From: donz@uiunix.ui.org (Don Zirilli)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: suggestions for Alex / Marek (Re: Artifacts)
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:30:00 GMT
Organization: UNIX International, Parsippany, NJ

I know I'm trying not to get into these little arguments, but since part of
this group should be dedicated to criticism, and since Marek's criticism is
so ridiculous, I just had to open my trap.

Now here's a contents for those interested in maybe skipping this article:

I. flaming of Marek

II. a vague outline of his aesthetics, Alex', and my own

III. a defense of Alex' poem against Marek's attack

IV. further analysis of Alex' poem


Marek writes: (with a >   )
Alex writes:  (with a +  )
+
+Oh...its soooo easy.
+
+
+
+
+Artifacts
+---------
+ 
+
+in a trash can 
+near her bed
+
+a wasted rose 
+and a condom full of love
+
+
+
+Alex L. Karan 
+(does this even hold on its own?)
+

>Um, no.  The sparseness makes it easy to pick apart, though.

>1)  why wasted rose?  A dead rose, a wilted rose, a wasted away rose, a
>    dessicated rose, a parched rose, a rose -- yes, but a wasted rose
>    implies that the rose is a tool, an implement, an opportunity that
>    failed.  But did it?  From the context either the she in the poem (to
>    quote the lovable way Joe Green refers to women, on whose behalf he
>    fought so fiercely in Veitnam an in rap, but I digress...) got the
>    rose herself or had it given.  If the former, it is irrelevant to the
>    condom stuff that follows, if she was given the rose, the condom stuff
>    that follows ties the rose to the condom stuff.  Judging from the mere
>    presence of the condom in the poem, the rose was not wasted.  It served
>    its purpose.  But that is a bit too crass for me , and I don't know if
>    it was intended so I will not say more about that.  Either way,
>    a "wasted rose" does not follow.  

Yes, you as a poet are constantly equating sex with love.  This stance can
work, but it's not the only stance.  It is possible for a rose to be wasted
even if there was sex afterwards.  "wasted" has such clear connotations
that your suggestions for alternatives are ridiculous.  You may be aware of
that and intended them as an as a jocular insult.  So be it.

>2)  Condom full of love?  Alex, I feel inadequate all of a sudden.  I use
>    the Ramses with tip, with Spermicide, you know, the ones in the silver
>    box with the purple trim (most of the time, anyway), and I have *never*
>    even come close to filling one.  I think it would take a minotaur, or at
>    least one of Marie's ISU ruminanats -- probably one of the more
>    experimental ones...  I think this image is rather imprecise. :)

Proceed to three.  This image does not have to be precise the way you mean
it.  Precise is how you, marek, write poetry.

>3)  Full of love, is a cliche and badly placed.  Why not full of life
>    instead, or full of jism, or full of dead life?, or full of dying?,
>    or just, wryly and ironically, "a fullfilled condom"?

"full of love" is wry and ironic.  "full of jism" is as ridiculous a
replacement as "a dessicated rose".

>The piece has a feel of a failed haiku.  

it does fail as a haiku.  Since it is not trying to be a haiku, however,
that is not relevant.

It also appears to try to make a
>moralizing point and I think, if anything, makes unwarranted meal of a
>fucked girls aesthetics.  

You certainly have your own ideas about a fucked girl's aesthetics, but
they are not dogmatic.  This poem is not as moralizing as you say.  The two
final images are striking and simple, yes, and the first two images create
the setting simply.  But it is not a simple moral statement.  It's morality
is enigmatic, just as the story is enigmatic.  You don't know why the rose
is wasted, no matter how sarcastically you ask the question.  All you know
is that its symbolic connotations were unneeded that night, or uneffective.
"Effective" does not have to mean sex.  This is the ambiguity that you
don't seem to be able to grasp or, more likely, refuse to grasp because of
your own aesthetic of love and fucking, which you think are one and the
same (and which I think are unrelated).  Nor does "effective" even have to
mean love!

Personally, I think fucked girls have every
>reason to have nice poetry written for them, poetry that attempts to find
>their views, rather than seeking juxtapositions of corny symbols that, on
>my reflection, are rather uncommunicative.  


You say uncommunicative, I say enigmatic.  Let's call the whole thing off.

This is acase of a poem that
>tries to be something that it is not.

You are to harsh in assuming what this poem tries to be.  This time you
have not chosen a lightweight to pick on, so be sure that you keep your
left up.
>				-- Marek


Yours,

Posthumous O'Toole, Defender of the Realm
Newsgroups: rec.arts.poems