Well maybe I am still so confused, just a little...

[Akeith (Gray)]

 

That's funny, Mark.

A very humorous PICTURE.

Sort of like a cartoon.

Do you mind if I print it and keep it? 

[eric]

How much paint did Mark use to create his picture, Gray? 

Your choices:

(  )  None
(  )  Some
(  )  Much

[Akeith (Gray)]

I think it is more of a charcoal sketch, eric. He is very talented, don't you think?

[eric]

My opinion of his talent is beside the point.  With your charcoal sketch idea (which is, by the way, wrong; the answer is no paint, no charcoal), you are leaning toward the cartoon view.  What part of Mark's picture is most like a cartoon?  What part least? 

At the risk of confusing you further, please tell me what part of the Yamrus box is not made of words.  Also, consider Yamrus's use of spatial relativity, and how that does or does not affect both the way the poem sounds and what it means.   My guess is that was not philosophically motivated, but still.  Do you think this is cartoonish or no, and why or why not? 

Thank you, old chum.

[Akeith (Gray)]

Oh, that was a legitimate question on your part, eric? I thought you were asking with a bit of tongue-in-cheek. My mistake.

To answer your question, I see no color in the picture, even after giving my glasses a good cleaning. On my computer screen, Mark's piece of art comes across as black fonts on a very light shade of blue background. I am not too sure if that has to do with the color settings on my internet browser or those of my moniter. I always have a difficult time distinguishing the difference since both programs seem to be there for the same function.

I fail to understand, eric, why it is that you ask me which part of Mark's piece is most like a cartoon and which part is least like one. You have already pointed out to me that my charcoal sketch idea (which you say leans towards the cartoon view) is wrong. If you think it is wrong, then how can you expect me to explain what I think about it's similarities to a sketch or cartoon? You have already expressed your opposition to the concept.

Is it that you would like for me to explain to you what a caricature is?

[eric]

You are right that Mark has made a funny looking dam, but I would not call it a caricature.  So no, I have no interest in your explanation of the word, which would either be erroneous or irrelevant.  Unless, of course, you apply it to Mark--but I couldn't agree with that either.  Not in this context, anyway.  As you may remember, people often take my intensely complicated questions as  jokes because they do not realize I am very simple minded and only want to know what I ask.  So often this turns out to be a vain hope.

Obviously, the charcoal is wrong because Mark is using computer squiggles to make his picture, in things known as "words."   You use charcoal as a medium, not a color--but the correct medium is words.  Now recall again what my definition of poem (the generally accepted definition) is.  Again, I never said that Mark's poem is not a cartoon, I only said that it was not charcoal (I am glad you got clean glasses out of the deal anyway).  I will give you a hint.  The same word in Mark's poem answers both my questions about what is most or least like, etc.

I think I exfoliated on the Yamrus thingies after you started answering the question, so I'll bap it back to you for that as well as a stab at the cartoon points.

I am sure you'll want to answer my questions if you wish to support your position, but if not oh well, I'll just leave you be.

[thatollie]

First thing's first, Mark wrote a wonderful piece.

Let's look at the yamrus poem again, but reformatted to Gray's exacting standards.

Do not try
to put me in a box.

Monsieur Gray, do you see any change in meaning with this reformat?

[eric]

Well, Ollie, the Waste Land is a wonderful piece.  I think Mark's deal is an amusing piece by a good poet and a thoughtful person.  If you wanted to say "I think Mark wrote a wonderful piece," I'd agree with that.  If you said "Mark wrote the Waste Land," I would not agree.  But in any case, it does not work reformatted any more than Yamrus's ... and you are spot on in pointing that latter thing out.

[thatollie]

I didn't say that Mark wrote the Waste Land, but kudos to him if he did because it's a good read.

[eric]

If Mark wrote the Waste Land, he is a lot older than I give him credit for and he goes by a devious set of names.

[thatollie]

True but we're veering wildly away from the point of the conversation.

Quick question: Why are we having this debate?

[Akeith (Gray)]

We are having this debate (and like any good debate, one can present any side without actually believing what ideas and/or concepts that side upholds) because it is so GOOD for one's cranial circulatory system and one's over blood pressure. 

Regarding ollie's reference to JY's piece as an example. If the words are read outloud the way ollie has last presented them, do they sound the same as the way JY wrote them? I think so, depending on the speaker. So, then, it can be said that the arrangement of the words into a pattern of a square is strictly for a visual impact...like a good picture, sketch, photgraph, etc.

And eric, did I not answer your question,...or have I missed one? Please restate it for me if I have.

[thatollie]

I did not ask about reading it aloud, I asked you if reformatting the Yamrus poem changed the meaning.
Isn't the layer of irony eric mentioned lost in the reformat?

[Akeith (Gray)]

thatollie:

What is a poem if it is not an art form to be read outloud?

Reformatting the visual aspect is only a changing of a sub-particle of the whole poem. If reading the words in the shape of a box lends irony to the overall impact of the poem, then why bother with the sonics? Why not read every poem that is written as strictly a visual art form? Why be concerned with how a poem sounds, or with its rhythm and/or rhyme or meter?

A cartoon (even with a caption) is strictly put on paper (or on whatever) for its visual interpretation. If a poem is so dependent on its visual interpretion, then I do not think it is a poem. And to me, concrete (so-called) poetry is put on the page strictly for its visual effect. Visual art = performance art.

What question was that again, eric?

[thatollie]

Actually, I thought poetry was supposed to engage all the senses, or as many as the poet thinks necessary for the effect.
Does the reformatting engage the senses in a different way to the original?