Non-Editorializing

in “Poem Club”

Fox News, CNN, Jim Bob’s Manure and Chicken Plucking Farm Report—you cannot get away from the heaps and heaps of weeping, sobbing and generalized all around bubblegum brained babbling in content today. What in the hell has happened to good-ol’ persona removed reporting?!

As mentioned just recently; no one gives a furry rat’s behind, what your feelings and comments are. Just report the flippin’ story; concentrating on getting your details right, your butchering of the English language to a minimum. It’s “pled” not “pleaded” for cryin’ out friggin’ loud! And anyone who respects this fading language (“American” not really “English” any longer…thank gawd!) anyone who cares will agree. And I don’t give a r.f.a. what your idiot English teacher sez you’re allowed to degenerate tense down into. It’s still, “pled”!

Sorry for the segue…

When constructing a “poem,” one will notice, present tense seems to provide the most energy and draw the reader along far better than past tense. A good way to work into present tense is to utilize historic present tense (aka Homeric present-tense.) Most of the really fine journalist/literature authors utilize historic p.t.

   And even more evident in the more finely distilled wines—lack of a personal presence. The narrator does not include themselves in the scene.

Whenever possible, no first person usage. (First rule of “poem club.”)

   The Second rule of “poem club”: keep your opinions to yourself. No one wants to hear (have a piece ruined by) your input. Leave out anything, any goop that smacks of, I, me, mine, I believe, oh my gawd, such carnage, such action, this is horrifying,  such calm, oh the blood and the gore…, it was a beautiful sunny morning, god bless them, they lived happily ever after, etc. etc. Leave this sort of Thumper-and-Bambi tripe to Disney and the news bobble-heads and their cadre of apparently under-educated prompt writers.

   Consider the notable news commentators; Walter Cronkite, Charlie Rose, the Walter Winchells, their usual persona detachment from the story. Their professionalism. Not that they weren’t (aren’t) emotionally invested—they just stick to getting the facts across in an engaging manner and let the listener determine the emotional value and investment they wish to undertake for themselves. Telling readers what they should think and feel—wow! how grade-school is this. Show, not tell…

   All of these types of emotions and opinions are quite easily described within the confines of the story within the “poem” in a perfectly detached manner. And if they can’t be encapsulated in the verse, guess what? they’re not needed.

Mas Mtn. Dew,  Max tdc

Slammin’ Slams

Always reliable for providing  brain bubblegum and mostly a fair tool for research, if one spends a reasonable amount of effort researching the research…the internet.

There is always something to be learned from another’s writing. Sometimes it just takes a bit of winnowing of the chaff to get to the grain…

Late night, letting my mouse take me on a journey through the morass of “poetry” refuse jamming up the ether. A somewhat catchy blog title: Should Poetry Slams be Put to Sleep?  (11-22-2006 by StrUHT) snags my attention. Then the, not unexpected, disappointment sets in as the article spirals down mimicking the mundane effort of the title and the author quickly tangents into a monologue of his qualifications and awards and all-around hip-hip-hooray good Hanna pass the gravy—complete with exclamation marks! Ever (really) addressing the title issue? No. Not hardly.

The only relevant component of the “article”, the closing paragraph which in essence observed: The credibility  (“credibility” mentioned or addressed nowhere previously in the article) Credibility of a “poet”/performer needs to be initiated by each “poets’” clarity of themself and their ability. Huh? That’s bringing us full circle again; allowing the inmates to run the asylum.

   The “poet,” apparently, being the only one able to judge whether or not they are “performing” just to be on stage, or are trying to impart “…something truly worthy of consideration within the soul. …”

   Ok. A fair statement. It is indeed up to the “poet” to determine their own premise in reciting (performing) before an audience—still not addressing the sludge that is produced and the authors of said sludge, ego-driven to never address improvement, never get beyond grandma-ma applauding her shriveled hands to shreds supporting these unfinished attempts.  

Wouldn’t one then come to the conclusion: this is why there is such an overwhelming prevalence of crap writing out there. It is too easy to be recognized by those who wouldn’t know a “poem” from a donut-hole. Of course (exclamation point!) your grandmother is going to clap for your effort—leaning to her companion (dragged kicking and screaming to bolster ol’ granny) and whispering, I wish Elrod wouldn’t use the “f” word so often…

Right on Elrod. Just keep f…..n’ it up and you’ll become a noted bard. Right…

A few (edited) misc. notes picked up along this latest journey; seeming to actually make some sense.

·        Performance “poets” have some desire to be appreciated by others. Agreed.

·        Most audiences would prefer to understand that which is being spoke at ’em. One would think, Bub. Why then, do we insist on writing in convoluted circles with references that only we—as in our self and self alone—are privy to?

·        Audiences are reasonably willing to suss out the meaning of a “poem.” Why, then, do we make it so difficult? Write for the audience …no one really gives a furry rat’s behind what your feelings are as the story-teller; the individual, bottom-most line: the audience is only interested in what entertains or is directly relevant to them. Just suck it up and pander to that end-game. Then, watch your “audience points” rise. Plenty of time later to have engraved, your finest, personally introspective hour, on your granite tombstone.

·        Many (hmmmm? Most?) “poets” write (and then perform) of experiences or situations which only they can related to—apparently, caring not the loss of their audience. Ephemeral blue haze personal emotions fall easily into this trap.

   If one is a writer of limited specialty, ie. automotive or truck or train, or gerbil raising—what is the net audience for these subjects? Most likely nil or less,. Should one not write of these tangentials? heck no—write about them, the world needs to live and have available to them interests beyond their own, stifling little microcosm. This is where an audience might actually be interested in your strange little world. The trick is then: limited interest subjects need to be addressed in such a way, that an explanation—either direct or strongly associated and implied—is carefully included in the work. Otherwise, the little ol’ lady in the back row will be consternated no end by the term, V-8. Wondering why in the hell you’re revving up your eight vegetables and spices breakfast drink with a four-on-the-floor…?!

Logic and consideration mi amigos e amigas…

Max tdc