?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

moar prosetry

maybe it all reads alike to you, but I think that tonight's blog post is a little different from the last two.

I'm trying to mix it up a bit. :)

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
expanding_x_man
Nov. 29th, 2008 11:59 am (UTC)
Hey, I like it!!! And, the art also. Beautiful stuff --

I've been reading some poetry blogs and there is so much out there. Writing about new "tendencies" called the "post-avant".

I see the differences in these pieces, I am sorry I am not more articulate here, but I like them. And, the movement at the end is nice.
eriktrips
Nov. 29th, 2008 05:36 pm (UTC)
thanks, max. I'm going to have to look up some of those blogs. I have yet to get much farther than about 1985 in my studies of poetry--there's so much that it is very difficult to catch up! thus I have no idea what others are doing, except for what Lyn feeds to me, but even there I have a backlog of journals and small printings of unknown poets waiting to be read.
daisydumont
Nov. 29th, 2008 01:08 pm (UTC)
how do you get yourself in a mindspace to write like that? i don't think i could do it. (i'm nothing if not boringly straightforward.)
eriktrips
Nov. 29th, 2008 05:33 pm (UTC)
hey there's nothing wrong with being straightforward. poetry can do all sorts of different things and do them all well!

how do I write like that? good question. it's sort of like sitting down with language as though it were a box of tinker toys or legos and beginning to build structures that at first look familiar, then taking out the bricks that seem to go and replacing them with bricks that are somehow related to the ones you'd expect to see, but different enough to get your attention.

I do a lot of deleting when writing like that. I don't know if you can tell, but this particular one got more abstract as it went along. I started with fragments of "sensical" sentences and ended up using one- or two-word images that I chose according to free association and lots of rearranging of letters until I thought of a word I liked.

let's see: suppose I wrote "fred rode to the market on the back of a Conestoga wagon"--then I would look at the letters in the part of that sentence that catches my eye, say, "to the market on the back of" in this case, and start to recombine the letters or take fragments of the words to build new words:

tram, tobacco, black, reckoning, target, framework.. those are just a few I see right off the bat. when I have a few that I like, I make a phrase out of those.

it's sort of math-like, I guess, although I do try to choose words with an emotional resonance to them--I just don't necessarily put them into phrases that one would hear out in the world of ordinary spoken english.

if that makes sense or helps. I've had a spot of coffee..
ridethegallows
Nov. 30th, 2008 11:33 pm (UTC)
thanks for the explanation; i was wondering about this too. fascinating. you get some delightfully unexpected combinations this way.

i smiled at "dash smartly east with impending fog."

would you mind elaborating about why you consider it math-like? i feel the same way about much of my own artistic process, but rarely find others who see it this way.
eriktrips
Dec. 1st, 2008 02:21 am (UTC)
that's a good question. I had to think about it a bit. I guess what seems math-like about this particular way of proceeding is that it treats language as a self-referential structure and plays with those structures using a kind of differential calculus--choosing words that vary from others in structure rather than in meaning is, at least superficially, to loosen language from its denotative function and look at it as a quasi-logical system whose formal rules are sufficient to construct interesting objects.

I don't think the process is purely mathematical in that way, though; language does refer to concepts and there's no escaping that, and in the end I do choose words with a certain kind of resonance beyond the simple syntactical and orthographic relationships between different words. I think--I could be wrong, but I think--that one thing I am doing is looking at the way in which language makes meaning possible through this structural differentiation; but then I let it refer back to those meanings which arise from the conceptual and emotional weight that we learn to give to different sounds and inscriptions.

if that makes sense. :)
halfmoon_mollie
Nov. 29th, 2008 02:44 pm (UTC)
your love of words shows here, and the way you use them is kind of like looking at a painting and being able to see how the artist employed different techniques.

Kind of intimidating for a meat and potato poet. Or perhaps a still life poet, not one of landscapes.

Very beautiful.

Edited at 2008-11-29 02:45 pm (UTC)
eriktrips
Nov. 29th, 2008 05:42 pm (UTC)
thanks. :)

it's one way of writing. like I said to daisy, poetry is capable of many different things, and still lifes have their own work to do, I think. so keep painting the way you like to paint. they're all necessary--at least, to the degree that any of them are necessary. which is to say, very much so, in my humble opinion!
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars

Latest Month

March 2012
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031