To clarify in response to all:
I read the Maya poem. To me this is written well, such that I can see the free bird, and I can see the caged bird. I can see the contrast between the two. I can relate this to a much wider set of circumstances than just "birds" including some which are close to my heart. As such this poem is both personal and powerful. I enjoyed reading it, and offer my Thanks to Stocken for bringing it to my attention.
I read (and posted commentary against) Stocken's poem. It didn't do anything for me, and I questioned the construction in places.
As for my general appreciation of poetry - please explain how you can dictate how someone should or shouldn't read, interpret, and even judge a poem? Surely this is as subjective an area as looking at a painting and deciding if one likes it or not (with or without reading the artists or other critics notes) - as such there is no objective right or wrong.
If my critique seems a little blunt, then tough turd folks - you've put it out there and I've a right to reply however I see fit.
Originally posted by mikelomOk - Natsia is a fly, you can be the spider. Happy now?
Uhum! I'm a fly to somebody's turd?
Tell me how you work that one out, please?
I introduced the 'fly' as flies do venture to turds, no matter how presented. Thus, I responded to your inaccuracy.
So tell me, how am I party to your chuckles? I'm highly interested.
edit - whilst a fly may venture to the turd, how do you know it appreciates it? Just 'cos it has to go there to survive, doesn't mean it enjoys it.
Originally posted by rhbNo one's said anything about should, should not read poetry, or who's to
To clarify in response to all:
I read the Maya poem. To me this is written well, such that I can see the free bird, and I can see the caged bird. I can see the contrast between the two. I can relate this to a much wider set of circumstances than just "birds" including some which are close to my heart. As such this poem is both personal and powerful. I enjoyed n tough turd folks - you've put it out there and I've a right to reply however I see fit.
say what's good and what's not.
No, not blunt at all. Calling people's work turd? No why would anyone
consider that blunt? I don't understand what you mean, by that.
If you really wanted to say you liked Maya's poem, you could have
simply said that. Instead you chose to put it in relation to what I've
written. It's obvious you wanted a little forum argument on your hands,
and now you're trying to weesle out. Well, be gone now, friend. 🙂
Addition: Oh, and I liked this part of your post: "I can relate this
to a much wider set of circumstances than just 'birds'". That was actually
very helpful to me.
Originally posted by stockenWeasling out? If giving a direct answer to direct questions is weasling out then, yes of course.
No one's said anything about should, should not read poetry, or who's to
say what's good and what's not.
No, not blunt at all. Calling people's work turd? No why would anyone
consider that blunt? I don't understand what you mean, by that.
If you really wanted to say you liked Maya's poem, you could have
simply said that. Instead you chose to put ...[text shortened]... r set of circumstances than just 'birds'". That was actually
very helpful to me.
re: addition - I'm glad you liked that bit, it took me at least 5 or 6 read throughs before I got this from the poem.
Originally posted by rhbVery subjective indeed but nevertheless there are some unwritten guide-lines. It's not like they are rools but a matter of commom sense really. And I agree that there are no objective rights while reading/writing poetry but there certainly are somewhat objective wrongs in both areas. http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/ is an example of how not to write poetry. And your analysis of Maya's poem is a no-no too. Mostly because who reads you analysis will never know the full depth and breadth of that poem. Of course I realise that you got better things to do with your time than to write an essay for us at CAT but still...
As for my general appreciation of poetry - please explain how you can dictate how someone should or shouldn't read, interpret, and even judge a poem? Surely this is as subjective an area as looking at a painting and deciding if one likes it or not (with or without reading the artists or other critics notes) - as such there is no objective right or wrong.
And just to clarify points I'm no stocken's poetry fan either and I really hated the fact that I barged in the discussion like this but I couldn't help myself.
Well now I'll try to get something done.
So, I thought about the poem and why I keep reading it again and
again, and I realised: I'm just tired, and therefore I have to read many
times before it all sinks in. Maya, being a black woman who grew up in
Missouri in the thirties, would surely know what it means to be a caged
bird, while others roam free without even the notion of being held back.
But this is all obvious. What really has me mesmerised is how focused
the poem is, while still using a language that's not exact. She's talking
about two birds, and orange sun rays and bars in rage and many other
very visual but impossible relations, and still manages to appear
focused.
I think this is why I'm so captivated. She's clear, but the very language
she's using is set completely free, which seems so appropriate
for this poem. The singing bird can get a taste of that natural freedom
through songs about freedom. The caged bird needs those
songs, whereas the free bird naturally wouldn't.
Still don't understand why I should be so caught up in this. I'm more of a
free bird, yeah? Or am I now? Maybe I just need to clear my head and
make dinner. Yeah. That's what I'll do. 😕
Originally posted by adam warlockWell, if it's any consolation, I'm sure you've noticed that the conversation
And just to clarify points I'm no stocken's poetry fan either and I really hated the fact that I barged in the discussion like this but I couldn't help myself.
was not really about what I've written, but Maya's poetry and possibly RHB's
fancy for turd, so don't feel all that bad about it, ok?
Originally posted by adam warlockre: analysis
Very subjective indeed but nevertheless there are some unwritten guide-lines. It's not like they are rools but a matter of commom sense really. And I agree that there are no objective rights while reading/writing poetry but there certainly are somewhat objective wrongs in both areas. http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/ is an example of how not t ...[text shortened]... scussion like this but I couldn't help myself.
Well now I'll try to get something done.
You're right I've different (maybe not better!) things to be doing with my time than writing a full essay in analysis. My post is my initial reaction to reading the poem for the first time.
Were I to be writing a full analysis I'd hope (amongst other things) to have more time to research the history of the poet (as Stocken has clearly done in his subsequent analysis) in order to relate their life and experience back to their words, to try to make more sense of it.
I've posted before to express the view that I don't think this is the appropriate forum for such in depth analysis. If anyone wants that for their own or anothers work they should be posting it on a dedicated poetry forum. Here they will only ever get shorter (I like / don't like) type analysis in the main.
Originally posted by rhbIf I like to do that, and should anyone else want to join me (not bloody
I've posted before to express the view that I don't think this is the appropriate forum for such in depth analysis.
likely from the looks of it), who are you to say this is not the forum for it?
It's not in violation of the TOS, surely?