stands out about Stein (and maybe what makes her proto-postmodern) is her awareness of the process of making poetry as she's doing it. (Some of my poet-friends would say that this is exactly what makes what she produces not poetry!)

This strays into what might be called metapoetic territory; the writing of poems about the writing of poetry. (Usually, I am dead against this sort of intellectualising in relation to poetry because I think that the intellectual is not compatible with poetry. I see the intellectual as more suitable to criticism, philosophy, psychology and academic disciplines in general. However, I am willing to suspend that stance to engage with people like Stein (and the postmodern writers that came after her) because they obviously believe in what they are doing.)

In the course material the impressionist and post-impressionist painters are referenced, and so is Wittgenstein. There is an emphasis on process and Tender Buttons (which all the Stein poems posted are from) is seen as a book that attempts to engage with language through a radically new and different process. In a clean break from the traditional ways of making meaning by reference, connotation, denotation etc. Stein is attempting in these poems to show that meaning can be generated in other less obvious and less common ways.

To try and demonstrate what I mean let's have a go at a communal reading of 'A Carafe, that a Blind Glass'.

A Carafe, that is a Blind Glass.

A kind in glass and a cousin, a spectacle and nothing strange a single hurt color and an arrangement in a system to pointing. All this and not ordinary, not unordered in not resembling. The difference is spreading.

To read this in isolation is fairly difficult, but not impossible. (Again it is one of the features of the postmodern that since everything is intertextual anyway bringing in material from outside the poem is not only acceptable but often it is intregal to understanding what the poem is attempting to say or do.) To begin with the title, which is strangely punctuated, you could read it a number of ways:

• - 'a carafe is also a blind glass'
  
  - ignoring the period, 'a carafe that is a blind glass' (can be used to hold flowers).
  
  - 'this particular carafe is a blind glass'.

Already we are getting into the process of generating multiple meanings which the nature of the title encourages.

A kind in glass and a cousin,

This line could be talking about the relationships between different types of carafes; stone carafes, metal carafes, plastic carafes etc. These are all carafes, cousins to each other, but they are also all related to the idea of a carafe and the word carafe itself, which are also cousins of each other.

a spectacle

This word could have a couple of different meanings. It could be something visually striking. It could also be related to spectacles/glasses and this then resonates with the word 'blind' in the title. Visually striking, something that aids vision, something that helps you to see better, something that can reduce blindness.

and nothing strange a single hurt color

Here the seeming lack of punctuation draws attention to itself and actually, in effect, immediately contradicts the phrase 'nothing strange'. This leads into the only emotional word, 'hurt', which is almost at the exact centre (the heart) of the poem (if you include the title). '[A] single hurt colour' is most likely the red of wine. It could be others, that of water, that of white wine, that of fruit juice, but it's easy to see the red of wine, the red of blood, the red of hurt here.

Anyone like to continue with the reading or add (or contradict) what I've suggested so far?

u.

[Avatar]

This strays into what might be called metapoetic territory; the writing of poems about the writing of poetry. (Usually, I am dead against this sort of intellectualising in relation to poetry...

I've written poetry about writing. In fact, I think I posted one in the Hall once. I also wrote one about not being able to write once.

--A

[Orlion]

This strays into what might be called metapoetic territory; the writing of poems about the writing of poetry. (Usually, I am dead against this sort of intellectualising in relation to poetry...

I've written poetry about writing. In fact, I think I posted one in the Hall once. I also wrote one about not being able to write once.

--A

Keats wrote a Sonnet on the Sonnet:

If by dull rhymes our English must be chain'd,
And, like Andromeda, the Sonnet sweet
Fetter'd, in spite of pained loveliness,
Let us find, if we must be constrain'd,
Sandals more interwoven and complete
To fit the naked foot of Poesy:
Let us inspect the Lyre, and weigh the stress
Of every chord, and see what may be gain'd
By ear industrious, and attention meet;
Misers of sound and syllable, no less
Than Midas of his coinage, let us be
Jealous of dead leaves in the bay wreath crown;
So, if we may not let the Muse be free,
She will be bound with garlands of her own.

[Vraith]

is her awareness of the process of making poetry as she's doing it. (Some of my poet-friends would say that this is exactly what makes what she produces not poetry!)

That is ridiculous. They wouldn't say a sonnet isn't a sonnet because the writer knows s/he's making a sonnet. [I know, it's at a different level, they think they mean something else when they say that.] In a second way, what gives them the authority to define what does, and does not A) qualify as poetry. B) qualify as a "real" process of making it? C) [deduced from A & B] Who is a poet?
[[[heh...that sounds pissed/annoyed....but really, I'm not, I think it's funny. I'm more than capable of getting on my own high horse at times and declaring whether something is or is not poetry [or at least whether it is or is not GOOD poetry]]].

Anyone like to continue with the reading or add (or contradict) what I've suggested so far?

u.

The first thing that popped into my head [despite the supposed "clean break from reference"]: play with the idea of the "Glass" as a "mirror." Reflections, illusions, left is right/right is left, "in vino veritas"....really? [Does "blind" mean the "real" isn't actually reflected in the glass? that the glass creates the difference? That the glass hides things on purpose? Or is it us seers that are blind, so mistake all those things?
Carafe<==>Mirror...which which? which contains? Contains what?
Just thoughts...haven't pursued/tried to analyze/justify them.

[Orlion]

I pretty much agree with the Imagists on what you can right poetry about. Even intellectualizing is fine (of course, we than get into territory like music written solely by mathematical formulae and would that be art?)

[Holsety]

I'm going to go ahead and offer some responses to the Stein poems. Many of them offer something to me; Malachite doesn't offer me anything, I think, without external work, but I'll attempt to work with it after trying to make concrete my thoughts on the others.

Where is the serene length, it is there and a dark place is not a dark place, only a white and red are black, only a yellow and green are blue, a pink is scarlet, a bow is every color. A line distinguishes it. A line just distinguishes it.

I don't have the [positive attribute, quite likely experience or information] necessary to appraise this "really" - that is, to build a series of interpretations that make sense together. In a way, that works well with the interpretation I'm about to give -_- yet I think, in a rather BS way (on my part) so I'm saying that, for that aspect, such is the case in advance.

Only a white and red are black, and the serene length there and a dark place is not a dark place right before it, I take to mean, a line between two colors - boundary - is the serene length. Whether it is actually true, I don't know, but I simply think of myself, drawing borders with a black color.

The stuff in spoilers is, I think, ....."nice"..... but it's so based on supposition.

Spoiler

The yellow and green, I can't say - I know color combinations of pigment, but as for light, I think the green may be a primary, and the yellow a secondary. Regardless, because one of those three colors I would think to be (thematically?) "constant as primary" while the other two alternate in those two spectra, and because that is the nature of comparison my mind jumps to, despite not being able to actually make the comparison,
I tend towards assuming, something like, "only a yellow and a green are blue", indicating something like the lack of change relative to the change in two other things, going along two different spectra, that blue is made in this instance something like the division by which the nature of the other two are, and its use or static nature as a dividing thing is something...serene...about it. At least in a rationalized sense...

A pink is scarlet I can't say, except that as red and white are black (seen before) makes a dividing line - red's not white, there's a line between 'em when together - so, white is the relative lack of color, I suppose, and red, well pink has red, there's some color, so scarlet, maybe that's more like red, it's usually a little closer to red blood than white blood.

And a bow as every color, I intuitively feel to express something like the shape frequently creating shadows internal to the object, creating darkness, that has something to do with the rest of this, what, I don't know. Aren't black and white the every color/no color things, on the pigment/light thing? I guess shadow and illumination might in some way be extended in thinking about this...it's hard for me, not to make a difference between the presence/absence of visibility or light, and the colors assoc'd...?

The earlier two stanzas, I simply don't really have the energy to try and work with in addition right now, some of the things they brought to mind, helped me think more about this last one, I guess.

In general, I think it's probably an interesting commentary or expression, on categories or explanations, or something.

WATER RAINING

Water astonishing and difficult altogether makes a meadow and a stroke.

My mind jumped straight to whipping with stroke, and the rest is history. However, it doesn't have to be thought of that way. I think this a pretty straightforwardly awesome poem though. Not even an ability to sense nonsense, for me, in it, just, "yup it has the feeling of making sense for so many things."

The Carafe one, I'll leave for now, but I can say stuff about it I think is alright. The Malachite one, not got a clue.

[ussusimiel]

A LONG DRESS

What is the current that makes machinery, that makes it crackle, what is the current that presents a long line and a necessary waist. What is this current.

What is the wind, what is it.

Where is the serene length, it is there and a dark place is not a dark place, only a white and red are black, only a yellow and green are blue, a pink is scarlet, a bow is every color. A line distinguishes it. A line just distinguishes it.

I like the riffing on the colours in 'A Long Dress', Holsety. I hadn't paid a whole lot of attentions to the colours themselves as I was focusing more on the dress and the process of its making. I was looking at the 'line' as the production line where dresses are made in a more mechanised world.

The separation and blending of colours in light goes on in the eye. This is one of the things that the Post-Impressionist painters like Seurat worked with. Rather than putting the colours on the canvas, they used techniques like pointillism to allow the colours to be mixed in the eye of the viewer rather than on the canvas itself. Stein may be trying something akin to this in language.

She may also be being metapoetic when talking about the 'line' in poetry. What is the 'serene length' of a poetic line?

MALACHITE

The sudden spoon is the same in no size. The sudden spoon is the wound in the decision.

As regards this poem, I was as lost as you until they spoke about it on the course. Like the 'carafe', part of what might be going in this poem is the taking an ordinary, everyday object, such as a spoon and 'seeing' it. This could be related to the word 'sudden', you suddenly see the spoon.

This may be an attempt to undermine reference. 'Malachite' is the name of a type of stone, but it is named after its resemblance to the Mallow Flower (at least that's what they said on the course ), so it's like the stone's name has always been purely referential. Then the 'sudden spoon' can become a breaking (a wounding) in the circuit of resemblances that traditional language is mostly based on. The 'decision' then becomes the choice to continue with the old system of references or to makes a break from it into a new way of using language and creating meaning (or not ).

u.

[Vraith]

I pretty much agree with the Imagists on what you can right poetry about. Even intellectualizing is fine (of course, we than get into territory like music written solely by mathematical formulae and would that be art?)

Of course it would....well, no, COULD be.
There is this odd impression that math is less contingent/referential, and more "pure" somehow than other things. But really, that isn't so. So if someone followed a formulaic path it could be trite, inspired, or anything in between...depending.
The only difference is the direction of the translational arrow. Some mind must do the translation...that mind may be artistic or not.


In re u. and reference: you can't escape reference, but yes, you can break the traditional/accepted/predetermined reference. If the relocation/reattachment holds...might that not be one small piece separating the poetic from the not? Maybe?...
But the problem with your sequence/description is this: the wound isn't in the thing/object/reference. The wound is in the decision itself...so no matter which/what decision is made, [or even if there is none] there will be a cut, and it will be bleeding.
for some reason i haven't figured out yet, I think there is something relevant in the fact that knives and forks are known for stabbing, penetrating, cutting, damaging...spoons, OTOH, are not at all.

[lucimay]

i've been trying to find a point in this thread to pop in and join the discussion and i guess now's as good a time as any...


i appreciate that you're all having an ongoing discussion about poetry in all it's myriad forms and whatnot but...do ya not think ya might be overthinking some of it?

i do understand the desire to "unpack" a piece of writing, it's often
fun to do so and find the little nuggets of subtext that are sometimes
hidden in them (whether intentional or unintentional) but i wonder if
you (meaning the general you and not anyone in particular) might
lose some of the magic of the works if you poke and prod at them
too much.


not sure how relevant this is but...
a friend of mine once wrote:

"Jeff asked if I ever read Finnegan's Wake. I told him I started reading it once, but then put it down. 'Because I have a hard time reading stuff I don't understand,' I said. Jeff said I should just read it, and don't try to understand it.
'Just read it, man', he said, 'and absorb the words. Like the way you listen to music.'"

this is advice i still follow.


having said that...you do realize who my avatar pic is, right?

[Vraith]

Hee...I think we've had variations/tangents on this before...or at least things have been said that in my mind I intended/imagined had been touched on.

First: overthinking? Heh...well, both of COURSE and no WAY.

Personally, I got edumacated cuz I liked what happened when I read the words...then I had to retrain myself to read without edumacasticating the hell out of stuff.

But I like what I like.

Sometimes it can survive the chewing and still be tasty, sometimes it can't.

I like the thing.
And the chewing, too.
A work is what it is.
But it is still---literally---impossible for it to
Not allude,
Not multiply,
Not reference.
No one appreciates a work or word that no one can relate to.

The problem [of overthinking] only arises for those overly concerned with greatness and place and a number of other things...where you can't enjoy for what it is FIRST.
...I lied...there's a second place where overthinking arises...when for whatever reason [like getting an A on a paper about, for instance, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," which, whatever it's histori-social importance is really shitty writing] one thinks one must like [and in some cases, the opposite, dislike] something because of the hidden allusions/references/etc. DESPITE the fact that, on its face, it is ugly/stupid/clumsy/trite, etc.


I know your avatar.

[Holsety]

As far as the discussion thing goes, it's a 24-hour-a-day kinda thing. I've long, and still often, tried and try to condense the text that comes naturally, somewhat. [pretend there are two or three even more circular articulations here.]

And I proudly say I don't recognize who's in that photograph, nor would I know an image of Homer himself.
(except the one from the Simpsons)

[Avatar]

(of course, we than get into territory like music written solely by mathematical formulae and would that be art?)

Are you saying we would start asking if it was art? Or are you asking if it would be art?

Have you read The Glass Bead Game?

--A

[lucimay]

And I proudly say I don't recognize who's in that photograph, nor would I know an image of Homer himself.
(except the one from the Simpsons)

ok then, suffice it to say it's a poet

But I like what I like.

Sometimes it can survive the chewing and still be tasty, sometimes it can't.

I like the thing.
And the chewing, too.

true and understood

A work is what it is.
But it is still---literally---impossible for it to
Not allude,
Not multiply,
Not reference.

what do you mean?

No one appreciates a work or word that no one can relate to.

i guess, should you not "understand" the work or maybe understand what the author was trying to say, you can still "relate" to the work in other ways, say, as holsety says, for the sheer enjoyment of saying or reading the words, the language...

that brings to mind Wallace Stevens and The Idea of Order at Key West, which i read a portion of as an epigraph in a mystery novel and became enchanted with the language or the usage of the language even tho i wasn't sure what Stevens had been writing about (beyond a walk at the beach and a woman singing.) eventually i watched a documentary about his life and work and listened to other poets discussing the piece and gained a better understanding of what he'd been writing about. but i loved the piece just as much when i didn't "understand" it fully.

The Idea of Order at Key West just in case anyone wants to read it.

I know your avatar.

this speaks well of you!

[ussusimiel]

i've been trying to find a point in this thread to pop in and join the discussion and i guess now's as good a time as any...


i appreciate that you're all having an ongoing discussion about poetry in all it's myriad forms and whatnot but...do ya not think ya might be overthinking some of it?

i do understand the desire to "unpack" a piece of writing, it's often
fun to do so and find the little nuggets of subtext that are sometimes
hidden in them (whether intentional or unintentional) but i wonder if
you (meaning the general you and not anyone in particular) might
lose some of the magic of the works if you poke and prod at them
too much.

Hi luci, great to have you joining in! (I was hoping you might.) Usually I would be in complete agreement with you in relation to an over-academic approach to poetry. However, in my case, my resistance to this kind of poetry is so strong that an open attitude was initially not possible. I simply couldn't read the poetry of people like Stein, Cage, Mac Low, Bergvall, Hejinian, Silliman. I needed something to allow me into the work so that I could be more open to it. (As it is, I am coming to appreciate someone like Stein much more and if I mangle a few of the Tender Buttons along the way, hopefully there are plenty more that I can just be open to )

A couple of other points:

- much of the thinking that I post comes from the course I took rather than being directly my own.

- when the poetry itself is overtly about the process of writing poetry (as much postmodernist poetry is) then, IMO, a more academic approach is necessary to achieve a fuller reading of the poems.

- I have concentrated a lot on Stein because she is the starting point for the postmodernists and I've wanted to show (mostly to myself) that as hermetic and gnomic as she seems there are points of contact and possible connections once you (I) attend closely enough.

Please feel free to comment, disagree (hopefully rant. I haven't seen a full-thruster-burn lucimay-rant in ages ), contradict, dismiss etc. anything said here. I am still a total newcomer to this kind of writing and so likely to say something completely foolish thing at any time

(I know who your avater is (thanks to Google images). She wasn't on the course as she probably doesn't make it into the postmodern ambit. Coincidentally, I was just reading about her last night.)

u.

[Vraith]

A work is what it is.
But it is still---literally---impossible for it to
Not allude,
Not multiply,
Not reference.

what do you mean?

No one appreciates a work or word that no one can relate to.

i guess, should you not "understand" the work or maybe understand what the author was trying to say, you can still "relate" to the work in other ways, say, as holsety says, for the sheer enjoyment of saying or reading the words, the language...

On the second, I agree totally that there are many different ways to relate...and "understanding" is often the least important/valuable way. [I have a bit of a Heidegger-like core, but also find value in things he thought twisted/misplaced/misunderstood "Art."...as long as one knows they're using a view/tool/lens, not finding "the Truth" or "THE meaning."]

On the first: Just like everything else, a poem cannot exist [or, if it can exist it can't be found/seen/known] without other things, that's all. It was just more fun to say it that way.
Every word/utterance that ever was/is/will be is connected to every other. [just like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon].

Funny on Stevens...I remember I really enjoy his work when people remind me about him, though I strongly disagree with his ideas often. [as in Key West, for instance, and "Ancedote of the Jar"...I think that's the title...which has thematic overlap with K. West.

[lucimay]

Hi luci, great to have you joining in! (I was hoping you might.) Usually I would be in complete agreement with you in relation to an over-academic approach to poetry. However, in my case, my resistance to this kind of poetry is so strong that an open attitude was initially not possible. I simply couldn't read the poetry of people like Stein, Cage, Mac Low, Bergvall, Hejinian, Silliman. I needed something to allow me into the work so that I could be more open to it. (As it is, I am coming to appreciate someone like Stein much more and if I mangle a few of the Tender Buttons along the way, hopefully there are plenty more that I can just be open to )

ah! i see.

- when the poetry itself is overtly about the process of writing poetry (as much postmodernist poetry is) then, IMO, a more academic approach is necessary to achieve a fuller reading of the poems.

should one desire "a fuller reading of the poems", yes i see that too.
sometimes this is the case for me and sometimes not. sometimes, for
me, a poem either strikes a chord with me or it doesn't and often, if
it doesn't, i don't bother with it unless someone else brings it to my
attention that it might be worth a second or closer reading.

- I have concentrated a lot on Stein because she is the starting point for the postmodernists and I've wanted to show (mostly to myself) that as hermetic and gnomic as she seems there are points of contact and possible connections once you (I) attend closely enough.

i appreciate your...what? curiosity? or maybe your desire to look closer.

Please feel free to comment, disagree (hopefully rant. I haven't seen a full-thruster-burn lucimay-rant in ages ), contradict, dismiss etc. anything said here. I am still a total newcomer to this kind of writing and so likely to say something completely foolish thing at any time

LOL!! well that's precisely the reason i hadn't commented thus far! i was curbing my propensity to rant!

(I know who your avater is (thanks to Google images). She wasn't on the course as she probably doesn't make it into the postmodern ambit. Coincidentally, I was just reading about her last night.)

u.

which is kind of odd to me (that she doesn't make it into the postmodernist) because i thought all confessional was postmodern!! or at least i consider it so, but who the hell am i? i've never even taken a poetry class!!

On the first: Just like everything else, a poem cannot exist [or, if it can exist it can't be found/seen/known] without other things, that's all. It was just more fun to say it that way.
Every word/utterance that ever was/is/will be is connected to every other. [just like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon].

oh! well state the obvious why don'tchoo!!

Funny on Stevens...I remember I really enjoy his work when people remind me about him, though I strongly disagree with his ideas often. [as in Key West, for instance, and "Ancedote of the Jar"...I think that's the title...which has thematic overlap with K. West.

which ideas? can you elaborate? what idea is it in key west that you disagree with?

[ussusimiel]

I was going to post more on some of the Stein poems but (with luci's apt injunction in mind) I think the general point I was trying to make (to myself as much as anyone else) has been made. (To repeat what I said to luci) I wanted to show that Stein is not just talking to herself; if I am willing to be open and attentive, her poetry will communicate.

Here are some quotes from Stein on writing (if anyone wants the references just ask. So academic ):

Gertrude Stein on narrative

"I think one naturally is impressed by anything having a beginning a middle and an ending when one...is emerging from adolescence.... American writing has been an escaping not an escaping but an existing with the necessary feeling of one thing succeeding another thing of anything have a beginning and a middle and an ending."

Stein on the noun

"A noun is a name of anything, why after a thing is named write about it. A name is adequate or it is not ... things once they are named does not go on doing anything to them and so why write in nouns. Nouns are the name of anything and just naming names is alright when you want to call a roll but is it good for anything else."

Gertrude Stein on "loving repeating"

As I was saying loving repeating being is in a way earthly being. In some it is repeating that gives to them always a solid feeling of being. In some children there is more feeling and in repeating eating and playing, in some in story-telling and their feeling. More and more in living as growing young men and women and grown men and women and men and women in their middle living, more and more there comes to be in them differences in loving repeating in different kinds of men and women, there comes to be in some more and in some less loving repeating. Loving repeating in some is a going on always in them of earthly being, in some it is the way to completed understanding. Loving repeating then in some is their natural way of complete being. This is now some description of one.

Stein on Composition

Everything is the same except composition and as the composition is different and always going to be different is not the same. Everything is not the same as the time when of composition and the time in the composition is different. The composition is different, that is certain.
The composition is the thing seen by every one living in the living they are doing, they are the composing of the composition that at the time they are living is the composition of the time in which they are living. It is that that makes living a thing that they are doing. Nothing else is different, of that almost any one can be certain. The time when and the time of and the time in that composition is the natural phenomena of that composition and of that perhaps every one can be certain.
No one thinks these things when they are making when they are creating what is the composition, naturally no one thinks, that is no one formulates until what is to be formulated has been made.

The next bunch of poems will reflect the antimodernist trend that went in parallel with the start of the modernist movement: ideological poetry, issue-based poetry and traditional poetry (people like: Ruth Lechlitner, Countee Cullen, Robert Frost, Gwendolyn Brooks, Richard Wilbur.)

u.

[EDIT: this post overlapped with yours luci. Just wanted to say, 'Rant! Rant! Rant!' ]