Bach
Before You're Sixty-Four.
Andrew McGeever wrote:
>Geoffrey, there are no unfaithful couples in my poetry: they're figments of my imagination, and your's too
Well, I have a cyber acquaintance who recently told me that it is more beneficial to the poet if a critique slants towards honesty rather than condescension. I told him I didn't like hurting people but he said that anyone who posts a poem should do so fully knowing that negative comments might be directed at their work. This sounds very natural and easy in theory, but the problem is that many people become quite fond of their prose or verse - as if it's a physical part of them. They work on it (not always, though) until they believe it is perfect. Then they proudly present it to be viewed. Sometimes the writing is complete doggerel, just unimaginative cliches with no hint of metaphor or inspiration of any kind. I tried to give my opinion of your poem, but perhaps tact was a little too thinly spread; I apologise for that. The reason I latched onto your poem is because I experienced exactly what you had written about, and knew that such a scenario can have an emotional sequel that is extremely destructive, not only to the players - it scars their families.
>Geoffrey, there are no unfaithful couples in my poetry: they're figments of my imagination, and your's too
Well, I have a cyber acquaintance who recently told me that it is more beneficial to the poet if a critique slants towards honesty rather than condescension. I told him I didn't like hurting people but he said that anyone who posts a poem should do so fully knowing that negative comments might be directed at their work. This sounds very natural and easy in theory, but the problem is that many people become quite fond of their prose or verse - as if it's a physical part of them. They work on it (not always, though) until they believe it is perfect. Then they proudly present it to be viewed. Sometimes the writing is complete doggerel, just unimaginative cliches with no hint of metaphor or inspiration of any kind. I tried to give my opinion of your poem, but perhaps tact was a little too thinly spread; I apologise for that. The reason I latched onto your poem is because I experienced exactly what you had written about, and knew that such a scenario can have an emotional sequel that is extremely destructive, not only to the players - it scars their families.
-
BoHo
> . . . or better still, ask about the other eleven.<<
So, what about the other eleven, AMcG?
Jf/ox
--
ADAGIOS III — ELECTRA'S BENISON, BOUND!
http://www.oberonpress.ca/titles.pl?v=new
JUDITH FITZGERALD'S EVER-EVOLVING WRITESITE:
http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/
VERMONT'S BOB BUCKEYE ON OLSON & J.F.:
http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/bobbuckeye.html
So, what about the other eleven, AMcG?
Jf/ox
--
ADAGIOS III — ELECTRA'S BENISON, BOUND!
http://www.oberonpress.ca/titles.pl?v=new
JUDITH FITZGERALD'S EVER-EVOLVING WRITESITE:
http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/
VERMONT'S BOB BUCKEYE ON OLSON & J.F.:
http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/bobbuckeye.html
Hi Geoffrey ~
I really like your honesty regarding your reasons behind your reaction. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I feel that one's own experiences, relative to any piece of writing, film, music, or whatever, will always have an effect, beyond the piece itself. I appreciate it that you were so forthcoming.
As you know [well, I've recently stated it in other terms, elsewhere here], I'm not a poet and haven't studied poetry, and really know validly little about poetry... so a person isn't going to get a critique from me on its merits as a poem. It would be a hit-and-miss thing if I tried and lucked out with a comment or two. However, I sure do know what affects me as 'good' in one way or another. I just don't offer 'critiques' unless a person specifically asks. Even then, you're going to see more back peddling about why I can't and shouldn't do it than 'critiqueing'.
It's true that posting it means that it's up there and can be criticized and people need to remember that and, at a certain level, remain open to it. I personally steer away from it because I've not seen where this section has that implicit expectation, such as an online class would be. I've experienced it as a place for people to share their personal expressions [truly personal or broad-scaled] in 'poetry'/'poetic' form. It's why I loved the quoting of that verse 'attributed' to be the first, or amongst the first, of a world-class poet... that's that [prodigies aside] we all have a starting point and, in poetry, the requirement is much greater than constructing a simple sentence.
With someone such as Andrew, who does function as a poet, it is reasonable to expect that someone will critique whatever he posts. I remember in the beginning, when he was doing that with others' poems. I also remember, from that time, that there was open discussion of 'to critique or not to critique,' and people making their own comments as to their own preferences in that.
I took my own vows of marriage very seriously, and unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a carry-over effect of them that's impeded me. My own world has very much to do with fidelity. Still, divorces are all around and so is infidelity. As infidel and inappropriate as that may be to one's marital vows... for the most part made before someone's concept of a deity... the thought of molestation of a child is, for me, worse. For one thing, the first scenario has to do with consenting adults; the latter is a power-and-control issue over an innocent child, who is powerless in the realm of 'control,' and wisdom in decision-making, in the areas of self-determination and understanding of long-term consequences [in a way that has a lifelong, and generally traumatic, impact on them and the way they relate to themselves and to the world] for the sake of the manipulator/perpetrator dealing with/trying to alleviate one's own, subconscious or conscious issues. However, the violation is absorbed by that child at the very deepest level, in the very fiber of their being.
From my perspective, a child involved in a divorce or knowledge of infidelity is a witness to the violation of an oath and societal/personal values, and they may internalize some of this, as somehow being their fault; an adult experiencing this suffers the loss on many levels ~ beginning with loss of hopes and dreams, trust, faith in their partner and the other sex, and the list goes on... actually, for both child and adult. They may or may not be able to deflect the experience, with varying degree.
With molestation, the child isn't witnessing it, but directly experiencing the deepest violation, that of themselves and at an age when they haven't fully comprehended what is 'them' and what is 'the world' and they're incurring a violation at the most intimate, life-altering level. I can't say that it's never occurred, as with some it may have, but I'd have to say it's rare... that an adult or child have experienced dissociative disorder and/or developed multiple personality disorder, due to the extremely psychically damaging nature of molestation. The psyche having to dissociate and remove the child's consciousness of what's occurring, simple to be able to endure and survive, its being a survival technique. Still, suicide later can occur. Some suicides may occur as the result of infidelity or divorce, but the rate will always be higher with molestation. My concept ~ all of that.
Interestingly or ironically, or not, I've always taken Andrew's poem to be related to a couple, once married, who still had a deep love for each other that they'd never really resolved, even though their relationship had broken up, and for the most part, they'd gone on... perhaps, in this interpretation of mine, I was projecting my own, potential feelings about such a scenario, based on my own experience, and could relate to the feelings [aside from any morality issues] behind that described eventuality.
Whether or not the poem's content would ever become real, the difference is embedded in what one thinks/feels and what one acts upon. With attraction, the physiological response occurs without conscious thought of it or warning ~ erection for the man; the warm clutching in the woman's abdomen ~ they both serve a natural purpose. What matters more is where one draws the boundaries of acting upon them. You're either attracted or you're not. You're either turned on or you're not. Every physical or emotional feeling ["feelings come and go . . . " ~ L.C.] can't and oughtn't be acted upon. In some cases, only extreme focus akin to Clockwork Orange and Beethoven, can alter those responses. What can be helped is the decision to act or not act, though compulsion certainly enters in, too and must be directly addressed for behaviour [if not feeling] to change. If I, personally, were with someone else, I wouldn't have a dalliance, however deep and caring at its root, with my former husband, or really even thoughts in that direction, as I would be duly occupied; however, would I daydream on the possibility if he were with someone else? Yes. Would I ever follow through on those daydreams? No. It is said by 'they' that fantasy is healthy, even in a happy marriage. Fantasy in the mind, fantasy on paper. In my opinion, deep love is never lost. For me, this poem was one concerning a couple where deep love once flourished and a desire remains.
All of those thoughts regarding thought vs. action, I believe, could be applied to the scenarios described by Leonard in his book. I really don't know how many men 'lust' after young girls... it was interesting to me that the age was 13 [officially a teen and budding woman, not quite a woman, not quite a child ~ in other, more primitive societies giving birth to children as an order of the day, as the menstrual cycle has already begun], not 8 or some such, the child who is still clearly a child. However, that is not our society and the approval is ingrained and understood... when the child is 'taken' or manipulated into submission vs. 'given,' the outcome is different emotionally for that child... whether it's in the U.S. or a rape in Iraq or Darfur or anywhere else.
As poems go, I've seen more critiqueing that related to the construction of the poem itself, in light of the poetry process, than to the premise and moral responsibility of the poem. When I consider the content of Andrew's poem vs. the content of the truly young girls represented in Leonard's "Beautiful Losers," for me the latter is more egregious as 'commentary' regarding right/wrong activities in our society. I hasten to add that, yes, marital infidelity also affects children and partners in a permanent way, though I have to believe, for the most part not as traumatically as to a child who has been molested. Am I drawing straws? I would sum up what I see as the 'difference' as infidelity has an impact, however traumatic, on the 'person' of the partner and the children [if they come to learn of it ~ absent divorce] and the way they view relationships and the world... and, molestation, without any outcomes of discovery ["my dad did this to my mother"], or subsequent impacts such as divorce, molestation in and of itself is the impact that affects the development of the person, as an individual, and everything in the way they view themselves, and the world and their role in it.
At some point, it seems the crux ought to be on a broader scale, that of asking what is the responsibility or lack of responsibility of literature. Our own experiences also affect our perceptions of right/wrong. Along with my relating to Andrew's poem as a 'potential' of feeling, with your being a man, who was once a teenager, it may be that Leonard's line trigger strong hormonal memories from that time and looking at girls in that way... so the act of looking, seeing [glimpses or better views], and getting turned on in a teenage boy way doesn't necessarily equate at all as molestation to you as the reader... but, rather, erotic memories from your own childhood. I am a woman, so don't have such memories. I was a young girl, but have no recollections of any looking at me that way. That's not to say that they didn't, but that I wasn't aware of it, if they did. Now, as an adult [particularly a wounded one, in some fashion], your perspective of the poem is viewed through a hurting-adult's lens. Now, as an adult, I view the young-girl segment from a social-work and psychological perspective, as I can't relate to it as having been a young boy, and certainly not as a grown man, either. Divorce and infidelity are painful, but somehow people are generally able to go on with their lives. With molestation, the scenario and outcomes are quite different.
Still, I took and still take it to be something coming out of Leonard's imagination, as Andrew's was, wherein he's exploring what he knows to be true about marketing young girls into clothing that portrays them visually as women rather than the young girls that they are... and all the attendant fantasies men have surrounding that. Both do an excellent job in 'universality' in the sense of representing realities in this world... though, I would hope that child molesting is not ranked in frequency with infidelity. The woman who just very publicly took her politician husband to task for comments made shows that she is considering the long-term effects to herself and her children that his suggestion of infidelity has... and the world has a long list of people who have not honoured their vows. Nothing makes either of them right. If 'good' poetry is not supposed to be personal, but to have a universal theme, though, Shakespeare certainly included it in many ways in his work... and so has Andrew; and so did Leonard with the theme of young girls, with an area of morality that definitely and unfortunately does get abused. I don't take any of their work as an advocacy of it, but as certainly giving the reader a mind's-eye view of it, from the perspective of the committer.
[All this ~ somehow ~ reminds me of a comment a really good man, and friend from years ago, made to me about why he loves to see women in high heels... that the angling of their foot and ankle makes their calves more appealing with a slenderizing effect, and puts their derriere in more of a raised position, which creates fantasies for him ~ at first my reaction was
... and then 
and then 
, as I considered each of those facets and understood what he meant.] Back to Leonard and Andrew... as with Andrew, he certainly had the right to write his own book, as he saw fit at that time... and incurred a lot of flack and scathing comments from the literary-and-otherwise community when it was first published. Now, it's officially been deemed a great book, by many occupying those same circles... names and faces may or may not have changed since then.
For me, I'd rather learn about the people themselves through what they've written and placed here, and be pleased with the images that come to me, or the feelings I get from their rhythms of expression, and leave the critiqueing to someone else, those who know what they're doing... and if the person is up for that. I still miss the haiku-style poems of Greta and Suzanne [I believe that's her name, I'd need to check to be sure] here. If a person welcomes critiqueing, for its own sake and their quest to learn the skill of poetry, I'm wholly for it... I'm just not the one to do it
. Anything I might say about a poem should always be understood in the context of not being based on, or considered to be, a poetry skills assessment. It's simply how reading it causes me to feel... in that, I guess we've come full circle, as its content and its premise do become relevant at that point 
... I just work toward being non-judgemental with it.
Anyway, I sure was pleased to see your own, personal framing of your comments. Not pleased that you experienced it in your own life, but pleased that you were willing to share it, as part of your explanation for your own reactions and responses.
Thanks.
~ Lizzy
I really like your honesty regarding your reasons behind your reaction. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I feel that one's own experiences, relative to any piece of writing, film, music, or whatever, will always have an effect, beyond the piece itself. I appreciate it that you were so forthcoming.
As you know [well, I've recently stated it in other terms, elsewhere here], I'm not a poet and haven't studied poetry, and really know validly little about poetry... so a person isn't going to get a critique from me on its merits as a poem. It would be a hit-and-miss thing if I tried and lucked out with a comment or two. However, I sure do know what affects me as 'good' in one way or another. I just don't offer 'critiques' unless a person specifically asks. Even then, you're going to see more back peddling about why I can't and shouldn't do it than 'critiqueing'.
It's true that posting it means that it's up there and can be criticized and people need to remember that and, at a certain level, remain open to it. I personally steer away from it because I've not seen where this section has that implicit expectation, such as an online class would be. I've experienced it as a place for people to share their personal expressions [truly personal or broad-scaled] in 'poetry'/'poetic' form. It's why I loved the quoting of that verse 'attributed' to be the first, or amongst the first, of a world-class poet... that's that [prodigies aside] we all have a starting point and, in poetry, the requirement is much greater than constructing a simple sentence.
With someone such as Andrew, who does function as a poet, it is reasonable to expect that someone will critique whatever he posts. I remember in the beginning, when he was doing that with others' poems. I also remember, from that time, that there was open discussion of 'to critique or not to critique,' and people making their own comments as to their own preferences in that.
I took my own vows of marriage very seriously, and unfortunately there seems to be a bit of a carry-over effect of them
that's impeded me. My own world has very much to do with fidelity. Still, divorces are all around and so is infidelity. As infidel and inappropriate as that may be to one's marital vows... for the most part made before someone's concept of a deity... the thought of molestation of a child is, for me, worse. For one thing, the first scenario has to do with consenting adults; the latter is a power-and-control issue over an innocent child, who is powerless in the realm of 'control,' and wisdom in decision-making, in the areas of self-determination and understanding of long-term consequences [in a way that has a lifelong, and generally traumatic, impact on them and the way they relate to themselves and to the world] for the sake of the manipulator/perpetrator dealing with/trying to alleviate one's own, subconscious or conscious issues. However, the violation is absorbed by that child at the very deepest level, in the very fiber of their being. From my perspective, a child involved in a divorce or knowledge of infidelity is a witness to the violation of an oath and societal/personal values, and they may internalize some of this, as somehow being their fault; an adult experiencing this suffers the loss on many levels ~ beginning with loss of hopes and dreams, trust, faith in their partner and the other sex, and the list goes on... actually, for both child and adult. They may or may not be able to deflect the experience, with varying degree.
With molestation, the child isn't witnessing it, but directly experiencing the deepest violation, that of themselves and at an age when they haven't fully comprehended what is 'them' and what is 'the world' and they're incurring a violation at the most intimate, life-altering level. I can't say that it's never occurred, as with some it may have, but I'd have to say it's rare... that an adult or child have experienced dissociative disorder and/or developed multiple personality disorder, due to the extremely psychically damaging nature of molestation. The psyche having to dissociate and remove the child's consciousness of what's occurring, simple to be able to endure and survive, its being a survival technique. Still, suicide later can occur. Some suicides may occur as the result of infidelity or divorce, but the rate will always be higher with molestation. My concept ~ all of that.
Interestingly or ironically, or not, I've always taken Andrew's poem to be related to a couple, once married, who still had a deep love for each other that they'd never really resolved, even though their relationship had broken up, and for the most part, they'd gone on... perhaps, in this interpretation of mine, I was projecting my own, potential feelings about such a scenario, based on my own experience, and could relate to the feelings [aside from any morality issues] behind that described eventuality.
Whether or not the poem's content would ever become real, the difference is embedded in what one thinks/feels and what one acts upon. With attraction, the physiological response occurs without conscious thought of it or warning ~ erection for the man; the warm clutching in the woman's abdomen ~ they both serve a natural purpose. What matters more is where one draws the boundaries of acting upon them. You're either attracted or you're not. You're either turned on or you're not. Every physical or emotional feeling ["feelings come and go . . . " ~ L.C.] can't and oughtn't be acted upon. In some cases, only extreme focus akin to Clockwork Orange and Beethoven, can alter those responses. What can be helped is the decision to act or not act, though compulsion certainly enters in, too and must be directly addressed for behaviour [if not feeling] to change. If I, personally, were with someone else, I wouldn't have a dalliance, however deep and caring at its root, with my former husband, or really even thoughts in that direction, as I would be duly occupied; however, would I daydream on the possibility if he were with someone else? Yes. Would I ever follow through on those daydreams? No. It is said by 'they' that fantasy is healthy, even in a happy marriage. Fantasy in the mind, fantasy on paper. In my opinion, deep love is never lost. For me, this poem was one concerning a couple where deep love once flourished and a desire remains.
All of those thoughts regarding thought vs. action, I believe, could be applied to the scenarios described by Leonard in his book. I really don't know how many men 'lust' after young girls... it was interesting to me that the age was 13 [officially a teen and budding woman, not quite a woman, not quite a child ~ in other, more primitive societies giving birth to children as an order of the day, as the menstrual cycle has already begun], not 8 or some such, the child who is still clearly a child. However, that is not our society and the approval is ingrained and understood... when the child is 'taken' or manipulated into submission vs. 'given,' the outcome is different emotionally for that child... whether it's in the U.S. or a rape in Iraq or Darfur or anywhere else.
As poems go, I've seen more critiqueing that related to the construction of the poem itself, in light of the poetry process, than to the premise and moral responsibility of the poem. When I consider the content of Andrew's poem vs. the content of the truly young girls represented in Leonard's "Beautiful Losers," for me the latter is more egregious as 'commentary' regarding right/wrong activities in our society. I hasten to add that, yes, marital infidelity also affects children and partners in a permanent way, though I have to believe, for the most part not as traumatically as to a child who has been molested. Am I drawing straws? I would sum up what I see as the 'difference' as infidelity has an impact, however traumatic, on the 'person' of the partner and the children [if they come to learn of it ~ absent divorce] and the way they view relationships and the world... and, molestation, without any outcomes of discovery ["my dad did this to my mother"], or subsequent impacts such as divorce, molestation in and of itself is the impact that affects the development of the person, as an individual, and everything in the way they view themselves, and the world and their role in it.
At some point, it seems the crux ought to be on a broader scale, that of asking what is the responsibility or lack of responsibility of literature. Our own experiences also affect our perceptions of right/wrong. Along with my relating to Andrew's poem as a 'potential' of feeling, with your being a man, who was once a teenager, it may be that Leonard's line trigger strong hormonal memories from that time and looking at girls in that way... so the act of looking, seeing [glimpses or better views], and getting turned on in a teenage boy way doesn't necessarily equate at all as molestation to you as the reader... but, rather, erotic memories from your own childhood. I am a woman, so don't have such memories. I was a young girl, but have no recollections of any looking at me that way. That's not to say that they didn't, but that I wasn't aware of it, if they did. Now, as an adult [particularly a wounded one, in some fashion], your perspective of the poem is viewed through a hurting-adult's lens. Now, as an adult, I view the young-girl segment from a social-work and psychological perspective, as I can't relate to it as having been a young boy, and certainly not as a grown man, either. Divorce and infidelity are painful, but somehow people are generally able to go on with their lives. With molestation, the scenario and outcomes are quite different.
Still, I took and still take it to be something coming out of Leonard's imagination, as Andrew's was, wherein he's exploring what he knows to be true about marketing young girls into clothing that portrays them visually as women rather than the young girls that they are... and all the attendant fantasies men have surrounding that. Both do an excellent job in 'universality' in the sense of representing realities in this world... though, I would hope that child molesting is not ranked in frequency with infidelity. The woman who just very publicly took her politician husband to task for comments made shows that she is considering the long-term effects to herself and her children that his suggestion of infidelity has... and the world has a long list of people who have not honoured their vows. Nothing makes either of them right. If 'good' poetry is not supposed to be personal, but to have a universal theme, though, Shakespeare certainly included it in many ways in his work... and so has Andrew; and so did Leonard with the theme of young girls, with an area of morality that definitely and unfortunately does get abused. I don't take any of their work as an advocacy of it, but as certainly giving the reader a mind's-eye view of it, from the perspective of the committer.
[All this ~ somehow ~ reminds me of a comment a really good man, and friend from years ago, made to me about why he loves to see women in high heels... that the angling of their foot and ankle makes their calves more appealing with a slenderizing effect, and puts their derriere in more of a raised position, which creates fantasies for him ~ at first my reaction was
... and then and then , as I considered each of those facets and understood what he meant.] Back to Leonard and Andrew... as with Andrew, he certainly had the right to write his own book, as he saw fit at that time... and incurred a lot of flack and scathing comments from the literary-and-otherwise community when it was first published. Now, it's officially been deemed a great book, by many occupying those same circles... names and faces may or may not have changed since then.For me, I'd rather learn about the people themselves through what they've written and placed here, and be pleased with the images that come to me, or the feelings I get from their rhythms of expression, and leave the critiqueing to someone else, those who know what they're doing... and if the person is up for that. I still miss the haiku-style poems of Greta and Suzanne [I believe that's her name, I'd need to check to be sure] here. If a person welcomes critiqueing, for its own sake and their quest to learn the skill of poetry, I'm wholly for it... I'm just not the one to do it
. Anything I might say about a poem should always be understood in the context of not being based on, or considered to be, a poetry skills assessment. It's simply how reading it causes me to feel... in that, I guess we've come full circle, as its content and its premise do become relevant at that point ... I just work toward being non-judgemental with it.Anyway, I sure was pleased to see your own, personal framing of your comments. Not pleased that you experienced it in your own life, but pleased that you were willing to share it, as part of your explanation for your own reactions and responses.
Thanks.
~ Lizzy
Last edited by lizzytysh on Sun Feb 04, 2007 3:10 am, edited 10 times in total.
Great idea, Judith 
!!
Did they include "My Father's Caliper," Andrew? That would seem to be a very appropriate one for that event... several reasons.
As BoHo seems to be suggesting, it would be wonderful to have our attention turned toward the other ones you read at your and Daniel's co-performance
.
Might you post them separately here ~ all in a separate thread or each in their own thread ~ for us to enjoy?
Thanks, if you do. Sure seems like a good idea to me .
~ Lizzy
!! Did they include "My Father's Caliper," Andrew? That would seem to be a very appropriate one for that event... several reasons.
As BoHo seems to be suggesting, it would be wonderful to have our attention turned toward the other ones you read at your and Daniel's co-performance
. Might you post them separately here ~ all in a separate thread or each in their own thread ~ for us to enjoy?
Thanks, if you do. Sure seems like a good idea to me
.~ Lizzy
-
Andrew McGeever
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 10:02 pm
In reply to Judith et. al.
The twelve I read were
WMD
This City
You Never Did As You Were Told
The Dancefloor
Heros
My Father's Calliper
Mary's Last Legs
Tunes and Flowers
Duco,Ducis,Ducit
Advice for Michael
Before You're Sixty Four
Mythologies and Oranges
There were some intros, the second longest of which was for "64". I wanted to explain , briefly, the link with Judith Fitzgerald.
The longest intro (we're running down the clock!) was for M&O.
"The Spice Box of Earth", "The Songs of Leonard Cohen" were mentioned .
It was a lot to pack into 15-16 minutes.
My son, Daniel had 3 slots of 10 minutes.
The middle readings were a tribute to Gael Turnbull, whose widow, Jill, amongst others, gave a wonderful insight into the world of a great poet.
The last reading was by Rab Wilson: he writes and reads in Scots, and has just published his first collection of poetry.
The "central committee" of The Shore Poets assured me that January 28th marked a highlight in their calendar.
Andrew.
The twelve I read were
WMD
This City
You Never Did As You Were Told
The Dancefloor
Heros
My Father's Calliper
Mary's Last Legs
Tunes and Flowers
Duco,Ducis,Ducit
Advice for Michael
Before You're Sixty Four
Mythologies and Oranges
There were some intros, the second longest of which was for "64". I wanted to explain , briefly, the link with Judith Fitzgerald.
The longest intro (we're running down the clock!) was for M&O.
"The Spice Box of Earth", "The Songs of Leonard Cohen" were mentioned .
It was a lot to pack into 15-16 minutes.
My son, Daniel had 3 slots of 10 minutes.
The middle readings were a tribute to Gael Turnbull, whose widow, Jill, amongst others, gave a wonderful insight into the world of a great poet.
The last reading was by Rab Wilson: he writes and reads in Scots, and has just published his first collection of poetry.
The "central committee" of The Shore Poets assured me that January 28th marked a highlight in their calendar.
Andrew.
-
BoHo
How fitting, er, fitzing, I am posting "42" and it's addressed to you, Aye. I feel like a kid in a candy shop, can I have the licorice pipes . . . er, the sourpatch kids, er . . .
Well, Andrew, it does sound like it was a truly splendid evening enjoyed by all; we in Canada watched the clock all night, thinking, Okay, he's half-way through, Okay, he's in the home stretch, Okay, Yay! And, just as you finished, BION, since I don't have TV and listen only to radio, you will not believe what song began playing on the radio. Bryan Hyland's cover of LC's "Suzanne," I kid you not. Then, then I knew; you'd come through with flying colours. A highlight in *their* calendar, you say? I think, given your cheering section, it was an unforgettable moment for all of us rooting for you to shine through; it's but one of the lovely reasons this Forum is such an e-ngaging and delightful place to be, one where we might all e-njoy the bounty of the gorgeous gifts so freely offered.
You are going on hiatus commencing tomorrow; but, if you feel so inclined, would you mind sharing one or two you've not yet posted here? S'Okay if you will; s'equally okay if you won't. Speaking for myself, I'd love to see a couple or few I've not yet had the pleasure to read from you.
Just my true-blue colourful deux (with Kudos to U), Jf/ox (on Cloud Shine)
--
THE ITEM THAT HE SENT HER:
http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/leonardcohen.html
ADAGIOS III — ELECTRA'S BENISON, BOUND!
http://www.oberonpress.ca/titles.pl?v=new
JUDITH FITZGERALD'S EVER-EVOLVING WRITESITE:
http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/
LEONARD COHEN'S OPEN BOOK OF LONGING:
http://tinyurl.com/yno7z7
POET PARLIAMENTAEIRIAL JUDITH FITZGERALD:
http://tinyurl.com/38ssjq
THE AMERICAN BOOK REVIEW:
http://tinyurl.com/2h6op6
SUNITI NAMJOSHI'S BRIGHTSITE:
http://tinyurl.com/37jjvy
J.F. ON AL PURDY & ELI MANDEL @ CBC:
http://tinyurl.com/2vdrdq
Well, Andrew, it does sound like it was a truly splendid evening enjoyed by all; we in Canada watched the clock all night, thinking, Okay, he's half-way through, Okay, he's in the home stretch, Okay, Yay! And, just as you finished, BION, since I don't have TV and listen only to radio, you will not believe what song began playing on the radio. Bryan Hyland's cover of LC's "Suzanne," I kid you not. Then, then I knew; you'd come through with flying colours. A highlight in *their* calendar, you say? I think, given your cheering section, it was an unforgettable moment for all of us rooting for you to shine through; it's but one of the lovely reasons this Forum is such an e-ngaging and delightful place to be, one where we might all e-njoy the bounty of the gorgeous gifts so freely offered.
You are going on hiatus commencing tomorrow; but, if you feel so inclined, would you mind sharing one or two you've not yet posted here? S'Okay if you will; s'equally okay if you won't. Speaking for myself, I'd love to see a couple or few I've not yet had the pleasure to read from you.
Just my true-blue colourful deux (with Kudos to U), Jf/ox (on Cloud Shine)
--
THE ITEM THAT HE SENT HER:
http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/leonardcohen.html
ADAGIOS III — ELECTRA'S BENISON, BOUND!
http://www.oberonpress.ca/titles.pl?v=new
JUDITH FITZGERALD'S EVER-EVOLVING WRITESITE:
http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/
LEONARD COHEN'S OPEN BOOK OF LONGING:
http://tinyurl.com/yno7z7
POET PARLIAMENTAEIRIAL JUDITH FITZGERALD:
http://tinyurl.com/38ssjq
THE AMERICAN BOOK REVIEW:
http://tinyurl.com/2h6op6
SUNITI NAMJOSHI'S BRIGHTSITE:
http://tinyurl.com/37jjvy
J.F. ON AL PURDY & ELI MANDEL @ CBC:
http://tinyurl.com/2vdrdq
-
Andrew McGeever
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 10:02 pm
Dear Judith,
Bryan Hyland????
His big hit was "Sealed With A Kiss" in 1962.
I remember singing that song, in the back seat of the school bus:
"I don't wanna say goodbye for the summer,
My darling I promised you this:
I'll send you all my love in a letter,
And seal it with a kiss.
I'll see you in the sunrise,
I'll hear your voice everywhere,
I'll run to tenderly hold you,
But darling, you won't be there".
Next year we got to hear some life-changing stuff : I mean The Beatles.
Philip Larkin (who was older than me) , summed it up in his
Annus Mirabilis.
Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(Which was rather late for me)-
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' first L.P.
Up till then there'd only been
A sort of bargaining,
A wrangle for a ring,
A shame that started at sixteen
And spread to everything.
Then all at once the quarrel sank:
Everyone felt the same,
And every life became
A brilliant breaking of the bank,
A quite unlosable game.
So life was never better than
In nineteen sixty-three
(Though just too late for me)-
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' first LP.
More later,
Nostalgia's not the same anymore.
Andrew.
[/b]
Bryan Hyland????
His big hit was "Sealed With A Kiss" in 1962.
I remember singing that song, in the back seat of the school bus:
"I don't wanna say goodbye for the summer,
My darling I promised you this:
I'll send you all my love in a letter,
And seal it with a kiss.
I'll see you in the sunrise,
I'll hear your voice everywhere,
I'll run to tenderly hold you,
But darling, you won't be there".
Next year we got to hear some life-changing stuff : I mean The Beatles.
Philip Larkin (who was older than me) , summed it up in his
Annus Mirabilis.
Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(Which was rather late for me)-
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' first L.P.
Up till then there'd only been
A sort of bargaining,
A wrangle for a ring,
A shame that started at sixteen
And spread to everything.
Then all at once the quarrel sank:
Everyone felt the same,
And every life became
A brilliant breaking of the bank,
A quite unlosable game.
So life was never better than
In nineteen sixty-three
(Though just too late for me)-
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' first LP.
More later,
Nostalgia's not the same anymore.
Andrew.
[/b]
-
BoHo
Every Song (Lorca)
Every song
is the remains
of love.
Every light
the remains
of time.
A knot
of time.
And every sigh
the remains
of a cry.
>Nostalgia's not the same anymore.<<
Agreed, Andrew. Indeed, it's been codified, commodified, and petrified out of existence. I do love a lot of Larkin, though; and, although I don't consider "Annus Mirabilis" among his best pieces, it's absolutely appropriate in this context.
Interesting, also, I was thinking this morning, cleaning the oven, about those days, "Big Girls Don't Cry," "I Can't Stop Loving You," "Roses Are Red," "The Twist" . . . Also, about Sylvia Plath; I always think about her when I clean the oven. A little-known fact? The day she committed suicide, 11 February 1963? On the very same day, the Beatles — which is why I am digressing, on a wing and a Larkin — went into the studio and laid down ten tracks for the first album (which included "Please, Please Me").
Like you say, nostalgia ain't what it used to be; but, who needs nostagia when The Future's enscribed upon all hearts still willing to lay it on the line, to hear, speak, create, and see, to cherish the gift of life and to live same authentically? Not you, not we. Write well. Live like hell. Save the last dance for me.
Love, Jf/ox
--
THE ITEM THAT HE SENT HER:
http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/leonardcohen.html
ADAGIOS III — ELECTRA'S BENISON, BOUND!
http://www.oberonpress.ca/titles.pl?v=new
JUDITH FITZGERALD'S EVER-EVOLVING WRITESITE:
http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/
LEONARD COHEN'S OPEN BOOK OF LONGING:
http://tinyurl.com/yno7z7
POET PARLIAMENTAEIRIAL JUDITH FITZGERALD:
http://tinyurl.com/38ssjq
THE AMERICAN BOOK REVIEW:
http://tinyurl.com/2h6op6
SUNITI NAMJOSHI'S BRIGHTSITE:
http://tinyurl.com/37jjvy
J.F. ON AL PURDY & ELI MANDEL @ CBC:
http://tinyurl.com/2vdrdq
Every song
is the remains
of love.
Every light
the remains
of time.
A knot
of time.
And every sigh
the remains
of a cry.
>Nostalgia's not the same anymore.<<
Agreed, Andrew. Indeed, it's been codified, commodified, and petrified out of existence. I do love a lot of Larkin, though; and, although I don't consider "Annus Mirabilis" among his best pieces, it's absolutely appropriate in this context.
Interesting, also, I was thinking this morning, cleaning the oven, about those days, "Big Girls Don't Cry," "I Can't Stop Loving You," "Roses Are Red," "The Twist" . . . Also, about Sylvia Plath; I always think about her when I clean the oven. A little-known fact? The day she committed suicide, 11 February 1963? On the very same day, the Beatles — which is why I am digressing, on a wing and a Larkin — went into the studio and laid down ten tracks for the first album (which included "Please, Please Me").
Like you say, nostalgia ain't what it used to be; but, who needs nostagia when The Future's enscribed upon all hearts still willing to lay it on the line, to hear, speak, create, and see, to cherish the gift of life and to live same authentically? Not you, not we. Write well. Live like hell. Save the last dance for me.
Love, Jf/ox
--
THE ITEM THAT HE SENT HER:
http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/leonardcohen.html
ADAGIOS III — ELECTRA'S BENISON, BOUND!
http://www.oberonpress.ca/titles.pl?v=new
JUDITH FITZGERALD'S EVER-EVOLVING WRITESITE:
http://www.judithfitzgerald.ca/
LEONARD COHEN'S OPEN BOOK OF LONGING:
http://tinyurl.com/yno7z7
POET PARLIAMENTAEIRIAL JUDITH FITZGERALD:
http://tinyurl.com/38ssjq
THE AMERICAN BOOK REVIEW:
http://tinyurl.com/2h6op6
SUNITI NAMJOSHI'S BRIGHTSITE:
http://tinyurl.com/37jjvy
J.F. ON AL PURDY & ELI MANDEL @ CBC:
http://tinyurl.com/2vdrdq
lizzytysh wrote:
>I really like your honesty . . .
Thank you. 'Condescend', like most words, does not have a water-tight definition - in my uneducated opinion. Is it possible to say something positive without being condescending? Yes, I should imagine so. If somebody can truly only find positivity, can only see the best in others - should they be accused of condescension? I wonder. I am acquainted with a lady who lives near me who has a personality similar to yourself. For as long as I have known her she has almost never focused upon anyone's bad side. I'm sure she knows that nobody is totally good, but she just doesn't have a need to dwell very much on that. Is it fair, then, for me to judge this 'angel without wings' negatively - as being condescending? If a person is naturally good, sees only the best in others, is it right to criticise them for that lovely part of their character? I was not implying that you, dear Lizzy, do not mean it when you praise a person. In fact I intuitively feel that you are sincere. I don't know if Leonard Cohen often reads this forum, but if he does I suspect he would feel blessed to have somebody like you here, who encourages other people with kindness, who, like himself, is modest and never boasts about anything. I am sure he is glad and proud to have such a thoroughly attractive person here. I hope you will just continue being yourself, distributing goodwill and generally making this forum more habitable.
>I really like your honesty . . .
Thank you. 'Condescend', like most words, does not have a water-tight definition - in my uneducated opinion. Is it possible to say something positive without being condescending? Yes, I should imagine so. If somebody can truly only find positivity, can only see the best in others - should they be accused of condescension? I wonder. I am acquainted with a lady who lives near me who has a personality similar to yourself. For as long as I have known her she has almost never focused upon anyone's bad side. I'm sure she knows that nobody is totally good, but she just doesn't have a need to dwell very much on that. Is it fair, then, for me to judge this 'angel without wings' negatively - as being condescending? If a person is naturally good, sees only the best in others, is it right to criticise them for that lovely part of their character? I was not implying that you, dear Lizzy, do not mean it when you praise a person. In fact I intuitively feel that you are sincere. I don't know if Leonard Cohen often reads this forum, but if he does I suspect he would feel blessed to have somebody like you here, who encourages other people with kindness, who, like himself, is modest and never boasts about anything. I am sure he is glad and proud to have such a thoroughly attractive person here. I hope you will just continue being yourself, distributing goodwill and generally making this forum more habitable.
Hi Geoffrey ~
Aha! You captured the first version of what I responded to you with... the first [quoted here] and the last [posted here].
Everywhere relevant, I put Disclaimer after Disclaimer as to my ability [translating to INability] to judge poetry on a skills-assessment level... and here you come asking ~ a question for which I couldn't possibly be any more UNqualified to answer! So, this feels like a trick question . I've never even taken a poetry course... did attend a writer's group for awhile and a couple people there wrote poems vs. prose. I sure wasn't one of them! I still don't try to write them, even privately. Maybe I should. I don't need to try to know that it's difficult, though.
I feel that Leonard would appreciate and enjoy reading Andrew's poetry and that they would interact exceedingly well in the group Leonard described as having been in years ago, in Montreal, where he and five or six other poets/writers gathered regularly, hoping one day to be world-great famous, and mercilessly critiqued each other's work. I feel Andrew would be very at ease amongst these people and this endeavour, that Leonard would like him and appreciate his commitment to creating the finest in what he creates. I feel both Andrew and Leonard would be lively in their interaction in such a group and would understand and appreciate the honest feedback and suggestions each would offer. Their relationship to and with each other would be grounded in respect. I feel their love, care, seriousness, and commitment to their craft is deeply shared... and that Leonard would recognize and admire this in Andrew. Andrew already admires it in Leonard.
We had some discussion, with open critiqueing here, of one of his poems awhile back... and he was open to the suggestions that were brought to him, and willing to inch over on or defend his choices. I feel that a poetry group to function well has to have a very base level of trust as to goodwill amongst its members. Since poetry is such a concentrated form of expression, it appears in a far more 'concise' form than 'prose' ~ almost as a baby out of the womb... so for someone to be able to say to its parent, "I really think that blonde hair would've looked better on him; or shouldn't we nudge her nose a little in that center area, so it's narrower?" and have it be okay and not hurtful, must be tricky sometimes. The parent is looking at their beloved creation... who knows how many months in the making... and thinking, "I came here believing he/she was perfect and lovable, just the way he/she is." I saw it in the group I attended for awhile. A lot of response/reaction of the writer seemed to have to do with how people framed their comments.
It was a select group of people that Leonard met with... and they had a clear understanding [the same as was supposed to be in the group I'm acquainted with]... even so, I'd guess there were hurt feelings and bruised egos [as much as they tried to keep them out of it] from time to time in his group.
I can say that I enjoy reading Andrew's poems as much as I enjoy reading Leonard's. Each one of Andrew's is absolutely individual and leaves a clear impression that can be easily recalled. They have a concentrated power of thought, expression, and meaning. It seems Andrew composes his poetry with the same care and diligence that Leonard composes his songs. I can't help but feel that Leonard would understand what I'm saying in this paragraph. I have no desire to compare their merits on the page, though, as ~ Once Again ~ my resume doesn't fit the skills set requisite to the task. Each of their poems touches me in a different way... and, whereas, I might feel inclined to assign, "from my perspective... " good, better, best ~ in this comparison, I simply don't. At times, I probably could say, yes, Andrew's is 'better' than Leonard's... I would choose one poem and align it with another... but I would be looking for one of Leonard's that I thought to be somehow 'lesser' and one of Andrew's that I thought to be somehow 'morer' ~ then, gun t'th'head, I'd COMPARE. The reality and the truth are that I love Leonard's poetry... and I love Andrew's. For me, what matters is what delights, touches, or moves me... and both of their poems do . It's like looking back over a nearly 40-year 'relationship' [albeit one-sided, except for knowing that Leonard has always had his listeners in mind with his songs] that has brought you immense pleasure and comfort in every situation imaginable, and then saying, "Yeah... but what about this guy you met four years ago and the excellence of his work... which I have to believe you agree upon, as well, or the Leonard-Andrew comparison wouldn't have occurred to you . I'm not going to unseat Leonard from his position in my world... or even move him over an nth of an inch. It's just not going to happen. There's plenty of room to appreciate and love the work of both. It's crucial to remember that my reactions to their work are emotional rather than literary... As for ultimate bestnesses, in one spot or another, I'm not in a place to judge... I haven't even read all that either have written. What'cha' gonna do... 
?
Respectfully, to all three of you ,
Lizzy
Aha! You captured the first version of what I responded to you with... the first [quoted here] and the last [posted here].
Everywhere relevant, I put Disclaimer after Disclaimer as to my ability [translating to INability] to judge poetry on a skills-assessment level... and here you come asking
~ a question for which I couldn't possibly be any more UNqualified to answer! So, this feels like a trick question . I've never even taken a poetry course... did attend a writer's group for awhile and a couple people there wrote poems vs. prose. I sure wasn't one of them! I still don't try to write them, even privately. Maybe I should. I don't need to try to know that it's difficult, though.I feel that Leonard would appreciate and enjoy reading Andrew's poetry and that they would interact exceedingly well in the group Leonard described as having been in years ago, in Montreal, where he and five or six other poets/writers gathered regularly, hoping one day to be world-great famous, and mercilessly critiqued each other's work. I feel Andrew would be very at ease amongst these people and this endeavour, that Leonard would like him and appreciate his commitment to creating the finest in what he creates. I feel both Andrew and Leonard would be lively in their interaction in such a group and would understand and appreciate the honest feedback and suggestions each would offer. Their relationship to and with each other would be grounded in respect. I feel their love, care, seriousness, and commitment to their craft is deeply shared... and that Leonard would recognize and admire this in Andrew. Andrew already admires it in Leonard.
We had some discussion, with open critiqueing here, of one of his poems awhile back... and he was open to the suggestions that were brought to him, and willing to inch over on or defend his choices. I feel that a poetry group to function well has to have a very base level of trust as to goodwill amongst its members. Since poetry is such a concentrated form of expression, it appears in a far more 'concise' form than 'prose' ~ almost as a baby out of the womb... so for someone to be able to say to its parent, "I really think that blonde hair would've looked better on him; or shouldn't we nudge her nose a little in that center area, so it's narrower?" and have it be okay and not hurtful, must be tricky sometimes. The parent is looking at their beloved creation... who knows how many months in the making... and thinking, "I came here believing he/she was perfect and lovable, just the way he/she is." I saw it in the group I attended for awhile. A lot of response/reaction of the writer seemed to have to do with how people framed their comments.
It was a select group of people that Leonard met with... and they had a clear understanding [the same as was supposed to be in the group I'm acquainted with]... even so, I'd guess there were hurt feelings and bruised egos [as much as they tried to keep them out of it] from time to time in his group.
I can say that I enjoy reading Andrew's poems as much as I enjoy reading Leonard's. Each one of Andrew's is absolutely individual and leaves a clear impression that can be easily recalled. They have a concentrated power of thought, expression, and meaning. It seems Andrew composes his poetry with the same care and diligence that Leonard composes his songs. I can't help but feel that Leonard would understand what I'm saying in this paragraph. I have no desire to compare their merits on the page, though, as ~
Once Again ~ my resume doesn't fit the skills set requisite to the task. Each of their poems touches me in a different way... and, whereas, I might feel inclined to assign, "from my perspective... " good, better, best ~ in this comparison, I simply don't. At times, I probably could say, yes, Andrew's is 'better' than Leonard's... I would choose one poem and align it with another... but I would be looking for one of Leonard's that I thought to be somehow 'lesser' and one of Andrew's that I thought to be somehow 'morer' ~ then, gun t'th'head, I'd COMPARE. The reality and the truth are that I love Leonard's poetry... and I love Andrew's. For me, what matters is what delights, touches, or moves me... and both of their poems do . It's like looking back over a nearly 40-year 'relationship' [albeit one-sided, except for knowing that Leonard has always had his listeners in mind with his songs] that has brought you immense pleasure and comfort in every situation imaginable, and then saying, "Yeah... but what about this guy you met four years ago and the excellence of his work... which I have to believe you agree upon, as well, or the Leonard-Andrew comparison wouldn't have occurred to you . I'm not going to unseat Leonard from his position in my world... or even move him over an nth of an inch. It's just not going to happen. There's plenty of room to appreciate and love the work of both. It's crucial to remember that my reactions to their work are emotional rather than literary... As for ultimate bestnesses, in one spot or another, I'm not in a place to judge... I haven't even read all that either have written. What'cha' gonna do... ?Respectfully, to all three of you
,Lizzy