Your’e right, Ivy, there’s no pt. 5. I hereby propose a pt 5, to be inserted, and to compose it of symbols we all use for various kinds of blanks and aporias. My own addition would be
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
Eileen (if I may speak from what I’ve seen) seems to like underscores to indicate something similar. Therefore her tercet may look something like
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
Ernsto (if I may speak from what I’ve seen) seems to like omitting lines. Therefore his tercet may look like
Ivy, I confess I don’t know what symbol, if any, might appeal to you.
This is just a proposal, up for vote like all others. An alternative, which I’d be equally happy with, would be to simply leave the poem as-is, and to let our million jillion readers say, huh? I admit to preferring the former of my two proposals, however …
Followup. The above doesn’t qute represent what I have in ind for my symbols for blanks/aporias. I would like 5 blank spaces inserted within the parentheses, as if there’s some sort of invisible text.
Also, I vote for doing double returns, not just single ones, before each new section (or number of each new section). I think they poem (and sections) breathe better that way….
I’m good w/renumbering, I’m good w/double returns. Ernesto mentions six six six, we’ve got Lucifer in the title … pretty soon we’ll be making death metal devil symbols with our hands and pulling out old CDs … Sam and I were listening to Metallica yesterday (he’s of an age …) …
Now it’s just a question of me figuring out how to login and change write to words …
John, according to the “Users” page on the WordPress dashboard, you are already an “administrator” (or “user” in WordPress jargon). So if you log in to WordPress.com with your password (the one I guess you chose when accepting Ivy’s invite) you should see an administrator’s menu bar on top of your blog.
Eileen is not there as an “user”, so I guess she hasn’t accepted Ivy’s invite/registered to WordPress yet…
Haven’t accepted the invite simly because I haven’t had time to focus on it…and it seems that I’m not missing anything yet by simply being a commenter…
I’ve noticed that “faux” is italicized. In my notes I say I believe “there is no reason for Spanish or French to be italicized” or something of the sort. What do you guys think? Do we want to leave the “foreign” words in italics, even if it’s confusing throughout the poem?
For political reasons, I am against the notion of italicizing non-English words. I´ve always thought it is, at its best, underestimating the reader (“hey! this is not English! that’s why you do not understand it!) at its worst, it is a way of linguistic discrimation! 😉
Hi Ernesto, looking after this page involves editing the emails/conversation related to ‘editing the poem’. I think Eileen might have a version somewhere, or else it was all emailed to us?
Once all discussions concerning titling the poem have concluded, I’d cannibalise the comments, stick it in with the main document and delete the comments, so that there’s no evidence! 🙂
By the way, administrators can edit their comments — see the ‘e’ at the end of the time-stamp on your comment? 😉
Actually, there’s no clean organized file of the “editing the poem” conversations, except as what may exist in the last version of CONVERSATION. Between that CONVERSATION text and how the comments begin on this stream are just individual emails…
…unless someone’s been collating the emails as they occurred.
Oops, sorry, Ernesto. Of course, it’s just my take on it — not everybody else might agree! Seeing as there’s a link here to the faux bush and burning bush. 🙂
Did you trash all the collaboration emails, though? I think it’s just a matter of sifting through them to find our various thoughts on editing the poem…
No, seriously, I don’t mind, I came up with it because I was thinking of the idea of the gathering, the aquelarre, a reunion of wizards-withches-witch doctors. (Catemaco is this place in Veracruz, Mexico, famous for its witch doctors and indigenous practices of brujería and santería). And yup, wanted to play with the (maybe too commonplace) idea of recontextualizing the idiomatic expression and thinking of the burning bush both in religious and erotic terms…
—
And yup, I still need to check, but since my email account literally overflowed I think I might have trashed all of it!
…and I am of course not against the idea of reworking that part. It should be enough that one of us thinks it is not working for the poem as it should!
In terms of the one remaining open item on my editing suggestions before we moved from email conversation to this wordpress blog, it was this, which I replicate only if it’s useful to you, Ernesto, as you tinker:
+++++
5) A suggestion is that it would be helpful to shorten by, say, one tercet, this part of Section I (contributed by Ernesto). I think it goes one tercet too many in terms of the energy…you obviously should read this section within the context of the larger poem or its part in it….
First, I just want to summarize my understanding of agreed-to-changes that aren’t yet made on the poem: (1) change all &s to “and”s; (2) change the numbering to reflect there are only six sections; and (3) the editing of the excerpt from Ernesto’s original contribution. Are there more? If not, can someone at least make the changes to #1 and #2 for easy reference as we continue editing (I am having trouble figuring out how to go into editing).
For #3, I suggest replacing the text I cite in my above comment with the following — which shortens the excerpt by one stanza; eliminates the “beat around the bush” reference which was, to me, a tad clichetic; incorporates a notion of “this” to reference this gathering; and ends with a stanza that’s just one word per line, vs regular hay(na)ku form, to reflect the content reference re “simply”. Let me know what you think of this alternative (this need not be the definitive alternative; just trying to get the editing conversation on this excerpt started since someone needs to make a specific suggestion):
Eileen, I’ll go in and make the first two changes, if no-one’s already done it. I think there was also a request to put in two spaces before each section, right [#4]?
Okay, the poem’s behaving for now, but I had to do a bit of behind-the-scenes fiddling with the code. The pink lines before each section are a stopgap for now — I’ll sort something out before we go live…
It doesn’t seem to like multiple paragraph returns so I cobbled something together using the blockquote and a non-breaking space.
Does that mean the above text is fine with you, Ernesto-in-Love? Coz you have final say since you originally posted that excerpt.
Ivy, thanks for doing the changes. Could you also please replace the title with our new title “Four Skin Confessions”?
Having said all that, continuing the editing POV, here’s another suggestion: part of my feeling of slackness occasionally comes up from reading one-word lines that aren’t that interesting….specifically “The” as a one-word line.
The poem begins with the word “The” which doesn’t actually bother me. But in other places, I think reliance on “the” can be lame and be avoided. A specific example is this tercet:
The
mind judges
the weary body
Could we not change that to something more — like
Mind
judges exhaustion,
the weary body
I think we all should read through the poem and see other places where a line relies on one word (especially a word like “the” or “a”). And if that one word isn’t that interesting, try to figure out if that’s good enough. In some cases, it can be; in some cases it might not…?
Eileen already mentioned this earlier when she made the suggestion in her comment: “…ends with a stanza that’s just one word per line, vs regular hay(na)ku form, to reflect the content reference re “simply”.”
Eileen, around the indented section [the new #6], I remember you saying that ‘less than my / own body. […] / Snow’ comprises one hay(na)ku and the work indicated by my ellipsis {it begins with the word ’stars–’} are a separate hay(na)ku section.
So does ’stars–’ need another two lines? Or does it share the same two lines as ‘Snow’?
Here’s the section I mean:
2 things.
First, Ivy, thank you for pointing out how bad a reader I am in that I clearly didn’t notice that line 3 in
is
simply
friendship,
was only one word, nor that Eileen (brilliantly) intended the lines just that way – and even told us so. My bad. But that’s part of the thrill of working with the 3 of you; it’s like playing tennis w/Serena Williams or Roger Federer, one moment’s lapse of attention and wham!
Second, thanks for gathering the “the and a/an” tercets for us. Have we voted to amend *all* tercets that begin with articles? I note that 2 “offenders” are mine. I’ll work on ‘em if that’s the consensus, but while I can see that
The
road swings
west into a
is weak and could use work, I don’t really see the same weakness in
The
tongue is
a golden page.
which seems better for the “the”, which is known as “*the* definite article and which seems quite powerful in its *definiteness* here, as it seems (to my mind/ear, at least) to give the complete sentence that is the tercet the pseudo-truth-value of an age-old aphorism, e.g. something from The Wisdom of Solomon or some such so-called “wisdom” text.
But if that seems like just plain hooey (instead of conscious hooey) to the rest of you, I’ll work on that tercet, too. (I *will* be offering an altenative to
The
road swings
west into a
which just sounds like a plain old colorless sentence fragment to me now, and which certainly could use a little oomph.
Here’s a candidate (which includes an allusion to the David Lynch film AND the Peter Guralnick book on American (slightly-post-roots) musicians of the mid-20thc (e.g Hank Snow, Bobby “Blue” Bland, Waylon Jennings, Howlin’ Wolf, Big Joe Turner …)
My lost highway
bends into a
Ivy, the way it works right now in the poem with the Snow-related section is the way I intended (no changes required), i.e. if you take a look at the three lines before it’s interrupted by the italicized excerpt (which is a quote from an earlier section of the poem), you get a full (reverse) hay(na)ku:
less than my
own body.
Snow
Ivy, I agree with your change re bodies and heads, too. I think you can make that change on the poem since that was your original contribution.
Also, since Ernesto, approved it, perhaps you also can replace the text you reference in f) above with
Still —
let’s not
circle the bush:
reuniting
us here,
in this place,
here
and in
what little time
we
share here,
this deliberate gathering,
is
simply
friendship,
As regards the one-word lines, thanks Ivy for setting this up for us. John, I think that no one said we have to automatically change ALL the particles, but only if any of us feel it could be improved, then let’s make a suggestion. I look forward to seeing what you all propose on various rewrites.
Reminder: Administrators’ Notes are for logistical questions, etc.
Eileen: I like the Snow section with its italicised excerpt.
However, I would like to understand the thinking behind it. To me, ‘stars–‘ hangs there. I understand this is deliberate. I guess I am interrogating you a little about the reasoning behind it. I hope you don’t mind.
Is it meant to harken to the earlier section? Are the two lines of the earlier tercet, which is now absent in the repeated italicised excerpt, meant to be read as a sous rature?
I agree that “lost highway” is better not italicized. This reminds me again that separate from how John and Ernesto sourced their use of italics, it might be worthwhile to look again at the poems to see if that format is supported by the poem itself.
Ivy, feel free to interrogate away. As regards the use of stars and so on, the intent was (1) yes to your query of referring back earlier to the poem (that continued circling), and (2) possibly more significant, at least to me, stars is a source of light…and light reveals; and what light reveals can scar, cause pain…I think that notion is alluded to by the subsequent tercets following the italics?
At the moment, some of the indentations et al are lost due to continued editing, right? I have yet to figure out how to edit myself…just jammed for time at the mo but I can comment….
The italics shd be gone from lost highway. Sorry if editing messed up other formatting. I spend half or more of my own time at my blog messing with html code … guess this site has its own set of “issues”.
Eileen has asked above whether we might want to reconsider all italicizing of quotes. I now agree that that would be fine as long as I don’t have to go back and try to “source note” all of them since, as I noted before, I don’t think I can do it. I’ll try if we want source notes, but no promises.
Eileen, could you explain why that whole section of “yours” is indented – I have no problem with it, am not suggesting a change – just wanting to hear what you were/are thinking. “It just feels right to me that way” would make me happy, but I’m guessing that your reasons go deeper than that.
I shd note that I read your blog this a.m. and when you say “I had to address the matter of writing about myself in a way that said “I” becomes relevant to other readers not at all interested in me” I’m reminded of some of the discussion you and I had a week or so ago, about making love to the reader. I can see here a bit more what you mean. I think part of our struggle is that I just *assume* I’m such a typical person that I never address that matter. I feel when I write about me I write about everyone as a matter of course. But now I understand better where some of the tension in that conversation was coming from. We do think things thru differently. Which is why this project is such a good thing to be part of – because we all think so differently – yet here we are, making something that (dare I say) works. (Fulsome enough??? 🙂 Still true)
All,
I am wondering if my earlier suggestion re formatting on the poem got misunderstood. This is what I mean to say — that we should keep in mind the formats re 1) double returns between stanzas and 2) the indents on the Snow excerpt. Because those formats, as I understand it, will be affected whenever we edit the poem. So let’s do those two things last.
Having said that, I think we should indeed make the editing changes on the poem as we progress because that’s the only way to know what the current draft is of the poem. So, if it’s not done already, say, John should go ahead and non-italicize lost highway. I myself just corrected a typo on the poem and just changing words or spellings doesn’t seem to affect the formatting?
John, as regards why I indented the Snow excerpt — it was to mark a pause, a pause that went back to somewhere earlier in the poem from which I quoted the excerpt, and because i wanted to show emphasis on the points then being raised by the excerpt.
John, I don’t know that anyone is forcing you to “source” notes on the poems. I personally have no opinion as to whether or not, at the end of the poem, you’ll end up adding source notes or whatever you call them. That’s up to you. My concern is with the body of the poem itself. As we’d done a couple of times already, italiczation because you’re quoting a text is a tool that may or may not be applicable all the time. The example of *lost highway* is a good one where, you might italicize it because of how you sourced it, but it’s actually stronger (at least I and Ivy(?) feel) if the two words weren’t italicized. (Another example was how we agreed not to italicize “sous rature”). So all I’m asking — and I’m not trying to force anything here; I’m just asking — is that at the end of the day, we read the poem anew and see if all the italics work. Maybe they do now, but I’m not convinced this check has been done (?). If it has, then John all you have to do is confirm that as far as you’re concerned, what’s italicized right now should be italicized (since you contributed much of the italicized portions). That personally would make me feel better that the use of italics was not just superimposed on the poem but that it’s organically part of it.
Does anyone else have a view on the tercets Ivy kindly set out for us as regards possibly changing where a line depends on a “the” or “a”? If not, it’d be good if people can confirm they’re fine with those tercets as they are, too.
John, I think you had another edit or two you were hoping to send on…?
It would be good, I think, to wrap up the editing as soon as possible. I apologize now for making this suggestion but I am simply overwhelmed, time-wise. Do you think we can try to wrap up the editing of the poem this week? Can people’s schedules accommodate that? I just don’t wish to go on much longer on editing the poem…and I do think we’re nearly there.
And a new editing thought — don’t know how strong yet I feel about this — but I wonder if others think that the transition between these two tercets work:
with the most
crimson-ridden
light.
I
refuse to
put I love
You’d have to go back to the poem to read the context in which the above 2 stanzas arose; it’s in section 4. I am having a slight misgiving about the transition — whether it works/whether it’s too abrupt.
Eileen, you’re right — the double returns and indenting of the Snow section should be left till last, to save people’s sanity. I know whereof I speak! 😉
I also agree that we should finish with editing the poem this week.
—
A suggestion for the following hay(na)ku:
c) Each
book stays
still like clay,
A response to several comments.
1st, Eileen, my “I now agree that that would be fine as long as I don’t have to go back and try to “source note” all of them” relates back to something someone suggested a week or three ago re: removing the italics and source notes as an alternative. I’m not feeling forced at all to give them up or to “source note” – I just remember someone suggested that and I’m just noting I’m not sure I can do it. If no one else cares about source notes, I don’t. This poem doesn’t seem to need them.
I’ll go back and read for italics and see which I just need need need to preserve. I doubt there will be many, if any, except titles, e.g. Mad Love.
2nd, I’m blanking on what “John, I think you had another edit or two you were hoping to send on…?” might refer to. Anyone have better recall than me?
3rd, Eileen, thanks for the “why” behind the indents.
4th, Ivy, I am very happy with
with the most
crimson-ridden
light.
Like
refusing to
put I love
I’ll make the change as soon as Eileen says that solves the problem between the two tercets …
5th, finishing editing the poem this week shouldn’t be a problem for me. Agreed, we’re almost there. Am I right that all that will remain then, besides a general clean-up edit of all the emails (fixing typos etc), will be the Conversation? I forget where we are with that.
Second thought. I’ve just gone back thru the poem looking at italics … and I like ’em. They seem quite appropriate. So I think I want ’em in. But I’m not taking a hard line about this. If someone can point out where they are a problem, I’m happy to haggle …
Just checked my notes. You’re right, John, that so far you don’t have any open editing comments to make. Having said that, the only open thing is all of us reviewing the tercets that Ivy has set aside for us, looking at the ones that no one has addressed so far, and seeing if any jar.
I am interested in hearing from others if the other tercets that begin with “a” or “the” are okay.
Actually John, you didn’t opine on the other two tercets discussed above (unless I missed it).
And of course awaiting Ernesto’s input on any of above matters.
As regards the Conversation, I have a proposal but I prefer, personally, that we focus on the micro of finishing the poem before we get all macro discussing the conversation…
The poem is the most important, so if we can focus on that, I personally would appreciate it.
Eileen, you’re right, I haven’t commented on everything, but which two tercets in particular? I’ll either opine or sign off on ’em as soon as you get back to me.
John (and all), these are 2 suggested tercets. John, maybe you should reread the prior posts to see what you missed; it seems more efficient than me repeating posts (?):
1)Did we all agree on replacing the tercet
The
mind judges
the weary body
with
Mind
judges exhaustion,
the weary body
2) Do people think that changing “the to “this” would be better for
Eileen, my bad. Of course you shouldn’t have to repeat yourself. The problem is, I *thought* I’d already commented on these tercets and didn’t know what others could be meant. Reading back, I see I only dreamt my comments. So – my bad. Sorry.
Anyway, this is what I dreamt (what I coulda swore) I wrote:
1)
Mind
judges exhaustion,
the weary body
I don’t like “exhaustion” preceding “weary”. By definition exhaustion is as weak and weary as one can get, therefore this becomes (to my ear at least) a bit of bathos.
If that is granted, why not simply move the 4th (!) word of the preceding line down to replace “The”??
Then we’d have
of
my body.
… I can’t get
Up.
Mind judges
the weary body
and … problem solved. Article gone.
That suits me better …
But I’m perfectly willing to live with a little bathos if so goes the vote.
2)
I’m fine with
This
note will
sustain as long
Again, I thought I already said this. But, obviously not. (Let’s all get together in 10 years and do this again … Eileen, think you have to be a bit patient with me **now*?? It’s only gonna get worse …)
I copied and pasted the poem into a word doc, and all italics were lost. After rereading w/out italics, if folks want to jettison ’em, that’s fine w/me. Sorry for going back and forth. But I guess my opinion is they should be there, and they don’t need to be there. At all. So I’m easy.
I’ve read the poem without italics. I think that it reads very nicely like that. I think of it like musical sampling: it’s better -IMO- when it is seamless than when it is “sourced”. Like John, I’m easy, so whatever the rest decides is fine with me.
Also, I agree with the corrections suggested.
I get the impression that my contributions to the poem were the ones that suffered more from the “a” “the” et cetera syndrome, so I’ve been letting you guys debate about that. I’m just too self-conscious about my writing and I trust your poetic ears much more than I do mine.
I apologise if I haven’t been really helpful/collaborative of late. It’s been hectic around here recently… (I know your days have also been hectic; but I suppose my inability to multitask has been more than proved in recent days. So, please accept my humblest apologies).
its
multicultural confessions?
Circumfession (Derrida again?!)
(By the way, I think that in WordPress it is better to quote using the “blockquote” tags to quote than to use the “b” tag, but it is up to you. I have used it here as an example).
I understand, though, that changing the stanza in bold type would mean changing the last stanza of the quote above, namely this one:
its
multicultural confessions?
Circumfession (Derrida again?!)
or at least the last two words of the third line in that stanza, because they obviously refer back to the name of the multi-quoted philosopher. I’m just a bit uncomfortable of making that explicit the reference to these names, (“father-names”, according to italian philosopher Maurizio Ferraris). Especially after a well-known poet and critic described my references to Derrida in my poems as “derivative language”. Is there really a need to use the names here? I have tried reading that section without that stanza and the poem flows nicely. Actually, the two words, between parentheses, “(Derrida again?)” would make sense because Derrida himself thought of the concept of encore and repetition without origin…
Just an idea, but, again, I am sincerely and truly “cool” with whatever you guys think.
As the person who wrote the name tercet, I am happy to hear Ernesto’s suggestion and agree with deleting that particular tercet. Thanks for suggesting its deletion, Ernesto, as I feel its deletion opens up the poem. I had misgivings, too, earlier, but didn’t know what/how to change. I hadn’t heard your misgivings earlier Ernesto unless I missed it. Your rationale AND suggestion for addressing it is perfect for me in addressing that section.
I just came briefly in and out of this to see the comments stream. I need to go offline again, and will write more later.
First, I don’t think that *every* tercet that begins with an article needs to be changed. I agree that there may be too many, and that it’s a strong place to put a weak word, but I also think that it’s not a bad thing for the eye/mind to leap the chasm between tercets every now and then as if that chasm wasn’t there – it varies the rhythm. This is not a strongly held opinion, it’s just by way of saying I don’t think *all* of these need to be changed.
1) If stanza of names is deleted, then what about the line a little further down,
Circumfession (Derrida again?!)
Ernesto mentions it, but that’s all. Does it stand? Does it get changed? If the latter, how??
2) & 7) are the same; the change has been made
3) agreed; I’ll make the change
4) agreed; change needs to be made
5) agreed; change needs to be made
6) agreed; change needs to be made
7) see 2) above
a) my line; it’s a quote; like as-is but will not argue a minute if someone can suggest a better option
b) my line; will not argue a minute if someone can suggest a better option; what do people think of changing “streets” in the next line to “Broadways”?? (Maybe I just think that because the Mirit Cohen performance upon which these lines are based took place in NYC …)
c) What about changing
a
brujo over
there in Catemaco,
to “that / brujo”, for greater specificity? Would that be enough?
d) I already argued to leave that “The” because the tercet feels (to me at least) a lot like some ancient aphorism. But again, will not argue a minute if someone can suggest a better option
2nd a) This is a line from a poem of Ivy’s that I grabbed and inserted here (to match my opening, which is from Ernesto, and En arche en …, which I got off Eileen’s blog … all by way of introducing all 4 of us at the very beginning …). Since it’s Ivy’s line from that other poem, I am very hesitant about suggesting amendments
k) these are Ernesto’s words, which I appropriated. Same hesitation as above …
Note: I don’t have any hesitation about suggesting changes to lines written for this poem; my hesitation only applies to stuff written for other purposes … silly of me?? Maybe …
l) I have no idea
Ernesto, re: your comment above that you “get the impression that my contributions to the poem were the ones that suffered more from the “a” “the” et cetera syndrome” – I have the same impression about my stuff …
Damn, Eileen, I’m beginning to think that something is wrong with me … I didn’t have to say anything about 3-7 … you wrote “I’ve listed the changes approved by all” … how much clearer can you be? When we finally meet I’ll turn around and grab my ankles and you can KICK me
I would like to see the poem without italics, if possible.
I like John’s suggestion
that
brujo over
there in Catemaco,
Also, if we’re taking names out, with
Circumfession (Derrida again?!)
perhaps
Circumfession (guess again)
…maybe?
Eileen, all the changes 1-7 are very fine, indeed [tho’ 2 & 7 are repeated — it’s only 6! That magic number…].
Further suggestions:
a) all
pronouns, that
we would ride
that
cherub of
light and float
b) DJs,
that we
would strut the
widest
Broadways of
our biggest cities,
l) traced the name,
the tracks
of
my
story, literally
raised flesh, Darling.
With k) “the/fire. My/flesh? My flesh,” it might make less sense to change it as it’s part of the festival tercets:
This
moves like
a festival now.
The mud the
crowd the
mosh
the
fire. My
flesh? My flesh,
And follows the rhythm of ‘the mud the / crowd the / mosh / the / fire. […]’
Oh, and the following tercets are meant to look like this:
a) scratch out an
odd cuneiform
on
the
sky – i.e.
En arche en
It went a bit skew-whiff when I edited my comment. As the author of these first five lines, I must admit reluctance to changing the ‘the’ in this instance, but I’m open to hearing your thoughts.
I buy Ivy’s suggestions lock stock and barrel – almost, tho that doesn’t mean I’m not open to alternatives.
The only one I hesitate to buy 100% is
Circumfession (guess again)
Not that the solution isn’t ingenious, but … I’d like to hear other alternatives before I plunk my money down. Tho it’s ingenious it’s just a little … desperate, maybe … and it doesn’t really segue well into the next tercets … not for me at least …
I support all of the above changes wrapped up by ivy. Can someone (Ivy?) — not me since I’m fearful still on weirding out the format if I tinker with the poem — make all the changes so the current draft reflects it? I think Ernesto had said he’d support our suggestions, though of course he can still disagree with the above. (Please leave the italics alone for now; I still need to go through my comparison of with or without italics).
The one open item — is it the only open item now? — is the line
Circumfession (Derrida again?!)
I actually feel the line works as is. I agree with Ernesto that I think that line works without the name tercet. I think its ellipticism is not anymore elliptical than other aspects of the poem (or any other poem) just because the reference is a name. I believe in inserting references in a poem that aren’t necessarily explained, that encourages the reader to do his or her own research.
I don’t recall John explaining why he has a problem with the line. I mean, he notes it could be problematic but doesn’t explain why. So if John expands on his concerns, or proposes a specific alternative(s), that may clarify ways of addressing his concern.
Eileen, I’ve done the changes. And I shouldn’t worry too much about weirding out the format, if I were you — the poem’s pretty robust! — and I think we’ve all read it so often, we all know how it goes. So tinker away!
By the way, I found another one:
m)
is
the note
that catches, the
last form is,
by far, the
hardest
to pull
off. Once you
As for “Circumfession (Derrida again?!)”, having read the poem, I think it’s okay where it is — we actually mention Derrida elsewhere, other than in the now-deleted names tercet.
I posted a suggestion to change Derrida to another word because I thought its specificity was a problem — I’m fine with it in this line.
I agree with the suggested changes. Thanks a lot to Ivy again for all her had work doing the edits.
As I mentioned above, I don’t mind the “Derrida again?” line, it’s just the tercet that bothered me.
In case it’s agreed that it can also be problematic, i would suggest “once again?”, only because it is also used in pop music (“once again with feeling!”) and because it addresses the question of repetition and unicity. If this doesn’t sound good to you, I don’t mind “Derrida again?”, because it could also be understood as a bit autocritical (as in “oh god not Derrida again!”).
It seems John has been unable to post comments, but they do not appear as drafts. May be a temporary server problem.
I’ve edited the poem to make it reflect all approved changes so far (unless I missed something). The only thing I didn’t edit is the Derrida line because I couldn’t format the interrobang — Ivy, can you please input that and, yes, change the line to do the musical “once again” reference…
Before I address italics, Section 3 has some bold-faced excerpts. I vote for not bolding them…
As regards the italics, I know you all are okay with no italics at all throughout the poem (well, except for titles _Mad Love_, right in Section 3 and Iliad and Odyssey in Section 6?). From my reading, I’m suggesting and cutnpasting below the sections that I feel should be italicized. In between each section, I type three asterisks for convenience. As you will see, I don’t think all of the currently italicized sections need italics, but I also see the need for a few, to wit:
1)
En arche en
ho
logos, kai
ho logos en
pros ton theon,
kai theos en
ho
logos.
[this reference is the first time the “En arche en…” reference comes up]
*****
2)
Olam
u-melo’o, a
world and the
fullness
thereof, that
you would kiss
me
with the
kisses of your
mouth,
***
3)
Go
there where
you cannot,
****
4)
the last word “Word” in section 3
****
5)
the word “Word” in 11th tercet in Section 4
***
6)
the indented section in Section 6:
stars—
suddenly miserable points
of light
which
can’t help but
illumine. Scars
seared
with the most
crimson-ridden
light.
====
I propose the italics generally for emphases, as I feel the poem itself (vs author’s original intentions as regards italics) compels such emphasis. In the case of #2 regarding the phrase that begins “Olam…” I also think that the transition between the preceding tercet and the tercet that begins with “Olam” seems a bit abrupt without the italics.
• Code for interrobang, for future reference: ‽
• Changed ‘Derrida again’ to ‘once again’ and added an interrobang
• I also added the interrobang to ‘Change / the station‽ Nah.’
• I agree with doing away with the bold face
• I’d like to add the following tercet for italicisation consideration:
I
know this
much is true.
…because I hear it as a song lyric. It might work if placed in quotation marks as well, but would much prefer the italics.
• Just wanted to say that I’m loving these lines today:
What
colo(u)r
is my
flesh? Word. What
word? I don’t
know.
• Shouldn’t The Torah be italicised?
• If most of the italics are removed, the Working Notes on Formats will also be deleted, right?
Yay, we’re almost there! 🙂
Let’s seen if I can post …
Hooray!
To business: removal of boldface: fine w/me. Eileen’s suggestions re what to italicize/what not to: fine w/me.
Torah is a title. I *guess* one could say Torah is like the Bible but that would give *like* a pretty funny twist.
Since the comments re: the title are closed, I don’t know where else to mention this, but a good friend of mine reminds me that The 4 Skins were an 80’s skinhead band and (to quote a description I picked up somewhere) “As is almost inevitable for a skinhead band, the 4 Skins were ultimately branded as racist, sexist (which many people still were in the early 80s) and violent.”
Just thought we ought to consider the association, which he made in an instant, and which others will make, too, before we go public with this thing.
Just being silly w/the Torah/Bible thing. But I’m just home from jury duty, and I’m part of a huge panel out of which a jury will be selected, to decide the fate of 3 young men who murdered or at least killed (could have been self defense) one other young man, and stabbed about half a dozen others … the dead guy’s family was sitting there watching us … only thing I’m glad about – it’s not a capital case …
Above suggestions re italics are fine with me. As with the inverted comma-ed tercet originally penned by Ernesto. And, yes, the working notes should be deleted from poem.
Actually, that tercet is mine. 😉 But I understand the confusion.
Regarding notes about the title, John, I’ll add your friend’s observation to the Title discussion but any administrator here can feel free to add to it, too. When I closed comments, I just thought it was time and I’m done with it.
Glad you’re able to comment again — that was quick!
People will make their own interpretations when the time comes. We can’t direct it.
It’s funny, I watched recently This Is England and saw the “This Was England” photography exhibition on skinheads at the National Film Theatre and I never thought of the possible connections. I guess it would have to be kind of twisted to think that a poem written by four people with our particular last names would call themselves “skins”, and luckily it’s not “four skins’ confessions” but “four skin confessions”. We’d be damned if we let the skinheads have the copyright of the word “skin” (or foreskin for that matter!).
I’ve made all the editing changes on the poem as I understood them from our dialogue, to date. The only things not done are the double returns between sections and indents on Section VI which we’ll leave as last when we think we’re done. I also striked-through for now (rather than deleted) Working Notes in case there’s still some value in the info in it.
We should all check the poem though as I even noticed as I did the edits that we’d missed making one previously-approved edit change. Within the version now up, I also propose retaining the italicized “Dear Ones” in section VI.
Also, to confirm as I don’t know — Is it Torah or The Torah as the title (to be italicized)?
Also, does anyone feel Section I goes on too long?
I almost want to end the first section after
where
ground crumbles,
a specific intimacy.
so that the next tercet would begin a new section:
Olam
u-melo’o, a
world and the
Of course, if we left the existing counts unchanged, this would create a 7-section poem.
I’m not pushing the above suggestion but wanting a 2nd opinion as regards Section I (I note that if it is too long, it could have been a function of that we were still in that stage of writing the poem before we began to think it’d be in more than one section)…
eileen
In English it’s often referred to as “the” Torah but I don’t believe “the” is actually part of the name. I’ve looked at several reasonably authoritative books I have at home and tho Torah is often preceded by “the”, “the” is never capitalized. Less authoritatively, but as a clue to usage, if one googles “The Torah” one gets 1.2 million hits. If one googles “Torah” by itself one gets 7.4 million hits. That tells me that more often than not “Torah” does not have a “the” preceding it.
Re: Eileen’s thought that pt 1 could also be parts 1 and 2, I too can feel that
Olam
u-melo’o …
begins a new section. Personally, a poem in 6 or 7 parts, I don’t care. We may have wanted, we may want 6, but if the poem wants 7 …
As for “I also propose retaining the italicized “Dear Ones” in section 6, that’s ok w/me. No problem. It’s fine to emphasize that phrase …
I live at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains. When someone in these here parts leaves out the word mountains, they become the San Gabriels. Just as the Rocky Mountains become the Rockies.
As for
Rest, and
look at this
goddamned red wheelbarrow.
Whatever it
is.
That’s a quote from Jack Spicer. I don’t hear it as angry. I hear it the way I hear his
real unfucking rain
An expression of a kind of an awe in the face of the is-ness of is.
Here’s the whole poem from which the lines come:
A Red Wheelbarrow
Rest and look at this goddamned wheelbarrow. Whatever
It is. Dogs and crocodiles, sunlamps. Not
For their significance.
For their significant. For being human
The signs escape you. You, who aren’t very bright
Are a signal for them. Not,
I mean, the dogs and crocodiles, sunlamps. Not
Their significance.
If the goddamned still bothers you, then the whole bit may have to be rethought.
I actually liked “goddamned”. Makes sense considering the pervasive nature of the WCW poem (I know the reference here is Spicer but Spicer was thinking of WCW washenot).
My copy of the Torah has “The Torah” as the title. “Torah” is the law itself, “The Torah”, as far as I know, is The Book. I’m fine with only italicizing Torah, but what I wanted to mean was reading the book as The Book, and not reading “the law”. Do you know what I mean?
I like ‘goddamned’ — it injects a certain funny cantankerousness to that section, a little jolt and shock that I find quite appealing.
I see glimpses of many faces in this poem, many stories lurking beneath the lines. Those lines, “look at this / goddamned red wheelbarrow” — I can imagine a slightly inebriated old man with a white stubbly beard, swaying, saying it, pointing at the wheelbarrow and being on the verge of tears, a sensitivity masked by a brusque, macho façade.
Okay, I deleted the working notes as I thought it’d be useful to be able to see the poem as clearly as possible (but I stil have the info if anyone needs them).
Then, as regards the creation of sections, and being aware that I mostly instigated them, my point on the first section being too long would make the count to be 7 sections, which I know some of us are reluctant to do. If you agree the first section is too long, two things can happen to retain the six-section structure:
1) look at the poem overall to redo where sections begin
or
2) let’s have a first section with subset so that the count would be
1A
1B
2
3
4
5
6
The second option retains the “six” and there’s no reason, this being a poem, why we can’t be creative with numbering.
Not wedded again to any of above. But I think — per John’s comment already that he agreed the section could end sooner — there may be something in this area to adjust.
But if people are fine with the sections as currently created, let us know, too.
I also thought of numbering 1 a and b so obviously I’m fine with that.
I’m also fine with capitalizing The in The Torah, tho I’d like to ask Ernesto whether the prefatory material if any includes the capitalization, or whether it’s simply part of the title capitalization convention.
It might be worth noting that the Hebrew word for book is Sefer. (I don’t really know Hebrew, but I can fake mess w/it a bit)
I think that The Torah means The Law, or The Teaching. But of course to Jews Torah (or The Torah) *is* The Book (which means it is the everything, but that’s – almost – another story).
From the introduction by Rabbi Rodney J. Mariner, February 1996:
“The Torah is the first of the three books that make up the Tanach, the Hebrew Bible. […] But the Torah itself has a much wider application; it describes not only the single scroll from which the scriptures are read with great ceremony in Synagogue services to this day, but also the entire body of Jewish learning that is continuing and expanding in our present time.
It is probably this latter usage that provides the best definition of the word Torah, which, in the minds of too many, is translated simply as “Law”. […]
Whilst the Torah remains part of the world’s most bought book, the Bible, it is perhaps paradoxically, if not the least read book, then the least understood. As a piece of classical literature, it is often approached by the reader as if it were a text such as Homer’s Iliad […]”
“Seven things were created before the creation of the world. They are: the Torah … [and 6 others, not relevant here]. … All seven preceded the creation of the world by two thousand years … The celestial Torah was written in black fire on white fire, and lay in the lap of God” …
From: *Tree of Souls* by Howard Schwartz, 2004
Question: it’s been silent here a while. Are we done??
Yes, I’m ok with the 1a, 1b, of course. Reminds me (again) of music (or paragraphs in philosophy).
I just wanted to say that the Zohar is a book I read extensively. “La interpretación crea firmamentos” is a phrase that will always be with me. I owe that to Esther Cohen, Mexican Jewish scholar who translated it into Spanish.
Well, I made two more changes in sections I originally contributed. In Section 1, I changed the word “dispel” to “quell” so that the tercet reads as
I
write books
to quell pronouns
Is that okay with others? That third line had bothered me for a while because I always thought the rhythm was off…and I think moving from the two-syllable “dispel” to one-syllable “quell” helps move it better.
Secondly, in Section VI, I changed the tercet
which is to
say, their
humanity.
to
words blooming flesh
touching other
flesh.
Let me know if you have problems with above.
Anyway, for now, that’s as far as I can go with the poem. Which is to say, I don’t know if I’m done but, for now, that’s as far as I can go. If the above 2 changes are fine with you (for convenience, I’d inputted them already in the poem), we can address logistics of what to do next. I have a suggestion on what to do next but I’ll do that under the “Administrator’s Notebook” section, unless someone else has an idea of where to put comments on that.
I’ve been writing a paper on the film adaptation of V for Vendetta (originally a graphic novel). Alan Moore, the writer, emphasizes in an article how the story is strictly the outcome of teamwork between him and David Lloyd, the illustrator.
They did this novel in 1983, so there was no Internet, and they mainly collaborated via the post and phone calling each other.
Some quotes that made me think of the experience of working the four of us together in this poem are the following, which I wanted to share with you, hoping you don’t mind my using this space for such a thing:
“It is the history of any strip or book or whatever, this is the moment where you get your real reward… the moment when all of the half-ideas and idiocies gel into something that is much more than the sum of its parts and thus entirely unexpected and utterly beautiful”. (273)
“Of course, as a comic strip begins to grow beyond its creators one experiences a certain feeling of nervousness at not knowing where the strip is going to go next. On the other hand, there is a massive sense of excitement and creativity in such an unrestricted venture. I suppose it must be feel like surfing on a tidal wave… it feels great while you’re doing it but you’re not really sure of either where you’re going to end up or whether you’ll still be one piece when you get there.” (274)
The Chained Hay(na)ku Project: An Invitation 
Hi everybody,
I just noticed that there are only 6 sections to the poem — I think there’s an omission in the numbering. 🙂
Your’e right, Ivy, there’s no pt. 5. I hereby propose a pt 5, to be inserted, and to compose it of symbols we all use for various kinds of blanks and aporias. My own addition would be
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
Eileen (if I may speak from what I’ve seen) seems to like underscores to indicate something similar. Therefore her tercet may look something like
_____
_____ _____
_____ _____ _____
Ernsto (if I may speak from what I’ve seen) seems to like omitting lines. Therefore his tercet may look like
Ivy, I confess I don’t know what symbol, if any, might appeal to you.
This is just a proposal, up for vote like all others. An alternative, which I’d be equally happy with, would be to simply leave the poem as-is, and to let our million jillion readers say, huh? I admit to preferring the former of my two proposals, however …
Followup. The above doesn’t qute represent what I have in ind for my symbols for blanks/aporias. I would like 5 blank spaces inserted within the parentheses, as if there’s some sort of invisible text.
What about section five being something like
()
__ __
__ __ __
() ()
__
Ernesto’s “variation” on my “theme” is fine/w me
This luddite hasn’t managed to figure out how to co-administer this blog yet, but I’m able to comment so not a problem so far.
First, how synchronistic that the poem ended up being six sections after all!
I have no problem redoing the numbering to do six…or also to do a section five with the blanks/aporias…
If we do the blanks/aporias, I vote for doing three stanzas, tho…
Also, I vote for doing double returns, not just single ones, before each new section (or number of each new section). I think they poem (and sections) breathe better that way….
I’d actually prefer not to fill in section 5 and just re-number the poem. 🙂
I second Ivy’s idea.
Six six six!
I’m good w/renumbering, I’m good w/double returns. Ernesto mentions six six six, we’ve got Lucifer in the title … pretty soon we’ll be making death metal devil symbols with our hands and pulling out old CDs … Sam and I were listening to Metallica yesterday (he’s of an age …) …
Now it’s just a question of me figuring out how to login and change write to words …
John, according to the “Users” page on the WordPress dashboard, you are already an “administrator” (or “user” in WordPress jargon). So if you log in to WordPress.com with your password (the one I guess you chose when accepting Ivy’s invite) you should see an administrator’s menu bar on top of your blog.
Eileen is not there as an “user”, so I guess she hasn’t accepted Ivy’s invite/registered to WordPress yet…
Haven’t accepted the invite simly because I haven’t had time to focus on it…and it seems that I’m not missing anything yet by simply being a commenter…
I’m good with six six six!
Double returns is good with me.
So is someone going to look after this page on ‘editing the poem’ or what? 😉
What do you mean by “to look after this page”, Ivy? (I’m not sure I understand what it involves!)
I’ve noticed that “faux” is italicized. In my notes I say I believe “there is no reason for Spanish or French to be italicized” or something of the sort. What do you guys think? Do we want to leave the “foreign” words in italics, even if it’s confusing throughout the poem?
For political reasons, I am against the notion of italicizing non-English words. I´ve always thought it is, at its best, underestimating the reader (“hey! this is not English! that’s why you do not understand it!) at its worst, it is a way of linguistic discrimation! 😉
“dis-cri-mi-na-tion”. Sorry about that.
Agreed…faux should not be italicized, I note since I originally wrote that…and agree with your non italicization issue re non english words…
Hi Ernesto, looking after this page involves editing the emails/conversation related to ‘editing the poem’. I think Eileen might have a version somewhere, or else it was all emailed to us?
Basically, it’s the same thing as what I did for the ‘Titling the Poem’ page: https://chainedhaynaku.wordpress.com/conversation/titling/
Once all discussions concerning titling the poem have concluded, I’d cannibalise the comments, stick it in with the main document and delete the comments, so that there’s no evidence! 🙂
By the way, administrators can edit their comments — see the ‘e’ at the end of the time-stamp on your comment? 😉
Actually, there’s no clean organized file of the “editing the poem” conversations, except as what may exist in the last version of CONVERSATION. Between that CONVERSATION text and how the comments begin on this stream are just individual emails…
…unless someone’s been collating the emails as they occurred.
Looks like the job of this page’s editor!
With regards to the poem, I think these lines in the 1st section are a little loose/louche:
“And
still — let’s
not beat around
the
bush […]”
Might it be tightened up? Or leave as is?
I am afraid I did not keep the editing the poem emails… so unfortunately there’s no way I could collate them here
—
I wrote the part Ivy quotes… I was kinda proud of it, but if it sounds “loose/luche” it should of course be amended…
Oops, sorry, Ernesto. Of course, it’s just my take on it — not everybody else might agree! Seeing as there’s a link here to the faux bush and burning bush. 🙂
Did you trash all the collaboration emails, though? I think it’s just a matter of sifting through them to find our various thoughts on editing the poem…
No, seriously, I don’t mind, I came up with it because I was thinking of the idea of the gathering, the aquelarre, a reunion of wizards-withches-witch doctors. (Catemaco is this place in Veracruz, Mexico, famous for its witch doctors and indigenous practices of brujería and santería). And yup, wanted to play with the (maybe too commonplace) idea of recontextualizing the idiomatic expression and thinking of the burning bush both in religious and erotic terms…
—
And yup, I still need to check, but since my email account literally overflowed I think I might have trashed all of it!
…and I am of course not against the idea of reworking that part. It should be enough that one of us thinks it is not working for the poem as it should!
Some info about Catemaco here…
(And, from the same site, a direct link to an article on brujería in Catemaco, here…)
In terms of the one remaining open item on my editing suggestions before we moved from email conversation to this wordpress blog, it was this, which I replicate only if it’s useful to you, Ernesto, as you tinker:
+++++
5) A suggestion is that it would be helpful to shorten by, say, one tercet, this part of Section I (contributed by Ernesto). I think it goes one tercet too many in terms of the energy…you obviously should read this section within the context of the larger poem or its part in it….
And
still — let’s
not beat around
the
bush, what
reunites us here,
in
our place
here &in
the
little time
we have here,
the
gathering, to
put it simply,
after
the event,
would be friendship,
Ok, so there seems to be concensus something has to be done with it to tighten it…
Please feel free to cut it up, with bare teeth if necessary…
First, I just want to summarize my understanding of agreed-to-changes that aren’t yet made on the poem: (1) change all &s to “and”s; (2) change the numbering to reflect there are only six sections; and (3) the editing of the excerpt from Ernesto’s original contribution. Are there more? If not, can someone at least make the changes to #1 and #2 for easy reference as we continue editing (I am having trouble figuring out how to go into editing).
For #3, I suggest replacing the text I cite in my above comment with the following — which shortens the excerpt by one stanza; eliminates the “beat around the bush” reference which was, to me, a tad clichetic; incorporates a notion of “this” to reference this gathering; and ends with a stanza that’s just one word per line, vs regular hay(na)ku form, to reflect the content reference re “simply”. Let me know what you think of this alternative (this need not be the definitive alternative; just trying to get the editing conversation on this excerpt started since someone needs to make a specific suggestion):
Still —
let’s not
circle the bush:
reuniting
us here,
in this place,
here
and in
what little time
we
share here,
this deliberate gathering,
is
simply
friendship,
Eileen, I’ll go in and make the first two changes, if no-one’s already done it. I think there was also a request to put in two spaces before each section, right [#4]?
Okay, the poem’s behaving for now, but I had to do a bit of behind-the-scenes fiddling with the code. The pink lines before each section are a stopgap for now — I’ll sort something out before we go live…
It doesn’t seem to like multiple paragraph returns so I cobbled something together using the blockquote and a non-breaking space.
Wow. I’m in love with you guys. 😉
Does that mean the above text is fine with you, Ernesto-in-Love? Coz you have final say since you originally posted that excerpt.
Ivy, thanks for doing the changes. Could you also please replace the title with our new title “Four Skin Confessions”?
Having said all that, continuing the editing POV, here’s another suggestion: part of my feeling of slackness occasionally comes up from reading one-word lines that aren’t that interesting….specifically “The” as a one-word line.
The poem begins with the word “The” which doesn’t actually bother me. But in other places, I think reliance on “the” can be lame and be avoided. A specific example is this tercet:
The
mind judges
the weary body
Could we not change that to something more — like
Mind
judges exhaustion,
the weary body
I think we all should read through the poem and see other places where a line relies on one word (especially a word like “the” or “a”). And if that one word isn’t that interesting, try to figure out if that’s good enough. In some cases, it can be; in some cases it might not…?
Ernesto–I’m in love with you, too,
eileen
Yes, that means I’m very happy with it. No irony at all, just as literal as possible.
In literis.
I’m a little dissatisfied with one of the lines I wrote:
like
bodies swallowed
by shy anacondas.
I’d like to change it to
like
heads swallowed
by shy anacondas
because ‘bodies’ is already mentioned just a few lines earlier. Any thoughts?
I like all the changes proposed so far. But one question re Eileen’s suggested, and Ernesto’s apparently accepted
is
simply
friendship,
Is the one-word 2nd line intentional? If yes, fine w/me. If no, then just wanted to point it out.
I like the fact that “simply” is simply left on its own. But I hadn’t noticed until John pointed out.
Any ideas?
Eileen already mentioned this earlier when she made the suggestion in her comment: “…ends with a stanza that’s just one word per line, vs regular hay(na)ku form, to reflect the content reference re “simply”.”
So that last stanza is all one-word lines.
I went through to look for single ‘the’ and ‘a/an’ offenders:
a) scratch
out an
odd cuneiform on
the
sky – i.e.
En arche en
b) The
mind judges
the weary body
c) The
book stays
still like clay,
d) a
cherub of
light and float
e) the
streets of
our biggest cities,
f) And
still — let’s
not beat around
the
bush, what
reunites us here,
in
our place
here and in
the
little time
we have here,
the
gathering, to
put it simply,
g) a
brujo over
there in Catemaco,
h) The
tongue is
a golden page.
i) The
road swings
west into a
j) The
note will
sustain as long
k) the
fire. My
flesh? My flesh,
l) a
story, literally
raised flesh, Darling.
There may be more I missed?
Eileen, around the indented section [the new #6], I remember you saying that ‘less than my / own body. […] / Snow’ comprises one hay(na)ku and the work indicated by my ellipsis {it begins with the word ’stars–’} are a separate hay(na)ku section.
So does ’stars–’ need another two lines? Or does it share the same two lines as ‘Snow’?
Here’s the section I mean:
less than my
own body.
stars—
suddenly miserable points
of light
which
can’t help but
illumine. Scars
seared
with the most
crimson-ridden
light.
Snow
2 things.
First, Ivy, thank you for pointing out how bad a reader I am in that I clearly didn’t notice that line 3 in
is
simply
friendship,
was only one word, nor that Eileen (brilliantly) intended the lines just that way – and even told us so. My bad. But that’s part of the thrill of working with the 3 of you; it’s like playing tennis w/Serena Williams or Roger Federer, one moment’s lapse of attention and wham!
Second, thanks for gathering the “the and a/an” tercets for us. Have we voted to amend *all* tercets that begin with articles? I note that 2 “offenders” are mine. I’ll work on ‘em if that’s the consensus, but while I can see that
The
road swings
west into a
is weak and could use work, I don’t really see the same weakness in
The
tongue is
a golden page.
which seems better for the “the”, which is known as “*the* definite article and which seems quite powerful in its *definiteness* here, as it seems (to my mind/ear, at least) to give the complete sentence that is the tercet the pseudo-truth-value of an age-old aphorism, e.g. something from The Wisdom of Solomon or some such so-called “wisdom” text.
But if that seems like just plain hooey (instead of conscious hooey) to the rest of you, I’ll work on that tercet, too. (I *will* be offering an altenative to
The
road swings
west into a
which just sounds like a plain old colorless sentence fragment to me now, and which certainly could use a little oomph.
Here’s a candidate (which includes an allusion to the David Lynch film AND the Peter Guralnick book on American (slightly-post-roots) musicians of the mid-20thc (e.g Hank Snow, Bobby “Blue” Bland, Waylon Jennings, Howlin’ Wolf, Big Joe Turner …)
My
lost highway
bends into a
Ivy, the way it works right now in the poem with the Snow-related section is the way I intended (no changes required), i.e. if you take a look at the three lines before it’s interrupted by the italicized excerpt (which is a quote from an earlier section of the poem), you get a full (reverse) hay(na)ku:
less than my
own body.
Snow
Ivy, I agree with your change re bodies and heads, too. I think you can make that change on the poem since that was your original contribution.
Also, since Ernesto, approved it, perhaps you also can replace the text you reference in f) above with
Still —
let’s not
circle the bush:
reuniting
us here,
in this place,
here
and in
what little time
we
share here,
this deliberate gathering,
is
simply
friendship,
As regards the one-word lines, thanks Ivy for setting this up for us. John, I think that no one said we have to automatically change ALL the particles, but only if any of us feel it could be improved, then let’s make a suggestion. I look forward to seeing what you all propose on various rewrites.
Reminder: Administrators’ Notes are for logistical questions, etc.
Eileen: I like the Snow section with its italicised excerpt.
However, I would like to understand the thinking behind it. To me, ‘stars–‘ hangs there. I understand this is deliberate. I guess I am interrogating you a little about the reasoning behind it. I hope you don’t mind.
Is it meant to harken to the earlier section? Are the two lines of the earlier tercet, which is now absent in the repeated italicised excerpt, meant to be read as a sous rature?
Breathe
through anything
and everything thrown
at you by
even the
stars —
suddenly miserable points
of light […]
I think
My
lost highway
bends into a
is stronger than the other version.
I agree that “lost highway” is better not italicized. This reminds me again that separate from how John and Ernesto sourced their use of italics, it might be worthwhile to look again at the poems to see if that format is supported by the poem itself.
Ivy, feel free to interrogate away. As regards the use of stars and so on, the intent was (1) yes to your query of referring back earlier to the poem (that continued circling), and (2) possibly more significant, at least to me, stars is a source of light…and light reveals; and what light reveals can scar, cause pain…I think that notion is alluded to by the subsequent tercets following the italics?
At the moment, some of the indentations et al are lost due to continued editing, right? I have yet to figure out how to edit myself…just jammed for time at the mo but I can comment….
The italics shd be gone from lost highway. Sorry if editing messed up other formatting. I spend half or more of my own time at my blog messing with html code … guess this site has its own set of “issues”.
Eileen has asked above whether we might want to reconsider all italicizing of quotes. I now agree that that would be fine as long as I don’t have to go back and try to “source note” all of them since, as I noted before, I don’t think I can do it. I’ll try if we want source notes, but no promises.
Eileen, could you explain why that whole section of “yours” is indented – I have no problem with it, am not suggesting a change – just wanting to hear what you were/are thinking. “It just feels right to me that way” would make me happy, but I’m guessing that your reasons go deeper than that.
I shd note that I read your blog this a.m. and when you say “I had to address the matter of writing about myself in a way that said “I” becomes relevant to other readers not at all interested in me” I’m reminded of some of the discussion you and I had a week or so ago, about making love to the reader. I can see here a bit more what you mean. I think part of our struggle is that I just *assume* I’m such a typical person that I never address that matter. I feel when I write about me I write about everyone as a matter of course. But now I understand better where some of the tension in that conversation was coming from. We do think things thru differently. Which is why this project is such a good thing to be part of – because we all think so differently – yet here we are, making something that (dare I say) works. (Fulsome enough??? 🙂 Still true)
All,
I am wondering if my earlier suggestion re formatting on the poem got misunderstood. This is what I mean to say — that we should keep in mind the formats re 1) double returns between stanzas and 2) the indents on the Snow excerpt. Because those formats, as I understand it, will be affected whenever we edit the poem. So let’s do those two things last.
Having said that, I think we should indeed make the editing changes on the poem as we progress because that’s the only way to know what the current draft is of the poem. So, if it’s not done already, say, John should go ahead and non-italicize lost highway. I myself just corrected a typo on the poem and just changing words or spellings doesn’t seem to affect the formatting?
John, as regards why I indented the Snow excerpt — it was to mark a pause, a pause that went back to somewhere earlier in the poem from which I quoted the excerpt, and because i wanted to show emphasis on the points then being raised by the excerpt.
John, I don’t know that anyone is forcing you to “source” notes on the poems. I personally have no opinion as to whether or not, at the end of the poem, you’ll end up adding source notes or whatever you call them. That’s up to you. My concern is with the body of the poem itself. As we’d done a couple of times already, italiczation because you’re quoting a text is a tool that may or may not be applicable all the time. The example of *lost highway* is a good one where, you might italicize it because of how you sourced it, but it’s actually stronger (at least I and Ivy(?) feel) if the two words weren’t italicized. (Another example was how we agreed not to italicize “sous rature”). So all I’m asking — and I’m not trying to force anything here; I’m just asking — is that at the end of the day, we read the poem anew and see if all the italics work. Maybe they do now, but I’m not convinced this check has been done (?). If it has, then John all you have to do is confirm that as far as you’re concerned, what’s italicized right now should be italicized (since you contributed much of the italicized portions). That personally would make me feel better that the use of italics was not just superimposed on the poem but that it’s organically part of it.
Does anyone else have a view on the tercets Ivy kindly set out for us as regards possibly changing where a line depends on a “the” or “a”? If not, it’d be good if people can confirm they’re fine with those tercets as they are, too.
John, I think you had another edit or two you were hoping to send on…?
It would be good, I think, to wrap up the editing as soon as possible. I apologize now for making this suggestion but I am simply overwhelmed, time-wise. Do you think we can try to wrap up the editing of the poem this week? Can people’s schedules accommodate that? I just don’t wish to go on much longer on editing the poem…and I do think we’re nearly there.
best,
eileen
Some more catch-up notes.
1)Did we all agree on replacing the tercet
The
mind judges
the weary body
with
Mind
judges exhaustion,
the weary body
2) Do people think that changing “the to “this” would be better for
The
note will
sustain as long
so that it’d be
This
note will
sustain as long
And a new editing thought — don’t know how strong yet I feel about this — but I wonder if others think that the transition between these two tercets work:
with the most
crimson-ridden
light.
I
refuse to
put I love
You’d have to go back to the poem to read the context in which the above 2 stanzas arose; it’s in section 4. I am having a slight misgiving about the transition — whether it works/whether it’s too abrupt.
What do others think?
Eileen, you’re right — the double returns and indenting of the Snow section should be left till last, to save people’s sanity. I know whereof I speak! 😉
I also agree that we should finish with editing the poem this week.
—
A suggestion for the following hay(na)ku:
c) Each
book stays
still like clay,
Eileen, I like your suggestions for
Mind
judges exhaustion,
the weary body
and
This
note will
sustain as long
The transition between those two hay(na)ku does seem a little jarring. What about
with the most
crimson-ridden
light.
Like
refusing to
put I love
as a suggestion? Too obscure?
A response to several comments.
1st, Eileen, my “I now agree that that would be fine as long as I don’t have to go back and try to “source note” all of them” relates back to something someone suggested a week or three ago re: removing the italics and source notes as an alternative. I’m not feeling forced at all to give them up or to “source note” – I just remember someone suggested that and I’m just noting I’m not sure I can do it. If no one else cares about source notes, I don’t. This poem doesn’t seem to need them.
I’ll go back and read for italics and see which I just need need need to preserve. I doubt there will be many, if any, except titles, e.g. Mad Love.
2nd, I’m blanking on what “John, I think you had another edit or two you were hoping to send on…?” might refer to. Anyone have better recall than me?
3rd, Eileen, thanks for the “why” behind the indents.
4th, Ivy, I am very happy with
with the most
crimson-ridden
light.
Like
refusing to
put I love
I’ll make the change as soon as Eileen says that solves the problem between the two tercets …
5th, finishing editing the poem this week shouldn’t be a problem for me. Agreed, we’re almost there. Am I right that all that will remain then, besides a general clean-up edit of all the emails (fixing typos etc), will be the Conversation? I forget where we are with that.
Second thought. I’ve just gone back thru the poem looking at italics … and I like ’em. They seem quite appropriate. So I think I want ’em in. But I’m not taking a hard line about this. If someone can point out where they are a problem, I’m happy to haggle …
Just checked my notes. You’re right, John, that so far you don’t have any open editing comments to make. Having said that, the only open thing is all of us reviewing the tercets that Ivy has set aside for us, looking at the ones that no one has addressed so far, and seeing if any jar.
I am interested in hearing from others if the other tercets that begin with “a” or “the” are okay.
Actually John, you didn’t opine on the other two tercets discussed above (unless I missed it).
And of course awaiting Ernesto’s input on any of above matters.
As regards the Conversation, I have a proposal but I prefer, personally, that we focus on the micro of finishing the poem before we get all macro discussing the conversation…
The poem is the most important, so if we can focus on that, I personally would appreciate it.
thanks,
eileen
I am happy with Ivy’s suggestions re the “Each book stays still like clay ” tercet
and also happy with her suggested new transition for
with the most
crimson-ridden
light.
Like
refusing to
put I love
eileen
Eileen, you’re right, I haven’t commented on everything, but which two tercets in particular? I’ll either opine or sign off on ’em as soon as you get back to me.
John (and all), these are 2 suggested tercets. John, maybe you should reread the prior posts to see what you missed; it seems more efficient than me repeating posts (?):
1)Did we all agree on replacing the tercet
The
mind judges
the weary body
with
Mind
judges exhaustion,
the weary body
2) Do people think that changing “the to “this” would be better for
The
note will
sustain as long
so that it’d be
This
note will
sustain as long
Eileen, my bad. Of course you shouldn’t have to repeat yourself. The problem is, I *thought* I’d already commented on these tercets and didn’t know what others could be meant. Reading back, I see I only dreamt my comments. So – my bad. Sorry.
Anyway, this is what I dreamt (what I coulda swore) I wrote:
1)
Mind
judges exhaustion,
the weary body
I don’t like “exhaustion” preceding “weary”. By definition exhaustion is as weak and weary as one can get, therefore this becomes (to my ear at least) a bit of bathos.
If that is granted, why not simply move the 4th (!) word of the preceding line down to replace “The”??
Then we’d have
of
my body.
… I can’t get
Up.
Mind judges
the weary body
and … problem solved. Article gone.
That suits me better …
But I’m perfectly willing to live with a little bathos if so goes the vote.
2)
I’m fine with
This
note will
sustain as long
Again, I thought I already said this. But, obviously not. (Let’s all get together in 10 years and do this again … Eileen, think you have to be a bit patient with me **now*?? It’s only gonna get worse …)
John, I like your solution:
of
my body.
… I can’t get
Up.
Mind judges
the weary body
Looks like I also did the ‘four-word on one line’ thing, too! I was wondering how I was going to fix it… 🙂
And just to confirm, I also like:
This
note will
sustain as long
All–
I copied and pasted the poem into a word doc, and all italics were lost. After rereading w/out italics, if folks want to jettison ’em, that’s fine w/me. Sorry for going back and forth. But I guess my opinion is they should be there, and they don’t need to be there. At all. So I’m easy.
I’ve read the poem without italics. I think that it reads very nicely like that. I think of it like musical sampling: it’s better -IMO- when it is seamless than when it is “sourced”. Like John, I’m easy, so whatever the rest decides is fine with me.
Also, I agree with the corrections suggested.
I get the impression that my contributions to the poem were the ones that suffered more from the “a” “the” et cetera syndrome, so I’ve been letting you guys debate about that. I’m just too self-conscious about my writing and I trust your poetic ears much more than I do mine.
I apologise if I haven’t been really helpful/collaborative of late. It’s been hectic around here recently… (I know your days have also been hectic; but I suppose my inability to multitask has been more than proved in recent days. So, please accept my humblest apologies).
Hello again. I know this has been addressed before (probably elsewhere) but I just wanted to express my doubts about the stanza in bold below:
(By the way, I think that in WordPress it is better to quote using the “blockquote” tags to quote than to use the “b” tag, but it is up to you. I have used it here as an example).
I understand, though, that changing the stanza in bold type would mean changing the last stanza of the quote above, namely this one:
or at least the last two words of the third line in that stanza, because they obviously refer back to the name of the multi-quoted philosopher. I’m just a bit uncomfortable of making that explicit the reference to these names, (“father-names”, according to italian philosopher Maurizio Ferraris). Especially after a well-known poet and critic described my references to Derrida in my poems as “derivative language”. Is there really a need to use the names here? I have tried reading that section without that stanza and the poem flows nicely. Actually, the two words, between parentheses, “(Derrida again?)” would make sense because Derrida himself thought of the concept of encore and repetition without origin…
Just an idea, but, again, I am sincerely and truly “cool” with whatever you guys think.
As the person who wrote the name tercet, I am happy to hear Ernesto’s suggestion and agree with deleting that particular tercet. Thanks for suggesting its deletion, Ernesto, as I feel its deletion opens up the poem. I had misgivings, too, earlier, but didn’t know what/how to change. I hadn’t heard your misgivings earlier Ernesto unless I missed it. Your rationale AND suggestion for addressing it is perfect for me in addressing that section.
I just came briefly in and out of this to see the comments stream. I need to go offline again, and will write more later.
As regards italics, I would like to see all the text-editing done and then read the poem again and see how I feel about italics.
RE text, this may be useful. I’ve listed the changes approved by all (except for #1 which is approved by Ernesto and Eileen so far) so far below–
1)
DELETE
Derrida,
Heidegger, Spivak,
Cixous, Derrida again…
2)
CHANGE
The
road swings
west into a
TO
My
lost highway
bends into a
3)
CHANGE
I
refuse to
put I love
TO
Like
refusing to
put I love
4)
CHANGE
of
my body.
… I can’t get Up.
The
mind judges
the weary body
TO
of
my body.
… I can’t get
up.
Mind judges
the weary body
5)
CHANGE
The
book stays
still like clay,
TO
Each
book stays
still like clay,
6)
CHANGE
The
note will
sustain as long
TO:
This
note will
sustain as long
7)
CHANGE
The
road swings
west into a
TO
My
lost highway
bends into a
With that, here are the remaining tercets which we might address re those “a”s and “the”s:
a)
a
cherub of
light and float
b)
the
streets of
our biggest cities,
c)
a
brujo over
there in Catemaco,
d)
The
tongue is
a golden page.
a) scratch
out an
odd cuneiform on
the
sky – i.e.
En arche en
k) the
fire. My
flesh? My flesh,
l) a
story, literally
raised flesh, Darling.
Re: changes, per Eileen’s numbering:
First, I don’t think that *every* tercet that begins with an article needs to be changed. I agree that there may be too many, and that it’s a strong place to put a weak word, but I also think that it’s not a bad thing for the eye/mind to leap the chasm between tercets every now and then as if that chasm wasn’t there – it varies the rhythm. This is not a strongly held opinion, it’s just by way of saying I don’t think *all* of these need to be changed.
1) If stanza of names is deleted, then what about the line a little further down,
Circumfession (Derrida again?!)
Ernesto mentions it, but that’s all. Does it stand? Does it get changed? If the latter, how??
2) & 7) are the same; the change has been made
3) agreed; I’ll make the change
4) agreed; change needs to be made
5) agreed; change needs to be made
6) agreed; change needs to be made
7) see 2) above
a) my line; it’s a quote; like as-is but will not argue a minute if someone can suggest a better option
b) my line; will not argue a minute if someone can suggest a better option; what do people think of changing “streets” in the next line to “Broadways”?? (Maybe I just think that because the Mirit Cohen performance upon which these lines are based took place in NYC …)
c) What about changing
a
brujo over
there in Catemaco,
to “that / brujo”, for greater specificity? Would that be enough?
d) I already argued to leave that “The” because the tercet feels (to me at least) a lot like some ancient aphorism. But again, will not argue a minute if someone can suggest a better option
2nd a) This is a line from a poem of Ivy’s that I grabbed and inserted here (to match my opening, which is from Ernesto, and En arche en …, which I got off Eileen’s blog … all by way of introducing all 4 of us at the very beginning …). Since it’s Ivy’s line from that other poem, I am very hesitant about suggesting amendments
k) these are Ernesto’s words, which I appropriated. Same hesitation as above …
Note: I don’t have any hesitation about suggesting changes to lines written for this poem; my hesitation only applies to stuff written for other purposes … silly of me?? Maybe …
l) I have no idea
Ernesto, re: your comment above that you “get the impression that my contributions to the poem were the ones that suffered more from the “a” “the” et cetera syndrome” – I have the same impression about my stuff …
Damn, Eileen, I’m beginning to think that something is wrong with me … I didn’t have to say anything about 3-7 … you wrote “I’ve listed the changes approved by all” … how much clearer can you be? When we finally meet I’ll turn around and grab my ankles and you can KICK me
I would like to see the poem without italics, if possible.
I like John’s suggestion
I buy Ivy’s suggestions lock stock and barrel – almost, tho that doesn’t mean I’m not open to alternatives.
The only one I hesitate to buy 100% is
Circumfession (guess again)
Not that the solution isn’t ingenious, but … I’d like to hear other alternatives before I plunk my money down. Tho it’s ingenious it’s just a little … desperate, maybe … and it doesn’t really segue well into the next tercets … not for me at least …
I support all of the above changes wrapped up by ivy. Can someone (Ivy?) — not me since I’m fearful still on weirding out the format if I tinker with the poem — make all the changes so the current draft reflects it? I think Ernesto had said he’d support our suggestions, though of course he can still disagree with the above. (Please leave the italics alone for now; I still need to go through my comparison of with or without italics).
The one open item — is it the only open item now? — is the line
Circumfession (Derrida again?!)
I actually feel the line works as is. I agree with Ernesto that I think that line works without the name tercet. I think its ellipticism is not anymore elliptical than other aspects of the poem (or any other poem) just because the reference is a name. I believe in inserting references in a poem that aren’t necessarily explained, that encourages the reader to do his or her own research.
I don’t recall John explaining why he has a problem with the line. I mean, he notes it could be problematic but doesn’t explain why. So if John expands on his concerns, or proposes a specific alternative(s), that may clarify ways of addressing his concern.
Eileen, I’ve done the changes. And I shouldn’t worry too much about weirding out the format, if I were you — the poem’s pretty robust! — and I think we’ve all read it so often, we all know how it goes. So tinker away!
By the way, I found another one:
As for “Circumfession (Derrida again?!)”, having read the poem, I think it’s okay where it is — we actually mention Derrida elsewhere, other than in the now-deleted names tercet.
I posted a suggestion to change Derrida to another word because I thought its specificity was a problem — I’m fine with it in this line.
I did this hurriedly so I’m not wedded to it; but what if we change
last form is,
by far,
the
hardest
to pull
off. Once you
start playing this
loud, the
entire
stage
becomes sensitive
to feedback, the
tone is celestial,
a crimson
kiss.
and change/shorten the above to
last form is,
by far,
hardest
to
achieve. Once
you play this
loud,
the entire
stage becomes sensitive
to feedback: celestial
tone, crimson
kiss.
I like it. The pace seems more urgent somehow.
By the way, I would like to put forward using an interrobang [ ‽ ] instead of ‘!?’ or ‘?!’.
I agree with the suggested changes. Thanks a lot to Ivy again for all her had work doing the edits.
As I mentioned above, I don’t mind the “Derrida again?” line, it’s just the tercet that bothered me.
In case it’s agreed that it can also be problematic, i would suggest “once again?”, only because it is also used in pop music (“once again with feeling!”) and because it addresses the question of repetition and unicity. If this doesn’t sound good to you, I don’t mind “Derrida again?”, because it could also be understood as a bit autocritical (as in “oh god not Derrida again!”).
It seems John has been unable to post comments, but they do not appear as drafts. May be a temporary server problem.
I agree with all the above changes, including the interrobang (greate idea, Ivy!).
John noted in email he’s also okay with all the above changes.
I like Ernesto’s suggestion on once again vs Derrida again — the turning of the reference away from critical studies to music.
I’m also okay with retaining it as Derrida again.
I think that after hearing from Ivy re the Derrida line, there are no other open changes?
oh, one open thing, I gotta check my opinion on italics vs non-italics, which I will do soon.
I’d prefer music to Derrida, I think! 🙂 Glad people like the interrobang.
I’ve edited the poem to make it reflect all approved changes so far (unless I missed something). The only thing I didn’t edit is the Derrida line because I couldn’t format the interrobang — Ivy, can you please input that and, yes, change the line to do the musical “once again” reference…
Before I address italics, Section 3 has some bold-faced excerpts. I vote for not bolding them…
As regards the italics, I know you all are okay with no italics at all throughout the poem (well, except for titles _Mad Love_, right in Section 3 and Iliad and Odyssey in Section 6?). From my reading, I’m suggesting and cutnpasting below the sections that I feel should be italicized. In between each section, I type three asterisks for convenience. As you will see, I don’t think all of the currently italicized sections need italics, but I also see the need for a few, to wit:
1)
En arche en
ho
logos, kai
ho logos en
pros ton theon,
kai theos en
ho
logos.
[this reference is the first time the “En arche en…” reference comes up]
*****
2)
Olam
u-melo’o, a
world and the
fullness
thereof, that
you would kiss
me
with the
kisses of your
mouth,
***
3)
Go
there where
you cannot,
****
4)
the last word “Word” in section 3
****
5)
the word “Word” in 11th tercet in Section 4
***
6)
the indented section in Section 6:
stars—
suddenly miserable points
of light
which
can’t help but
illumine. Scars
seared
with the most
crimson-ridden
light.
====
I propose the italics generally for emphases, as I feel the poem itself (vs author’s original intentions as regards italics) compels such emphasis. In the case of #2 regarding the phrase that begins “Olam…” I also think that the transition between the preceding tercet and the tercet that begins with “Olam” seems a bit abrupt without the italics.
So such is my suggestion above,
eileen
• Code for interrobang, for future reference: ‽
• Changed ‘Derrida again’ to ‘once again’ and added an interrobang
• I also added the interrobang to ‘Change / the station‽ Nah.’
• I agree with doing away with the bold face
• I’d like to add the following tercet for italicisation consideration:
…because I hear it as a song lyric. It might work if placed in quotation marks as well, but would much prefer the italics.
• Just wanted to say that I’m loving these lines today:
• Shouldn’t The Torah be italicised?
• If most of the italics are removed, the Working Notes on Formats will also be deleted, right?
Yay, we’re almost there! 🙂
Ah, bollocks. Hang on, here’s the code: ‽
Funny, I had been listening to Spadau Ballet and I had missed the reference. I think, then, that
should indeed be between inverted commas rather than italics.
And yup, if The Torah is a title as The Bible or The Odyssey, it should be italicized.
Let’s seen if I can post …
Hooray!
To business: removal of boldface: fine w/me. Eileen’s suggestions re what to italicize/what not to: fine w/me.
Torah is a title. I *guess* one could say Torah is like the Bible but that would give *like* a pretty funny twist.
Since the comments re: the title are closed, I don’t know where else to mention this, but a good friend of mine reminds me that The 4 Skins were an 80’s skinhead band and (to quote a description I picked up somewhere) “As is almost inevitable for a skinhead band, the 4 Skins were ultimately branded as racist, sexist (which many people still were in the early 80s) and violent.”
Just thought we ought to consider the association, which he made in an instant, and which others will make, too, before we go public with this thing.
Just being silly w/the Torah/Bible thing. But I’m just home from jury duty, and I’m part of a huge panel out of which a jury will be selected, to decide the fate of 3 young men who murdered or at least killed (could have been self defense) one other young man, and stabbed about half a dozen others … the dead guy’s family was sitting there watching us … only thing I’m glad about – it’s not a capital case …
Above suggestions re italics are fine with me. As with the inverted comma-ed tercet originally penned by Ernesto. And, yes, the working notes should be deleted from poem.
Actually, that tercet is mine. 😉 But I understand the confusion.
Regarding notes about the title, John, I’ll add your friend’s observation to the Title discussion but any administrator here can feel free to add to it, too. When I closed comments, I just thought it was time and I’m done with it.
Glad you’re able to comment again — that was quick!
People will make their own interpretations when the time comes. We can’t direct it.
It’s funny, I watched recently This Is England and saw the “This Was England” photography exhibition on skinheads at the National Film Theatre and I never thought of the possible connections. I guess it would have to be kind of twisted to think that a poem written by four people with our particular last names would call themselves “skins”, and luckily it’s not “four skins’ confessions” but “four skin confessions”. We’d be damned if we let the skinheads have the copyright of the word “skin” (or foreskin for that matter!).
…on the other hand I always get my hair cut “one all over”… (and like Dr Martens shoes…)
LOL 😉
OK. The association w/the “band of evil”‘s been considered and so what? is the consensus. Fine w/me. Just thought it worth mentioning.
It is indeed worth mentioning, John. I personally thank you for having brought up that!
I’ve made all the editing changes on the poem as I understood them from our dialogue, to date. The only things not done are the double returns between sections and indents on Section VI which we’ll leave as last when we think we’re done. I also striked-through for now (rather than deleted) Working Notes in case there’s still some value in the info in it.
We should all check the poem though as I even noticed as I did the edits that we’d missed making one previously-approved edit change. Within the version now up, I also propose retaining the italicized “Dear Ones” in section VI.
Also, to confirm as I don’t know — Is it Torah or The Torah as the title (to be italicized)?
Eileen
Also, does anyone feel Section I goes on too long?
I almost want to end the first section after
where
ground crumbles,
a specific intimacy.
so that the next tercet would begin a new section:
Olam
u-melo’o, a
world and the
Of course, if we left the existing counts unchanged, this would create a 7-section poem.
I’m not pushing the above suggestion but wanting a 2nd opinion as regards Section I (I note that if it is too long, it could have been a function of that we were still in that stage of writing the poem before we began to think it’d be in more than one section)…
eileen
In English it’s often referred to as “the” Torah but I don’t believe “the” is actually part of the name. I’ve looked at several reasonably authoritative books I have at home and tho Torah is often preceded by “the”, “the” is never capitalized. Less authoritatively, but as a clue to usage, if one googles “The Torah” one gets 1.2 million hits. If one googles “Torah” by itself one gets 7.4 million hits. That tells me that more often than not “Torah” does not have a “the” preceding it.
Re: Eileen’s thought that pt 1 could also be parts 1 and 2, I too can feel that
Olam
u-melo’o …
begins a new section. Personally, a poem in 6 or 7 parts, I don’t care. We may have wanted, we may want 6, but if the poem wants 7 …
As for “I also propose retaining the italicized “Dear Ones” in section 6, that’s ok w/me. No problem. It’s fine to emphasize that phrase …
Okay, it’s just Torah (I’ve made the change on the poem).
Also, just to be sure it’s not a typo, John–is “San Gabriels” with that s, indeed, or is it just “San Gabriel”?
And then, I also wouldn’t mind a 2nd check by y’all on
goddamned red wheelbarrow.
Whatever it
is.
I’m not sure I’m getting the aptness of “goddamned”. It seems too angry, if you will, …relative to what goes on before and after it in the poem.
Eileen–
I live at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains. When someone in these here parts leaves out the word mountains, they become the San Gabriels. Just as the Rocky Mountains become the Rockies.
As for
Rest, and
look at this
goddamned red wheelbarrow.
Whatever it
is.
That’s a quote from Jack Spicer. I don’t hear it as angry. I hear it the way I hear his
real unfucking rain
An expression of a kind of an awe in the face of the is-ness of is.
Here’s the whole poem from which the lines come:
A Red Wheelbarrow
Rest and look at this goddamned wheelbarrow. Whatever
It is. Dogs and crocodiles, sunlamps. Not
For their significance.
For their significant. For being human
The signs escape you. You, who aren’t very bright
Are a signal for them. Not,
I mean, the dogs and crocodiles, sunlamps. Not
Their significance.
If the goddamned still bothers you, then the whole bit may have to be rethought.
I actually liked “goddamned”. Makes sense considering the pervasive nature of the WCW poem (I know the reference here is Spicer but Spicer was thinking of WCW washenot).
My copy of the Torah has “The Torah” as the title. “Torah” is the law itself, “The Torah”, as far as I know, is The Book. I’m fine with only italicizing Torah, but what I wanted to mean was reading the book as The Book, and not reading “the law”. Do you know what I mean?
I like ‘goddamned’ — it injects a certain funny cantankerousness to that section, a little jolt and shock that I find quite appealing.
I see glimpses of many faces in this poem, many stories lurking beneath the lines. Those lines, “look at this / goddamned red wheelbarrow” — I can imagine a slightly inebriated old man with a white stubbly beard, swaying, saying it, pointing at the wheelbarrow and being on the verge of tears, a sensitivity masked by a brusque, macho façade.
Anyway, that’s my reading of that bit. 🙂
goddamned it is.
Absolutely it should be the book since that’s what you’d intended Ernesto.
How’s about the open issue re the length of the section of Section I. John and I have commented; await Ivy and Ernesto input on that, if any.
And of course I encourage looking over the poem as it now stands for other potential spots that may need the tweak.
Okay, I deleted the working notes as I thought it’d be useful to be able to see the poem as clearly as possible (but I stil have the info if anyone needs them).
Then, as regards the creation of sections, and being aware that I mostly instigated them, my point on the first section being too long would make the count to be 7 sections, which I know some of us are reluctant to do. If you agree the first section is too long, two things can happen to retain the six-section structure:
1) look at the poem overall to redo where sections begin
or
2) let’s have a first section with subset so that the count would be
1A
1B
2
3
4
5
6
The second option retains the “six” and there’s no reason, this being a poem, why we can’t be creative with numbering.
Not wedded again to any of above. But I think — per John’s comment already that he agreed the section could end sooner — there may be something in this area to adjust.
But if people are fine with the sections as currently created, let us know, too.
I also thought of numbering 1 a and b so obviously I’m fine with that.
I’m also fine with capitalizing The in The Torah, tho I’d like to ask Ernesto whether the prefatory material if any includes the capitalization, or whether it’s simply part of the title capitalization convention.
It might be worth noting that the Hebrew word for book is Sefer. (I don’t really know Hebrew, but I can fake mess w/it a bit)
I think that The Torah means The Law, or The Teaching. But of course to Jews Torah (or The Torah) *is* The Book (which means it is the everything, but that’s – almost – another story).
I like the second option, Eileen, if you can see an appropriate stopping off point.
Congratulations on being the 100th comment, John! 🙂
From the introduction by Rabbi Rodney J. Mariner, February 1996:
“The Torah is the first of the three books that make up the Tanach, the Hebrew Bible. […] But the Torah itself has a much wider application; it describes not only the single scroll from which the scriptures are read with great ceremony in Synagogue services to this day, but also the entire body of Jewish learning that is continuing and expanding in our present time.
It is probably this latter usage that provides the best definition of the word Torah, which, in the minds of too many, is translated simply as “Law”. […]
Whilst the Torah remains part of the world’s most bought book, the Bible, it is perhaps paradoxically, if not the least read book, then the least understood. As a piece of classical literature, it is often approached by the reader as if it were a text such as Homer’s Iliad […]”
From The Torah, Kuperand, London: 2004
The Zohar, “core book of Jewish mysticism”, teaches that God “looked into the Torah and created the world”.
“Seven things were created before the creation of the world. They are: the Torah … [and 6 others, not relevant here]. … All seven preceded the creation of the world by two thousand years … The celestial Torah was written in black fire on white fire, and lay in the lap of God” …
From: *Tree of Souls* by Howard Schwartz, 2004
Question: it’s been silent here a while. Are we done??
I’ve edited the poem to input the “1a)” and “1b)” distinctions since everyone (ernesto included?) seems okay with that.
Are we done? Let’s do this–Everyone sign off here “I’m done” if they’re fine with the poem as is. When all four of us do so, then we’re done. Okay?
I need another read when I’m less tired. But I suggest we all read it now and then sign off — or not.
eileen
Yes, I’m ok with the 1a, 1b, of course. Reminds me (again) of music (or paragraphs in philosophy).
I just wanted to say that the Zohar is a book I read extensively. “La interpretación crea firmamentos” is a phrase that will always be with me. I owe that to Esther Cohen, Mexican Jewish scholar who translated it into Spanish.
I’m fine with the poem as is.
And I embrace you all.
‘Tis grand. Stick a fork in me. I’m done.
Abrazos,
Moi aussi
Well, I made two more changes in sections I originally contributed. In Section 1, I changed the word “dispel” to “quell” so that the tercet reads as
I
write books
to quell pronouns
Is that okay with others? That third line had bothered me for a while because I always thought the rhythm was off…and I think moving from the two-syllable “dispel” to one-syllable “quell” helps move it better.
Secondly, in Section VI, I changed the tercet
which is to
say, their
humanity.
to
words blooming flesh
touching other
flesh.
Let me know if you have problems with above.
Anyway, for now, that’s as far as I can go with the poem. Which is to say, I don’t know if I’m done but, for now, that’s as far as I can go. If the above 2 changes are fine with you (for convenience, I’d inputted them already in the poem), we can address logistics of what to do next. I have a suggestion on what to do next but I’ll do that under the “Administrator’s Notebook” section, unless someone else has an idea of where to put comments on that.
Eileen
Eileen, I like yr changes
Me too.
I’ve been writing a paper on the film adaptation of V for Vendetta (originally a graphic novel). Alan Moore, the writer, emphasizes in an article how the story is strictly the outcome of teamwork between him and David Lloyd, the illustrator.
They did this novel in 1983, so there was no Internet, and they mainly collaborated via the post and phone calling each other.
Some quotes that made me think of the experience of working the four of us together in this poem are the following, which I wanted to share with you, hoping you don’t mind my using this space for such a thing:
“It is the history of any strip or book or whatever, this is the moment where you get your real reward… the moment when all of the half-ideas and idiocies gel into something that is much more than the sum of its parts and thus entirely unexpected and utterly beautiful”. (273)
“Of course, as a comic strip begins to grow beyond its creators one experiences a certain feeling of nervousness at not knowing where the strip is going to go next. On the other hand, there is a massive sense of excitement and creativity in such an unrestricted venture. I suppose it must be feel like surfing on a tidal wave… it feels great while you’re doing it but you’re not really sure of either where you’re going to end up or whether you’ll still be one piece when you get there.” (274)
Those changes are fine with me, Eileen.