Jorge Luis Borges' Devices

So you're going to tease me are you? You know there really is a place named Uqbar in Algeria and one with a similar name in Iraq? Good one, my literary friend.

I agree and I trhe one rule that I try to keep in mind always is "consider the reader"
Poetry is a form of communication, a sharing of thoughts or impressions or feelings. It is not an effort to show anyone the size of your vocabulary of how arcain your thought. If only 10% of you audience understands your "Stuff" you haven't done your job. I am by no means suggest that we should "dumb down" your our. But to me using obscrure language to show how smart you are or how spiritual or whatever is just as offensive as using obcenities and vulgarities to show how liberated you are.
both are juvenile, You may notice that I never use tags. The reason is that I want people to get from my work whatever it is in them that I might bring out. I don't use tags because I respect my audience

I would appreciate your comments

And I wish to God Gather had a spell checker.

I'm no poet maven. I'm more in concert with Borges.

I think its too arbitrary and facile to put limits on what we call poetry. Its not like creating popular music for me. When I write a poem, I'm not certain that I'm trying to reach everyone or a certain percentage of everyone. Sometimes I like to encounter a puzzling poem, one that challenges me to expand my awareness of words, cultures, perspectives.

"The best style is no style." I feel rules on your poetry restrict the full wave of your creative juice from flowing. I do like the term device though because everything does need a starting point or a key to unlock that passion which is poetry; from there everything should just spew uncontrollably like the fizz of a can.

good article

K.L.B.: I think you actually agree with Karen as do I.

J Wright: Thanks!

I think that particular aesthetics are of limited utility to anyone besides the proponent. Beautiful, valuable work can be produced on principles in which one believes very strongly; but those same principles, when taken as rules for someone else's art, will tend to make the result more sterile than it would've been without precept.

With that caveat, I believe in poetry possessing a degree of concreteness, the steers clear of too much abstraction. I believe that poetry should be understood, and that the poet must chart a course between communicating with one's reader and doing justice to one's vision. A poem might require more thoughtful reading than the same theme expressed in prose, but it should ultimately reward rather than rebuff such attention.

Your first paragraph harkens back to Borges' point about the limitations of aesthetics. They are essentially personal, not necessarily transferable but of course they do end up in other pots like a good recipe (just finished the last of the black-eyed peas).

Is it possible for poetry to be felt rather than understood? Can words be justified as aural devices to create a mood? Project a feeling?

Its also associated with mysticism. The koan is an example of this point. Mystics often use phrases repeatedly to create a sense of separation.

Some jazz fans may consider scats as poems, especially like the trumpeter Clerk Terry did when he performed his "mumbles" some of which mimicked words that when strung together could provoke common meanings. Sometimes scatting replaced known lyrics.

This is a good discussion.

I think that language can do this, and so long as it does project a feeling, that's great. Your example of jazz is a good one; another would be Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky." For me, the "projecting" is the crucial thing. I look for some common ground between poet and reader; I'm suspicious of poetry that is only truly meaningful to the poet.

To take an absurd example, let's say that I have always associated oolong tea with death. There's nothing about oolong tea itself that suggests this connection; it's a purely personal symbol. Now, suppose I begin a poem with the line, "I sipped a tepid cup of oolong tea," and expect my reader to understand by this that the speaker has committed suicide; without mentioning death, I proceed to treat in an abstract or symbolic way some sort of afterlife experience. In my (personal, biased) opinion, that wouldn't achieve the poet's aim. Unless the reader knows me personally, no amount of thoughtful reading is going to decode my oolong tea reference in the proper way, because I haven't given my reader a chance.

I agree that there must be a shared lexicon and all that that entails.

I think it would be a poet's challenge to convey to the reader the connection between oolong tea and death in your cosmology. Your example of Jabberwocky is spot on. Through his personal force of will he created unique symbols and brought us all to the party. To reference jazz again, the greats accomplish the same thing, they expand our musical lexicon by bringing theirs to us, sometimes rambunctiously.

So, yes, you have to give the reader at least a sporting chance. I think the best poetry gives many readers a sporting chance as it has many shades of meanings that are legitimate and rational. Your "The Secret Life of Beetles" is a great example of this last point.

Congratulations, you're featured today on Friday's Gather Essentials: Writing and discussed in the article for the day.

Thank you John, from me and Jorges!

I agree...a very good discussion .... I especially like the comment re: giving the reader a sporting chance

I think all of us poets have our own fully worked out unconscious aesthetic archetectonic, but it´s not necessarily our job to explicate this to readers, it´s the critic´s. What use are critics if they can´t systematize poor poets who wish to remain eclectic as hell (I know I do, and I am busy formulating a pre-Simulationist aesthetic with the doppelganger side of me that is my critical faculty!) Borges, like James pointed out, doesn´t want to be hemmed in as either this or that, and he is really the prototypical postmodern master in the meta-critical tradition (before postmodernism existed of course) at weaving a literary strategy out of someone else´s artifice and then disavowing it (Pierre Menard´s Don Quixote is the classic example of this.)

I agree John. You also betray a silent trust with the readers who should come to you ready to be entertained as they work it out.

I like to use ordinary words in surprising ways; I like to be surprised by the character of what comes to the page whether human, atmospheric, manmade or naturemade or psychic whatever -- so there is, usually, a good deal of item 6 -- narration as if not fully understood.

This post is great; thank you for it.

Lynn:

That's such a crucial aspect of writing poetry. Poets want to awaken the mind, to alert it to other world's or fresh takes on the common. You're welcome.

Good stylistic advice for any writer. Thanks.

I love his work. I love that he conveyed such important advice about our work.

I'm terribly late in coming to this discussion and will probably reap the rewards of such lateness.

Despite that, I'd like to take on one particular post: "The best style is no style." I feel rules on your poetry restrict the full wave of your creative juice from flowing. I do like the term device though because everything does need a starting point or a key to unlock that passion which is poetry; from there everything should just spew uncontrollably like the fizz of a can.

I really must ask, K.L.B., who does your laundry? If everything is spewing about uncontrollably, what a mess that makes! Sure a wild fizz in the hot tub with your latest squeeze is a blast, but how can that be shared with everyone else?

I am serious here. And I don't disagree with the idea of bubbling up and letting everything out. But to then say, here's my art, well, that takes me aback. Rules have their place. Structure most often provides a platform for the creator to display his or her work most effectively.

Don't knock these devices for creating and organizing and presenting. Allow room for everyone.

good day!

Wow Susan: You scorched him! I do get your point and I agree with your premise and also your suggestion that rules have their role in the creation of art. A great artist knows the rules and breaks them with a purpose.

Well, I didn't mean to scorch him. I don't even know him. I probably jumped on his words because he was undercutting the exact way that I write much of my poetry. My devices are form and structure. And far from limiting, I find that the rigors of using prescribed methods sharpen my art and expand it.

The idea that rules of poetry are restricting, imo, comes from a juvenile interpretation of the nature of poetry. A disciplined pupil of verse knows the value of prescript.

By decrying style, he was actually recognizing the importance of form and structure. Rather than juvenile, I'd say a non-literary or non-academic interpretation of these concepts. His decrying style could be legitimate if style is interpreted to mean a consistent manner of speaking, or something even less rigorous.

I'm not following your first sentence, Umar.

And I can see that juvenile might have too much baggage. Yes, describing the POV as non-literary rather than juvenile is probably better. and fwiw, I'm not saying that KLB in any way holds views of poetry that are juvenile.

The rebel is defined by that which (s)he rebels against.

I too - late to the discussion - but I come honestly, by way of Borges whom I discovered only yesterday when an odd silver book leapt off the shelf and fell on my sandaled toe. In fact, it was the left toe, the one that still has a remnant of the pink nail polish I was too cowardly to refuse in a beauty shop, at the mercy of a non-English speaking beauty who smiled and offered apricots, coconut lotion, pink, how about some mango? - some months ago. But I digress - the book had the title Labyrinths and it struck me so I opened a page and read. "Ahhhh...." I said, "Yes." and I took the book and held it to my chest. Since then, I have read the first story "Tlon...", learned of troglodytes, the immortal city, the labyrinth and the man who dreamed and was also dreamed...exquisite. I can't wait for the poetry at another time...another book.
Now, to find this wonderful discussion on poetry and aesthetics...ecstasy!
I like the idea of using ordinary words and of narrating as though I don't quite understand...
I could learn a lot here. Come back!
I believe I know a man from Uqbar; in fact, he is my son-in-law - I'm sure of it. I learned of this only three months after 9-11, when my daughter phoned to tell me about a man she had met on the Greyhound bus who spoke a beautiful language. He bought her cigarettes and told her the meaning of her name, "Jennah". It means one who meets the great stranger; I only just recently was told this by a great Imman, who lives in Toledo, Ohio and accepts private consultations with infidels by telephone. He assured me that he had read this only the day before and, in fact, it had been only recently pronounced by the greatest Imam of this day, Ahkbar de Rahka of Uqbar. "Uqbar!" I said, but that is where..."Yes," the Imman said, "That is where you daughter must go." And so I have decided to find this great Imam for myself....

and so forth...Please join me over at starryknight.gather.com and take my challenge to write a poem. Interestingly, the challenge involves the "doppelganger" mentioned above...Visit my post "A Poem For Thee Bi-Weekly Be" and write your response in the comments, please, if you will?