|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > Writing > Poetry > wannabe poet... | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
RHFay
Sage
      
Date Joined Nov 2007
Total Posts : 1576
| Posted 5/7/2008 3:02 AM (GMT -4) |   | | Poetry as therapy again:
wannabe poet
robs the ideas of others-
literary thief
Writing prompts may arise from some odd situations. I posted a Live Journal blog about my recent net troubles, and have received some interesting responses. One writer-friend suggested that I compose a haiku about the person causing my grief.
The haiku/senyru/whatever above was the result. I composed it quickly, but I think it still says what I needed to say.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!"
Richard H. Fay - Azure Lion Productions
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
RHFay
Sage
Date Joined Nov 2007
Total Posts : 1576
| Posted 5/8/2008 11:47 AM (GMT -4) | |
crystalwizard said...
I'm boggled by the concept of "show not tell" being applied to poetry at all, much less a form like the cinquain. Me too, actually. I'm irritated by how often that term is thrown around anyway. I think certain people are taught that you must "show, not tell", and it becomes their mantra, their criticism for anything and everything that they don't like.
I'm a very visual person; I'm an artist for crying out loud! Visuals are important to me, even when I write. Others have said that I created little vignettes with each of those cinquains, painting pictures with words.
Different viewpoints, different opinions.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!"
Richard H. Fay - Azure Lion Productions
| | Back to Top | | |
|
RHFay
Sage
Date Joined Nov 2007
Total Posts : 1576
| Posted 5/8/2008 11:53 AM (GMT -4) | |
crystalwizard said...
MysticWino said...
Meantime . . . that middle line might read stronger as "robs others' ideas"
that changes the meaning. The original line means that the thief is stealing ideas from other people written this way, it means that the thief is stealing from the ideas themselves. Even though the meaning might be slightly altered from my intent in that piece, I can understand why MysticWino suggests getting rid of the article. Haiku-type forms do seem more in the spirit of brevity when the articles are cut back to a minimum (or cut out altogether).
It's no big deal with this one, but it is an idea to keep in mind.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!"
Richard H. Fay - Azure Lion Productions
| | Back to Top | | |
|
MysticWino
anarchist fringe monkey boddhisatva
Date Joined May 2007
Total Posts : 1570
| Posted 5/8/2008 11:59 AM (GMT -4) | | | No it doesn't. Not at all. The hyphen after the 's' in others makes it plural possessive and should be understood as theft of others' (other people's) ideas.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
MysticWino
anarchist fringe monkey boddhisatva
Date Joined May 2007
Total Posts : 1570
| Posted 5/8/2008 12:04 PM (GMT -4) | | | | |
|
crystalwizard
Forum Moderator
Date Joined Nov 2006
Total Posts : 4608
| Posted 5/8/2008 3:41 PM (GMT -4) | | | | |
|
R. L. Copple
Acolyte
Date Joined Mar 2007
Total Posts : 212
| Posted 5/9/2008 2:15 AM (GMT -4) | | Actually "show, don't tell" applies to poetry as well. But if you're painting pictures, you are showing, not telling. The difference is all about experiencing the poem/story instead of feeling like you're sitting on the sidelines watching it play out, or being told about it in a detached way. There are valid points to be made about that, but many don't know when to use it or when not to. I've had one tell me everything should be written as show instead of tell, but that's not what I've read in other places. A story written all show and no tell would be boring, contain a lot of activity and description that fails to move the story forward, etc.
So, yeah, there are those who overuse it in critiques. But if I see a spot in critiquing that I think needs to be shown more than told, because it is a key point in the character's journey and the reader needs to experience that, then I'll point it out.
R. L. Copple
blog.rlcopple.com
www.raygunradio.com
www.haruah.com
Infinite Realities available at Amazon.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
MysticWino
anarchist fringe monkey boddhisatva
Date Joined May 2007
Total Posts : 1570
| Posted 5/9/2008 11:04 AM (GMT -4) | |
OOPS. Sorry. Went into lecture mode . . . 
R. L. Copple said...Actually "show, don't tell" applies to poetry as well. But if you're painting pictures, you are showing, not telling. The difference is all about experiencing the poem/story instead of feeling like you're sitting on the sidelines watching it play out, or being told about it in a detached way. There are valid points to be made about that, but many don't know when to use it or when not to. I've had one tell me everything should be written as show instead of tell, but that's not what I've read in other places. A story written all show and no tell would be boring, contain a lot of activity and description that fails to move the story forward, etc. So, yeah, there are those who overuse it in critiques. But if I see a spot in critiquing that I think needs to be shown more than told, because it is a key point in the character's journey and the reader needs to experience that, then I'll point it out.
Thanks for speaking up. I'd kind of like to expand on this. The problem I see with "show don't tell" in critiques is that too many folks just toss it in like a bookmark without showing what they mean. It's even less effective than highlighting a phrase and tagging it with "awk". So, the basis of my complaint is not so much the general use of it, but the general misuse of it by way of merely telling that something isn't showing. A sincere critique should clearly state problem areas and suggest alternatives. And, more often than not, I have seen people use "show don't tell" simply because they feel they need to state something, or because they have no real idea what the nature of the difficulty is in a particular passage/sentence/paragraph/scene. For myself, I tend to highlight such and comment something along the lines of "here is a great opportunity for you to show rather than telling by . . ." And, if I know there is a problem but can't quite put my finger on what it is, I usually come right out and say, "this is awkward for me; I got confused here, and I'm sorry but I have no idea why." I think maybe it would help a lot for folks to realize just how much they stand to learn by seriously emersing themselves in their critiques as they do them. It's far more educational than reading yet another handbook on writing - because it is practice in and of itself. And even shabby exercise is better than mere speculation - as long as you pay attention to what it is you're doing.
Read me soon in The Return of the Sword!
Blog: http://bitterhermit.wordpress.com
Buy wine: http://fringemonkey.org
Poetry Blog: http://fringemonkey.wordpress.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
RoberII
Stablehand
Date Joined May 2008
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 5/9/2008 10:33 PM (GMT -4) | | I have to say this, since the poem is about me:
To me, showing means describing what is happening to the senses. IE, instead of saying 'augur,' you would describe the augur. Is he old? Is he young? In short, paint a picture of him.
Of course, 'show, don't tell' isn't a universal rule. There are times when you want to tell instead of show, but, in general, poetry is all about showing. It needs to be much more tactile than prose, since it's shorter, and thus needs to carry more OOMPH. | | Back to Top | | |
|
RHFay
Sage
Date Joined Nov 2007
Total Posts : 1576
| Posted 5/10/2008 11:46 AM (GMT -4) | | Based on what I've experienced so far, concerning feedback from editors as well as readers, the concept of "show don't tell" may be fine in principle, but it's not necessarily cut-and-dry in practice. In other words, two readers or two editors with roughly similar skills and experience can look at the same poem and reach two widely different conclusions about the importance or practical application of "show don't tell". One set may like the work in question, and one set may not.
Opinions regarding the matter differ, as do opinions regarding how well individual works utilize "show don't tell", and how important it truly is to those works anyway. Rarely do two people view the same poem exactly the same - that's the thing about poetry.
To put it another way, plenty of people seem to like the work in question as-is. I've actualy been told by others that I do paint pictures with the words. Some see the understatement in the poem in question as a good thing. Differing viewpoints, differing interpretations, differing opinions.
That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it. 
A final note - the quandary quickly becomes one of "who's right, and who's wrong?". My question is - what makes one individual reader's or editor's opinion more valid than any others? Therein truly lies my own problem with this issue.
Would you trash a story because one editor or one reader disliked it? Of course not! Would you do the same with a poem? Again, certainly not. You consider any comments that the editor or reader might have made, you may rework the piece a bit, or you may decide to leave it as-is. Either way, you then send the piece out again and hope the next editor's opinion differs from the first.
You can't please all of the people all of the time. However, you can please some of the people some of the time.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!"
Richard H. Fay - Azure Lion Productions
| | Back to Top | | |
|
R. L. Copple
Acolyte
Date Joined Mar 2007
Total Posts : 212
| Posted 5/11/2008 11:02 PM (GMT -4) | | Mystic,
Good points. I understand what you're saying and agree. Occasionally I'll use the actual word, more often than not I'll just say something like "this felt too detached for me, what if we did it something like this:" and then give an example of what I'm thinking. Sometimes, if I know the critiquer and what he/she is thinking, just saying "This didn't show enough for me, I felt it was too telly" is fine. But if that's all I get, it can get tiresome and isn't that helpful. Especially as some have mentioned, various people have different levels of what that means.
I've thought about trying an experiment. My family has been reading the Narnia series in the car when we're out and about. To put it bluntly, CS Lewis is a very telly writer in many ways. The use of omniscient and sometimes narrating in a detached way (as did Tolkien, was the going trend at the time) totally violates the rules. Yet, somehow, he is able to involve you in the story anyway, and you get to know the characters. Maybe not as quickly, and some today would find it boring (my wife tried to read LOTR but couldn't get very far into it before she gave up--said she couldn't get into it). But to pull off a good book in that style would be an accomplishment, I think, cause it takes quite a bit of skill to do so, and do it well. Problem is, it would be a hard sell to an agent or publisher, more than likely. Lewis and Tolkien would have a hard time finding a publisher in todays market, for that matter, if they had just written those classics.
R. L. Copple
blog.rlcopple.com
www.raygunradio.com
www.haruah.com
Infinite Realities available at Amazon.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
RoberII
Stablehand
Date Joined May 2008
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 5/12/2008 11:06 AM (GMT -4) | | @crystalwizard
There are examples, of course, where it's appropriate to tell instead of show. If you are going for a biblical or mythical feel to your story, as Lewis or LeGuin do in their fantasy stories, tell away! The detached narrative voice that LeGuin uses is crucial to our immersion in the story and to the feel of it.
But neither of these writers fail to show us the important things.
In general, when it comes to characterization, you will want to show as much as possible. That's why most villains have a kick the dog moment; it's not enough to tell the reader that Darth Vader is evil, they must see it with their own eyes when he strangles people just because they doubt the power of the force.
Similarly, while LeGuin tells us what Ged is like, we are also shown his various characteristics - pride, arrogance, skill, impatience.
That's what showing means when it comes to characterization. That you let a character's actions speak for themselves.
When it comes to descriptions, it means staying clear from a word like 'beautiful,' for instance. It means being specific in your descriptions. Instead of saying that a girl is beautiful, we describe the various characteristics that make her beautiful. Because beauty is subjective, and as such, no hard information is given when we say that a girl is beautiful: It could be that she weighed 300 pounds and the narrator found this to be the epitome of beauty. It could be that she had a symmetrical face, almond eyes and full lips. Or in the words of Jack White, she could be "canvas-blank and lily-white."
We can both agree that this is good general practice? You can always find examples where the rules should be broken, but that is no reason to discard them entirely.
There are times when telling is perfectly fine. To go to the core of the matter, in the case of Richard's Augur cinquain:
"Old bones" is telling, not showing, but it's specific enough that the image is clear.
"Augur" is telling, but not specific at all. Is it an old man? A woman? A teenager? Also, we can easily tell that he is an augur from his actions. Seeing as how he is the main subject of the poem, there is every reason to change this to something more specific. "Augur" simply doesn't paint much of a picture. | | Back to Top | | |
|
RHFay
Sage
Date Joined Nov 2007
Total Posts : 1576
| Posted 5/12/2008 12:46 PM (GMT -4) | |
R. L. Copple said...Lewis and Tolkien would have a hard time finding a publisher in todays market, for that matter, if they had just written those classics.
I would take that further and say a good number of "classic" authors would have an extremely difficult time getting published in today's market, with today's "show me, show me" and "sudden, explosive impact" attitude. What all this tells me is that this attitude is not a "written in stone" literary law that's been true for the ages, but a current trend. And trends have a habit of changing.
I happen to love the English language, and if I want to use a certain word, if it's the word I think fits the best, I'll use it. I refuse to let somebody tell me certain words are now "off-limits" because they don't fit in with the current trend, the current attitude. And if that means some people will have a strong dislike for my work, then so be it.
Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder anyway? Isn't it sometimes important to know what a certain writer, or a certain character, sees as beautiful? And, in a more general sense, isn't what's beautiful (or not) about poetry often in the eye of the beholder?
As for using words like "old bones" and "augur", what ever happened to leaving something up to the reader's imagination? What ever happened to letting the reader fill in the details, letting each reader make their own interpretation of what's being shown? I thought that used to be a valid technique, is it no longer valid? Have television, movies, and video games destroyed people's imaginations to the point that they can no longer fill in the details for themselves, and have to be "shown" everything, every little detail? If that is true, what does that say about humanity in general?
Perhaps I write in an "old" style; I certainly read more older genre literature than current genre literature. And perhaps therein lies my real error. I read what I like, and I write what I like. And maybe that's not always a good thing, not always a marketable thing, not always a "fitting" thing in today's literary world.
And is my point of "one person's opinion" getting lost in the "literary techno-babble"? Others have actually interpretted the impact and effectiveness of the exact same poem in a completely different way. Makes me wonder, anyway.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!"
Richard H. Fay - Azure Lion Productions
| | Back to Top | | |
|
RHFay
Sage
Date Joined Nov 2007
Total Posts : 1576
| |
| | |