.

less. more less. distill. come down.
downer. weed cut dismiss
raw lean. slice quieter.

drain. overcooked paraphernalia bloats
shoes filled with slimes flotsam boats.

swim in each toe. each grained
thread of skinless hair.

softer. slower. closer. still moreless.

breath of join and isle
of smite
cliff over bitten morassy sassy crag.

close opened. withdraw extended.

each. endjoined.

circumplete.

amputated from tinsel chockle grabble
and smuggled gaggles

the left
is over rites

.

I love that you use language in this way. It sounds great to my ear. I have just been saying it out loud.

What is this about, and what are you trying to say?

Does it have to be about something?

It does for me. It can be surreal or Dada, but if it's not clear to me that that is what's going on, I can't relate.

When I read this it made me think of several things. First it made me want to consider my own writing and thinking and how to condense it into the tiniest of things all the while being tugged and pulled into the density of life. Hard thing to do. This poem felt to me as if the author was trying to describe that disjointedness as well as the desire to condense things to their essences. I'm a big Haiku fan. I think for the same reason. The condensation of what "is".

I like how wylde twists words to highlight them, for example he often uses the word "rite" to mean "write" and sometimes "right". Now that I see that he does that each of his words take on a blurry of images for me. I do leave his "rites"/writes with questions or vague feelings or strange images. I suppose that is what I like about it. It often gives me that satisfying feeling that I get when I go to a visual art museum. That being said, I think Tony has a valid question, "What does it all "mean"?" Is it a splattering of words and the author is giggling at those that would read him? Is a carefully carved symphony? (often I feel that wylde's writing is just that. The sounds and creative word inventions make me feel that way.)

But wylde, what does it mean? How are "you" trying to communicate with the other? And how would you like the reader to approach your poems? Interesting questions that I would love to hear more from you on.

For me the words do not have to make any literal sense. This piece conjours up a mood for me. It's like reading a cut up novel. You don't know what it is about but after a while it sinks in. The subconscious mind doesn't need to understand words in sequence or in a logical way but can digest it whole, so to speak. I like work like this because it questions how we use language.

If you ask a viewer what an abstract painting is about it will be hard for them to give you and answer but if you ask the viewer how it makes them feel then they will, and each viewer will have their own take on it.

OK. Well, I guess I'm the wrong person to offer critique on your stuff then...I'm all about subconscious and unconscious influences on poems, weird imagery, etc. But I like to get there from real life.

That's not a complaint, by the way...not at all. Just that I'm not the guy to look at this stuff.

Hang on. This isn't my work. I don't often write abstract poetry. I just appreciate it.

As I read it I imagine myself coming into land by boat, my shoes filled with water, I picture a cove and a cliff face, perhaps some scattered boats and signs of life on the land, houses etc. I have the feeling of being disconnected but not unwillingly. It isn't an uncomfortable poem, it has a sense of ease about it, and also a sense of purpose. This is just what I get from it, I think it is definitely open to interpretation.

Also the word slice in the first stanza makes me think of an oar or blades entering the water at an angle, and so suggesting a rowing boat or a motor boat rather than a sail boat. My initial thought was a rowing boat. I think it is because of the description of softly slowing down, more indicative of oars than a motor. Breaking it down like this is a bit like explaining a joke. I prefer to just let the imagery wash over me and not question it.

I don't think it matters if I am right or wrong.

Sorry -- missed that.

"close opened. withdraw extended.

each. endjoined.

circumplete.

amputated from tinsel chockle grabble
and smuggled gaggles

the left
is over rites"


This describes the action of rowing.

Left over right

The more I read this, the more I love it. It is a gem. Beautiful play on words. It makes me very happy to have read this.


Wylde: I don't think anything needs changing as far as I can see. It works very well.

I have noted previously that I do not understand this style of poetry. Nonsensical verse that eschews literal meaning and conventional syntax is not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion, but there must be something to make it cohesive and phonetically intriguing. This is disjointed and jarring and devoid of meaning, even abstract meaning. After I read it, I come away with nothing.

Perhaps that is what you intended, wylde. I am not being disrespectful..there are many genres and styles of poetry. I do appreciate deconstruction and innovation..you are indeed an original. There is room for everyone.

I like coming back to read this. My latest thought was that this was bits and pieces of other poems and ideas glued together.

I have an artist friend here in Boston who teaches at Mass Art School. She does sculpture where first she deconstructs then she glues things back together, for example a hunk of wood that she makes part of it sawdust than uses glue and the sawdust to rebuild what she has removed. For some reason this reminds me of that.

I should have come here before commenting - but then I would still think it was about what I wrote in my comment. I suspect Wylde is loving our interpretations (ok, maybe not mine - but everybody else's).

Doris - does your sculptor friend have a website? Just askin'...

I never read Wylde looking for a particular meaning. I'm looking for the hidden doorway that opens.

This one gives me the sense of coming into and out of consciousness, and the joining of seeming opposite things at their tails. Shedding off all the bullshit to strip down to the one tiny true thing. It has a sexual element about it, too.

I am slowly learning to appreciate Wylde. At least, I think I am. Maybe he will correct me. My feeling is that he uses words to create an atmosphere and a mood. In this one, from my point of view, the mood is set by the words "come down" in L1. The rest is about disintegration into leftovers, as suggested by the ending. As I see it, the literal meaning of the words is not relevant, they are chosen only for the purpose of conveying the mood. Rather like a surrealist painting. I think this poem works well (if I am reading it right).

lukaki26 wrote:

I love that you use language in this way. It sounds great to my ear. I have just been saying it out loud.

exactly the way my 'writing' is intended to be heard. even spoken silently within ones owns head.

thank you for your insight. it is very much valued.

I shall return (i will be away for a few days until next week sometime) and then try as articulately as possible address each of your valued responses.

for now i can simply default to my stock response - ie how does one "understand" a jackson pollock painting - in a literal & linear way? its not possible.
it may leave you feeling with a feeling of nothing. perhaps that is something.
unmoved is unmoved.
it may connect on an emotive level and therefore garner some appreciation.
it is also a fact of having no right or wrong way of interpretation.
it is personal experience.
or it is not.

to paraphrase picasso - "i do not paint what i see, i paint what i feel"


foggs - sorry this particular piece left you unmoved, you cant win em all heh -

i still very much value a comment you once made on a piece of mine:

"You are the literary Evel Knievel jumping over several hundred yards of convention, and landing perfectly."

that was truly nourishing.


thankx to all.

1stly - apologies for the delayed responses, i have not been able to around or online much at all for a while...

foggs - i regret that this piece left you with nothing. and i know you mean no insult or disrespect. your feed back, whatever it may is always valued.

thanks. as ever.

fogglethorpe wrote:

I have noted previously that I do not understand this style of poetry. Nonsensical verse that eschews literal meaning and conventional syntax is not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion, but there must be something to make it cohesive and phonetically intriguing. This is disjointed and jarring and devoid of meaning, even abstract meaning. After I read it, I come away with nothing. Perhaps that is what you intended, wylde. I am not being disrespectful..there are many genres and styles of poetry. I do appreciate deconstruction and innovation..you are indeed an original. There is room for everyone.