4 ms·

The other major thread here as of writing is too focused on comparisons. I'll avoid that all together by saying this: This poetry is not a worthwhile effort, a

The other major thread here as of writing is too focused on comparisons. I'll avoid that all together by saying this: This poetry is not a worthwhile effort, and the analysis of it is even less worthwhile. Maybe Aram Saroyan can be praised for convincing people that his poetry is meaningful and deep, when in reality he probably just spent 2 minutes writing "crickets" however many times on the page while laughing to himself that people were going to pay money for it.

aimor 6y ago
This kind of statement really depends on what you mean by "worthwhile". Writing doesn't have to (and rarely does) give raw information to provide worth. Sometimes it just points in a direction, sometimes it just collects people together over a single topic, sometimes it's just for fun. One day another of Saroyan’s friends, the poet Ted Berrigan, got a look at his latest one-word poem, eyeye, on a sheet of typewriter paper. “He said, ‘What the fuck is this?’” Saroyan recalls, “which I thought was a promising response.” https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/68913/you-call-that-poetry https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/68913/you-call-tha... A poem should not mean But be. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/17168/ars-poetica https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/17168/... In a world that's meaningless and mostly empty there's time to waste reading and writing and discussing nonsense poetry until it starts to make sense. I think you're right that Saroyan found the responses to his poetry more interesting than the work itself. The Reagan administration went in trying to dismantle the National Endowment for the Arts, citing Saroyan among others, wound up eventually inflating the budget, and was rewarded with Immersion (Piss Christ). I think it's funny too. https://www.arts.gov/open-government/national-endowment-arts-appropriations-history https://www.arts.gov/open-government/national-endowment-arts... So what if he was high and having a laugh? It exists, it's been read, noticed, observed, considered. "You could feel him in a room at his typewriter, like a monkey or a cat with a little extra brainpower." It does not have to be liked, it can be "banal". https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Hell-t.html?_r=1&ref=books https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Hell-t.html?... As for the analysis, you may have overlooked some of the more nuanced conclusions. The North American field cricket chirps 33 times a minute. Big Ben, six-o'clock, 1924. Tic-tac (1969). Obviously there's is an oversight in the claim a clock only makes one sound Tick Tick. A pendulum clock swinging to two distinct sides will in fact make two sounds. And extending lighght to L-I-G-H-G-H-T is absurd, this is visual art and it's not the same at all once that's done.
goto11 6y ago
I'm sure he was chuckling to himself when writing "crickets" down. But a lot of the criticism here seem to think he is somehow cheating the reader with these minimalist word-games. As if he is pretending there is a deeper meaning than there really is and therefore deceiving the reader. If someone enjoys the poetry it must surely be because they have been tricked! The unstated assumption is that poetry is supposed to be serious, difficult to write, and having many layers of complex meaning, requiring hard work to decipher, and above all, not allowed to be fun. Another streak is people getting angry at what they think other people might hypothetically think about them if they don't enjoy the poetry. Where does this come from? I don't know. Possibly bad high-school English teachers. But I can't see how Saroyan is to blame for thees weird notions. Poetry have always been a vehicle for jokes and memes and koans and absurdist humor. Printed poetry opened the possibly of having fun with the visual presentation of the text. But it is amazing to me that anyone can look at "cricket" and get offended. "There is a joke in the poetry! I have been cheated! I demand my money back!"

aimor 6y ago

This kind of statement really depends on what you mean by "worthwhile". Writing doesn't have to (and rarely does) give raw information to provide worth. Sometimes it just points in a direction, sometimes it just collects people together over a single topic, sometimes it's just for fun. One day another of Saroyan’s friends, the poet Ted Berrigan, got a look at his latest one-word poem, eyeye, on a sheet of typewriter paper. “He said, ‘What the fuck is this?’” Saroyan recalls, “which I thought was a promising response.” https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/68913/you-call-that-poetry https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/68913/you-call-tha... A poem should not mean But be. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/17168/ars-poetica https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/17168/... In a world that's meaningless and mostly empty there's time to waste reading and writing and discussing nonsense poetry until it starts to make sense. I think you're right that Saroyan found the responses to his poetry more interesting than the work itself. The Reagan administration went in trying to dismantle the National Endowment for the Arts, citing Saroyan among others, wound up eventually inflating the budget, and was rewarded with Immersion (Piss Christ). I think it's funny too. https://www.arts.gov/open-government/national-endowment-arts-appropriations-history https://www.arts.gov/open-government/national-endowment-arts... So what if he was high and having a laugh? It exists, it's been read, noticed, observed, considered. "You could feel him in a room at his typewriter, like a monkey or a cat with a little extra brainpower." It does not have to be liked, it can be "banal". https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Hell-t.html?_r=1&ref=books https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Hell-t.html?... As for the analysis, you may have overlooked some of the more nuanced conclusions. The North American field cricket chirps 33 times a minute. Big Ben, six-o'clock, 1924. Tic-tac (1969). Obviously there's is an oversight in the claim a clock only makes one sound Tick Tick. A pendulum clock swinging to two distinct sides will in fact make two sounds. And extending lighght to L-I-G-H-G-H-T is absurd, this is visual art and it's not the same at all once that's done.

goto11 6y ago

I'm sure he was chuckling to himself when writing "crickets" down. But a lot of the criticism here seem to think he is somehow cheating the reader with these minimalist word-games. As if he is pretending there is a deeper meaning than there really is and therefore deceiving the reader. If someone enjoys the poetry it must surely be because they have been tricked! The unstated assumption is that poetry is supposed to be serious, difficult to write, and having many layers of complex meaning, requiring hard work to decipher, and above all, not allowed to be fun. Another streak is people getting angry at what they think other people might hypothetically think about them if they don't enjoy the poetry. Where does this come from? I don't know. Possibly bad high-school English teachers. But I can't see how Saroyan is to blame for thees weird notions. Poetry have always been a vehicle for jokes and memes and koans and absurdist humor. Printed poetry opened the possibly of having fun with the visual presentation of the text. But it is amazing to me that anyone can look at "cricket" and get offended. "There is a joke in the poetry! I have been cheated! I demand my money back!"