3 ms·

I don't think the lines you refer to would be considered a good poem. It's a poor imitation. Cann't right now think of anything I know by a proper poet in Engl

I don't think the lines you refer to would be considered a good poem. It's a poor imitation. Cann't right now think of anything I know by a proper poet in English, but consider for example Leonard Cohen's The Maestro says it's Mozart But it sounds like bubble gum When you're waiting For the miracle, for the miracle to come How much did he tell you in just those 4 lines? More importantly, have ever noticed the particular phenomenon described here? Now you have it in words, and you'll be able to notice it next time. I don't mean you specifically here, but just to convey the point. That's poetry to me, not so much about "emotion", just noticing and expressing somewhat subtle facets of life. Because at the time this was written this was not a particularly new or subtle insight, that wasn't "true" poetry. Still a good song though.

komali2 8y ago
I have a lot of respect for Cohen but I gotta say I don't get what you're slinging here lol. Like... What do those four lines even mean?
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  Maybe it means that you know it's supposed to me amazing wondrous art (Mozart), but it feels like nothing (bubble gum) while you are waiting for the amazing experience you are expecting.
sago 8y ago
> I don't think the lines you refer to would be considered a good poem. It's a poor imitation. You'd be wrong. "Geometry" is a highly respected poem of (Pulitzer Prize winning, Poetry laureate) Dove's. (Only the first stanza is quoted in the article). It has been extensively analysed, incorporated into various poetry syllabi around the world, and reprinted dozens if not hundreds of times. It's quite one thing to say that you don't understand a poem, or you don't like it, or you prefer songs to poetry. But try not to hold court on what is or isn't 'considered' good poetry by people who enjoy poetry qua poetry.
- cosmic_ape 8y ago
  Just saw your comment, what you're saying is interesting to know, thanks. I thought it was clear that I was expressing my own opinion. Let me tell you just this: I do not think that Rita Dove, Pulitzer notwithstanding, have ever, literally, proved any new theorem. What I think happens here, is a typical journalist, or professional writer, trying to write about science, or just to use science language, whichever the intention was. Also, windows and transparent walls as artistic device in a 21st century poem? C'mon...
  - sago 8y ago
    Thank you for the response. > I thought it was clear that I was expressing my own opinion I didn't get that sorry. When you said "I don't think [it] would be considered a good poem", it sounded like you were using a passive modal verb to suggest universality. If it was intended as personal, I withdraw the rest of my comment. > Also, windows and transparent walls as artistic device in a 21st century poem? Since you've offered me the opportunity of being gloriously pedantic :) I can't resist saying that it was written in 1980. (Of course, that makes no difference to your opinion, I understand.) When were transparent walls a suitable artistic device?
    - cosmic_ape 8y ago
      No problem :) re transparent walls I'd say they might have been suitable in late 17th century or so... But seriously. To begin, the whole construct of comparing theoretical discovery to "seeing new things" is very old. Take Newton's famous "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." That actually is late 17th, although wikipedia says it could be even from the 12th, [1]. The windows probably have been used metaphorically even before that, but to be on the safe side, google ngrams finds them before 1900, [2]. Don't see much numbers about actual transparent walls, but a "glass ceiling" was used metaphorically as early as 1848, [3]. Thats remarkable on its own, although thats a different metaphor. Literal uses are even earlier. Anyway, the point is cliche alert went off right at that first stanza. There's a deeper problem, though. And that is that "proving" a theorem is not the thing that enables one to see. Proving is typically a rather mundane process, once one knows what one wants to prove. Take Pythagorean theorem even. Once one can formulate it, its not really hard to prove. But coming up with the notion that that is a thing that could be right, thats more difficult, thats the moment of "seeing". Its a bit of a simplification, but its mostly the discovery of new formulations that drives mathematics, not proofs. And so, the opening "I proved a theorem and then whooaaa..." is quite ridiculous. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g... [2] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=window+on+the+world&year_start=1800&year_end=1950&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cwindow%20on%20the%20world%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=window+on+the+... [3] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=glass+ceiling&year_start=1800&year_end=1950&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cglass%20ceiling%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=glass+ceiling&...

komali2 8y ago

I have a lot of respect for Cohen but I gotta say I don't get what you're slinging here lol. Like... What do those four lines even mean?

fjsolwmv 8y ago
Maybe it means that you know it's supposed to me amazing wondrous art (Mozart), but it feels like nothing (bubble gum) while you are waiting for the amazing experience you are expecting.

sago 8y ago

> I don't think the lines you refer to would be considered a good poem. It's a poor imitation. You'd be wrong. "Geometry" is a highly respected poem of (Pulitzer Prize winning, Poetry laureate) Dove's. (Only the first stanza is quoted in the article). It has been extensively analysed, incorporated into various poetry syllabi around the world, and reprinted dozens if not hundreds of times. It's quite one thing to say that you don't understand a poem, or you don't like it, or you prefer songs to poetry. But try not to hold court on what is or isn't 'considered' good poetry by people who enjoy poetry qua poetry.

cosmic_ape 8y ago
Just saw your comment, what you're saying is interesting to know, thanks. I thought it was clear that I was expressing my own opinion. Let me tell you just this: I do not think that Rita Dove, Pulitzer notwithstanding, have ever, literally, proved any new theorem. What I think happens here, is a typical journalist, or professional writer, trying to write about science, or just to use science language, whichever the intention was. Also, windows and transparent walls as artistic device in a 21st century poem? C'mon...
- sago 8y ago
  Thank you for the response. > I thought it was clear that I was expressing my own opinion I didn't get that sorry. When you said "I don't think [it] would be considered a good poem", it sounded like you were using a passive modal verb to suggest universality. If it was intended as personal, I withdraw the rest of my comment. > Also, windows and transparent walls as artistic device in a 21st century poem? Since you've offered me the opportunity of being gloriously pedantic :) I can't resist saying that it was written in 1980. (Of course, that makes no difference to your opinion, I understand.) When were transparent walls a suitable artistic device?
  - cosmic_ape 8y ago
    No problem :) re transparent walls I'd say they might have been suitable in late 17th century or so... But seriously. To begin, the whole construct of comparing theoretical discovery to "seeing new things" is very old. Take Newton's famous "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." That actually is late 17th, although wikipedia says it could be even from the 12th, [1]. The windows probably have been used metaphorically even before that, but to be on the safe side, google ngrams finds them before 1900, [2]. Don't see much numbers about actual transparent walls, but a "glass ceiling" was used metaphorically as early as 1848, [3]. Thats remarkable on its own, although thats a different metaphor. Literal uses are even earlier. Anyway, the point is cliche alert went off right at that first stanza. There's a deeper problem, though. And that is that "proving" a theorem is not the thing that enables one to see. Proving is typically a rather mundane process, once one knows what one wants to prove. Take Pythagorean theorem even. Once one can formulate it, its not really hard to prove. But coming up with the notion that that is a thing that could be right, thats more difficult, thats the moment of "seeing". Its a bit of a simplification, but its mostly the discovery of new formulations that drives mathematics, not proofs. And so, the opening "I proved a theorem and then whooaaa..." is quite ridiculous. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_g... [2] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=window+on+the+world&year_start=1800&year_end=1950&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cwindow%20on%20the%20world%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=window+on+the+... [3] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=glass+ceiling&year_start=1800&year_end=1950&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cglass%20ceiling%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=glass+ceiling&...