Alchemy

Not too 'clever clever'? ;-) I like this idea a lot, and it's executed deftly. Just two links for me that don't work very well: "a Cuban cigar/is a body in a carpet" and "the sun through the mist/is phlegm in a hankie" For the first, I think you can just go straight to the 'falafel wrap'. The body in the carpet seems an unnecessary link that is further from either of the surrounding metaphors than they are from each other. Not sure what to suggest for the second - I just don't really get how the sun through the mist is like phlegm in a hankie. Surely, the sun holds its shape too well. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

"I dont like clever that isnt sparky, and only admires itself - this doesn't." But what does that mean? 'Clever that admires itself'? I can recognise when a person is self-admiring - laughing at their own jokes etc - but how does a poem do that? I dunno. For me there's just clever or not. Either something strikes me as a brill idea, or it doesn't. Could it be that what you describe as 'clever that admires itself' is possibly just when you don't *actually* think it's clever, but whatever the not-clever thing is is the focus of the poem. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Old toby score? No, I'm just wrangling over what is 'clever clever' and what is simply 'clever'. I don't think you dislike clever work - I'm trying to get at what this difficult 'clever clever' category is. Joe's poem is, really, only about itself, and, to a degree, is showing off. I *don't* think this is a bad thing, but *if* you, or someone else, had said that it was "a bit too 'clever clever'" I wouldn't have been bowled over with shock. I'd have just thought, "Hmm, so-and-so doesn't like it then." And that's because I think all it comes down to, when you're distinguishing 'clever' from 'clever clever' is really just, 'Is it clever or isn't it?' If it *is*, then it is. If it *isn't*, but seems to be fixated on one trick or idea, that's when you seem to adopt the 'clever clever' accusation. I can't find a way to say it very simply. What I'm suggesting is that there is no 'clever clever' category at all - that when you use that phrase, you're just saying the poem is not actually clever, but behaves like it is. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

For my part, I thought it was neither 'clever clever' nor 'clever'. The idea's quite nice - taking the puzzles you used to get in Dangermouse annuals that went 'Change BREAD into BUTTER in eight steps' and doing it via metaphors - but none of the metaphors are particularly striking (just apt - yes, a cloud of balloons is a bit like a mushroom cloud, but so what?) and there's no nuance or depth that rewards a second reading. It's a very good idea, a mon avis, but not an especially good poem. Sorry.

BREAD BEAD BEAT BAT BATH BATHE BATHER BATTER BUTTER All right! LEAD LOAD GOAD GOLD Woohoo!

I *especially* liked the 'thousand balloons/aspirin dissolving/sun through the mist' lines. Phlegm in a hankie has that same translucent quality as sun through the mist; well, alright, it depends on how serious the cold is, I suppose, but I got the imagery the first time round, and thought it wonderful. Not clever clever at all; just vivid lateral thinking. Then again, most things Spack writes are wonderful, IMO. I am weak with envy.

Yeah, but Tim - though I'm sure Joe will humbly agree with you - it *is* making a statement about language. If metaphors can turn lead into gold, then what else can a clever wordsmith do? It's saying 'language can make anything seem like anything else', which, though it might seem obvious, is still quite a bold statement. Dangermouse annuals never did that, although I suspect that's actually what Johnson's 'The Alchemist' was all about. "...there's no nuance or depth that rewards a second reading." So have you moved on from the idea that a poem can be something that is simply read and understood in one go? What we need, Liana, is an example of a poem that you think is 'clever clever'. That way I can compare that one to this and try to nail exactly what the distinction is supposed to be. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'It's saying 'language can make anything seem like anything else', which, though it might seem obvious, is still quite a bold statement. Dangermouse annuals never did that, although I suspect that's actually what Johnson's 'The Alchemist' was all about.' Well, I wasn't implying the poem was on a par with Dangermouse annuals, (not that I'm denigrating DM annuals either) that was just where I remembered the word game from. What I was trying to explain (and this is just my subjective reaction to the poem - I'm not trying to be definitive) is that while the concept's a good one, there's not much in the execution - for me, at least - that makes it worth a second read. It's a list poem with a series of apt, but not brilliant, metaphors. In my humble opinion, if you're going to do something like that, all your lines have to be brilliant, and largely unexpected. Saying that a mushroom is like a mushroom cloud doesn't constitute originality, a mon avis. Simon Armitage's 'Not The Furniture Game' does the metaphor-list-poem really well, a mon avis, because his metaphors are often weird and disturbing.

Yeah, but, with respect, Tim, your taste isn't really for simple language. I think some of Joe's images work best because they're not overly complicated, yet have a lot of resonance. 'A severed head' is quite a politically charged image, as is the 'nuclear test'. In terms of 'second reading' rewards, what I think is most beguiling about the poem is how the metaphors change the tone. Mushroom to mushroom cloud isn't a great leap in terms of shape, but in terms of scale and theme it does shift the focus an awful lot. Metaphors that just compare two things you've never compared before may be 'striking' but they're also a bit shallow. Far better that the comparison isn't such a great leap of the imagination, but actually moves the poem along. Haven't read the Armitage poem, but I generally find Armitage a bit cold. Sometimes very clever, sure, but not really my bag. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

'Metaphors that just compare two things you've never compared before may be 'striking' but they're also a bit shallow.' Well, it's certainly *possible* that they're shallow, granted, but they're not *necessarily* so. A mushroom being a nuke cloud isn't just a metaphor - it's a sixty-year-old cliché. Every switch in the poem is a visual one, from concrete object to concrete object. If there were leaps between sounds, smells, emotions, ideas - *that* might have been striking. A pen is a stick is a canoe is a mocasin is a fort - so what?

"Well, it's certainly *possible* that they're shallow, granted, but they're not *necessarily* so." I did say "metaphors that *just* compare two things..." ie. do nothing else. The mushroom isn't a nuke cloud - it's a nuke test. I'd say it's using the mushroom cloud cliche to connect it to something that remains current (the mushroom cloud image itself is, for now, strongly associated with grainy film images and WW2 - whereas nuclear testing is still in the papers). Now, the objects may be concrete, but the connections between them aren't just visual. 'Severed head' to 'hatstand' is functional. 'Falafel wrap' to 'suspicious package' *is* visual, but is also kinesthetic and does the interesting (although, in this context, confusing) trick of reflecting back on the first image. It makes me think of a falafel wrap as being of dubious content. 'Nuclear test' to a 'release of a thousand balloons' is visual, but is interesting because it makes an innocent and playful thing out of something inexplicably associated with greed and fear. Switching to smells etc. seems a troublesome road. For one thing, I'd have to think harder to see it ending pleasantly - at the moment, all I can think of is noxious stuff like 'her body is like the smell of newly mown hay is like my favourite James Blunt song'. For another, it would rob this poem of what I think is impressive - that is, working within the limits of concrete objects. If each object is like the next, then surely the first should be like the last? That it isn't is a testament to subtle alterations in the chain of images. Changing the links to all experiences makes it too easy. 'A piece of lead piping is a weapon in your hand is the cold weight of responsibility is a big bar of gold.' ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I'm inclined to agree with rokkitnite. The poem needs some kind of emotive layer for it to work for me. I get bored of all those 'is' iterations. The idea is OK, though not overly fresh imv. It's not really enough to save the fact that from the first 2 lines I know this is going to end in a bar of gold. -- My blog: The Smug Gnome

Have to say, this poem does not impress me one jot. Spack has written much more interesting, unusual and perceptive poetry. I think it is a bit lazy. Spack would indeed, I suspect, humbly agree. He got loads more good poems in him. Span

Yay, the joy of not having had internet access for days and then discovering your piece has been flagged. Thanks for the discussion guys. So yeah, this is fairly show-offy but I've never had a problem with that as long - as Jon points out - it doesn't pretend to be anything more 'deep'. It started as a speed poem that was just an attempt - as an exercise - to get from one image to another. From Mushroom to Spiral. It was called: Poet feels sense of alienation Mushrooms are explosions are trees are broccoli are bronchioles are fractals are coastlines seen from space are seams are train tracks are braces are scaffolding are ribcages are xylophones are teeth are rows of graves are terraced streets are Yorkies are cargo trains are rollercoasters are curly straws are spirals. Then I thought of the alchemy thing and, actually, I really liked the idea of the poem saying Poetry 1 - Science Nil. The idea that imagination can go round the corners that science cannot. Fairly obvious idea but worth writing a poem about. As for Rokkit saying that the metaphors being purely visual - I don't think that's true. Jack explains better than I could about how the different metaphors function. The severed head to hatstand thing is more of a gag than it is visual. And if the metaphors didn't abide by certain rules the poem would be far too short, or too abstract. The difficult thing was making the metaphors develop by the right degree so that each new image felt like a step but not a short cut. Originally I had "the release of balloons is a diver drowning is an aspirin dissolving" but I thought this was a bit too much of a leap, not fitting with the tone of the images that had come before it. Span - this is not supposed to be an opus. It's supposed to be fun. I don't think lazy is fair - this fucker took me hours and I did think about what I was doing/saying. Anyway, this poem was never going to yank your heart strings but I don't think every poem needs to try and do this. This poem still says the thing I care most about: "yay for imagination!" Ta! Joe

Hi Emma, The point of the poem is not the images but the rather gimmicky idea that poetry can turn lead into gold. It may be a bit of fun but that doesn't stop it being poetry. The criticism that it's not poetry because "it doesn't resonate enough of the universal" stems from a misguided perception of poetry. So much of the world's bad poetry is written in search of the universal. The idea that a poem needs to make some timeless connection ties in with a poet's ego more than anything else. If this poem fails - which it may well do - it's not because it doesn't attain the universal. When I'm writing, the further I move away from this clumsy romantic idea of "poetry", the closer I am to achieving something worthwhile. Joe

"...it's a game really and a bit of fun, a meandering with words, but it's not poetry." Oh no - I'm not having this. It's got metaphors, it's got imagery, it's got themes, it's got a message - it's poetry. If poetry can't be a game, and fun, then it can fuck off. I've read enough soul-trawling wankery already, and I want poetry to be a heck of a lot more than a thousand variants of Sylvia Plath whingeing. 'Fun' poetry is a heck of a lot harder to do - too often it comes across as 'wacky'. And Joe doesn't need to 'hone his skills' - or, at least, he needs to only to the extent that every practising poet constantly needs to. He's not a beginner. He knows what he's doing. You can trust that there's a good reason each image was chosen here, and that if he'd wanted to go for complex 'wowzer - I'd never thought of that!' metaphors he could and would have. The purpose here though is to use those subtly shifting concrete images to constantly shift the tone and meaning of the piece. The smallest linguistic shifts (mushroom to mushroom cloud) can completely change the entire landscape of the poem, and a swift series of them perform alchemy. Turning lead to gold is itself representative of a more spiritual alchemy, so the whole thing is also one giant metaphor. You can't get much more Universal imagery these days than nuclear testing, severed heads and suspicious packages, nor more resonant a message than 'imagination and language can take us to a higher plain'. There are a few things I'd change, but on the whole, it's a more worthwhile piece than so many of the love and loss poems that soak up space in poetry periodicals, and it would screw it up totally if he was using sprawling, miles-away-from-each-other metaphors. Aside from that, it's just nice to see a poem written with simple images like this. Too often people seem to praise a poem mostly for one or two 'breathtaking images' which are single fireworks going off in a poem that is otherwise just cloudy night sky. Rather a coordinated magic lantern show. "But I didnt say that Hen. You did. Please see your first post." But it's your phrase. You didn't say it on this thread, but you've said it on others, and you're the only person I've seen use it! I assume that it means roughly the same as 'smart-arse' or 'too clever for its own good', and I just don't really understand where you'd draw the line between something that is simply clever, and something which is double-clever. I brought it up on this thread because it occurred to me that this is the sort of thing you, or someone else, might accuse of being 'clever clever' ie. it is self-regarding and show-offy. Since you don't, it leaves me with no real idea where you draw the line. I mean, I guess it's just a gut feeling thing.

I think what constitutes poetry is actually not too hard to get to the bottom of in logical terms. Poets endlessly babble over the issue (and sometimes make asses of themselves with bloated, purple descriptions) because they want to define the feeling they get from poetry, not what it technically is, and because people in every vaguely romantic field seem to believe that it's that much more mysterious and eternal than the rest (including mathematicians). There is anger in the phrase 'soul-trawling wankery', certainly, because a lot of people seem to think that's what poetry is *all* about, rather than it being an art form that has as much range as any. I don't think good poetry is necessarily separate from ego. Some poets - Leonard Cohen is my favourite example - are essentially clown poets. They make something fun and meaningful out of their ego. It's emotional slapstick - they make a kind of comedy out of their private affairs. It has Universal resonances because we all have egos, and much of what we experience in relation to them is very similar. Now, I don't know how separate Cohen is from his poetry, but I don't think it matters. Poets who are too separate - who write something and then let it go completely - often come across as very cold and technical. I tend to prefer the work of writers whose writing is tied up in themselves, who have something at stake. Their writing is more likely to be 'flawed' but that makes it all the more stronger. I mean, I do read a lot of poetry that is technically fine, but doesn't leave me with any impression of character. And character is crucial in art that you *love*, rather than simply admire. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

Yeah, I realised what had happened and edited my post. Not fast enough though! "So what's the difference between 'soul-trawling wankery' and any other use of ego by an artist?" 'Soul-trawling wankery' usually projects the image of the poet as a tragic or noble creature, gentle and sensitive. Clown poetry (and I think Catallus and Rimbaud do this a lot) projects the image of the poet as a bit of a loser or fool, perhaps a brute. So I find the latter more honest in terms of how we feel about ourselves - the former is, for me, really, just as false as any macho posturing. It's more about elevating and dressing up their ego than allowing it into their poetry. 'Confessional poetry', for instance, I like the sound of, in theory. But often it isn't confessional at all, but more a case of a person using poetry to disguise their spiritual untidyness as a kind of heart-break ballet. ~ I'll Show You Tyrants * Fuselit * The Prowl Log * Woe's Woe

I have to say, this thread is fascinating. It's good to see some inspired passion! Spack, I especially enjoy hearing about the creative process from the horse's mouth - for the same reason I also get obsessive about the "special features" on DVDs. So thanks for that. For the record, I quite like the poem: it's not going to change anyone's life but I don't think that was the point of it. It's obviously an excercise in imagery by someone who enjoys excercising in imagery. More of the same, please!

Love that phrase. We could have it as a category. Autobiography / Fiction / Soul-trawling wankery ~ www.fabulousmother.com

Yes that category would be awesome. The problem would be that, only a very honest eyed person would put their stuff in it. Everyone thinks they don't do it. Spack, sorry, still think this is lazy. I mean I can see that you have worked at it, I do not mean lazy in that sense. But I feel like I have seen you do it before. It is very clever and imaginative, I thought so the first time around. A worthy exercise though and as you often say, I am one to talk. That is enough from me on this autumn Sunday evening. hannah x

Yes that category would be awesome. The problem would be that, only a very honest eyed person would put their stuff in it. Everyone thinks they don't do it. Spack, sorry, still think this is lazy. I mean I can see that you have worked at it, I do not mean lazy in that sense. But I feel like I have seen you do it before. It is very clever and imaginative, I thought so the first time around. A worthy exercise though and as you often say, I am one to talk. That is enough from me on this autumn Sunday evening. hannah x

ooo look at you lot being clever. It was good until the phlegm bit. Don't get that. You're all jam-packed with crap. I bet it took him 30 seconds to jot and you're going at it like you've been gagged for the last week. **and exhale** maybe we should have a forum entitled: how to write alot without really saying bugger-all There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Span - laziness implies that it's a poem that I couldn't be bothered to finish or to push to the limits of its possibility. You can accuse it of being a small, insignificant or pointless even but I don't think this poem is a missed opportunity. You suggest that - if I were not a lazy writer - I would have come up with something better or taken the poem further. I don't think so. It's a very simple piece that makes only one point. It may bore you. But it's not lazy. Joe

I agree buts it's tough to think of alternatives. What would you have instead of 'is'? "Becomes"? This fits in with the idea of transformation better. Joe

Oooh, I rather like that. Thanks Emma! Joe

Stop getting you knickers in a twist Spack. I can not even count the amount of conversations I have had with you in which you try to persuade me that everyone should be able to express teh precise reason they did not enjoy a piece of someone's work on this site. I found the poem lazy because I know how easy it is for you to write this sort of thing. Perhaps my judgement is coloured by knowing you and where your skills lie. I expressed a simple opinion and of course if you wish, you do not have to even process it, but whatever you do, do it graciously. Cheers, Span

My knickers are flat and smooth, Spanuel. I wasn't denying you your opinion - but I was arguing an opposing point of view. This should be fine also. It's not easy for me to write this sort of thing. I find it far easier to write a non-concept lead poem. One that babbles on about bikes or food or some such. I do - however - "take your point", I just think you're wrong. Sorry. Can we still be friends? Joe x

PAUL PAL PAY GAY