« Indebtedness | Main | TV Turnoff Week »

i was a math major, and i don't think law school is very good for poets at all. poetry certainly isn't math-like. it's not logical. there are rules, but they're just suggestions. you can ignore them if you want.

Posted by: monica at April 23, 2004 08:13 AM

Hey, I hope you like the poetry ai. I'm trying to stick with lucid poems. There's all kind of esoteric stuff that only appeals to poets, and since now-a-days, given the publishing situation, poets write mostly for other poets, well, I have little doubt that most readers, not being poets themselves, will find such (or most?) poems frightfully obtuse. Did you know there's a poet named Ai?

Monica- I think the idea that poetry isn’t logical and that “there are rules” which one can “ignore. . . if you want.” is a common misperception. At its best, poetry is supremely logical – every single word has a justifiable meaning in the poem and serves several functions, which we can combine and simplify to “sound” and “sense.” Each and every word has to pull “double duty” which is why Coleridge’s relative definition of poetry as “the best words in their best order” is still, for my money, the most useful definition there is. (Prose, he said, was merely, ‘words in their best order.’) This double duty often makes a poem seem somewhat “fuzzy” if you’re used to analyzing dry page-bound prose – for example, if the poet is faced with two largely synonymous words (a poet realizes there is no such thing as an actual synonym) she may choose a word which has stronger connotative elements, or a word which has a sonic correlation to the greater structure of the poem. If she ignores these things (i.e., ignores the rules) she’ll end up producing second rate verse, prose with linebreaks, awkward and plodding anecdotes, etc. Where the prose writer sees many "equal" options, the poet may see only one "best" option, given the constraints of the poem. In many ways, the poet is absolutely free, but once that first word hits the paper, it creates a matrix against which all other words must be considered and weighed. Change one word, the whole matrix changes; the outcome of the poem is radically different. It’s not much of a stretch at all to say that each poem might be considered an equation, and that some particular poems do not have a “solution.”

In a sense poetry is like music. You can give any fool a guitar and teach him a chord or two – but that does not make what he plays “music,” nor does it make him a “musician.” I realize that might sound somewhat snotty, certainly coming from a punkster like myself. But just like you wouldn’t judge the entire art of “music” as being full of rules that are easily broken, per your next-door neighbor’s teenage son’s guitar playing, I’d suggest that there are some “real players” out there in poetry, and when they write well, their poems sweep you along without really calling attention to their structural choices – much as good music will.

As to law school not being good for poets (or poets not being suited for law school), I’d dearly love to prove you wrong. But that will take some time.

Best,

Scoplaw

Posted by: Scoplaw at April 23, 2004 09:02 AM

i don't know, man. yeah, you can give a teenager a guitar, and what comes out may not be something anyone wants to listen to, but it's still music. and give a teenager a pad and a pen, and what comes out may not be what you want to read, but it might still be a poem.

in math, if the conclusion isn't proven, then it's not a proof. yeah, quality is variable, but there's a goal, and it's reached. it's much more clear-cut.

also, you didn't convince me that what i said was wrong - that poets can ignore the rules if they want. it's all about choosing which rules you want to follow, like your example of choosing which words to use. mathematics is just as creative: you choose which methods you're going to use to prove something, but at the end you either prove it or you don't. in poetry, you can pick a worse word, and then you end up with a different poem. mathematicians don't usually end up proving something different just by changing a few words.

also, i don't see the distinction you're trying to make between poetry and prose, based on the constraints of word choice. i wouold argue that the meanings and connotations of each word mean just as much to the prose writer as they do to the poet.

Posted by: monica at April 24, 2004 10:23 AM

LOL! I should be careful about posting here.

I'm sure you've given these issues a great deal of thought, and no, I certainly can't "prove" anything I've written here, and I'm not really sure it's worth the time to try to "convince" anyone. No offense meant - it just boils down to relative aesthetics.

You seem to be articulating a position close to the philosophies that drive L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry. Ron Silliman has a very interesting blog which is as good a gateway as any into LangPo. (Ron, I'm sure, would disagree with everything I've said here, probably for much the same reasons.)

I'll turn the floor back to ai - you're always welcome to e-mail me, m, if you'd like to chat about these things.

Best,

Scoplaw

Posted by: Scoplaw at April 24, 2004 06:56 PM

Not to get in the middle of anything here, but just FYI: the whole "math class for poets" thing apparently came from tph's law professor, as he described in this post. It seems the prof thought "poets" were well-adapted to law school, although his definition of "poet" seems pretty loose.

About rules and wether poetry is like math, etc., I have only time to say that perhaps math and poetry and music are like languages of their own; they do have "rules" and grammars and conventions and traditions and norms and values that must be learned and adopted or rejected as a person moves through stages of mastery in each. Some might argue that the "rules" of math are unbreakable, but is that true? Is there only one way to do a proof? Perhaps. I dunno. Like I said, I'm just a tourist here. A tourist in a hurry at the moment. But I will come back to this, too, I hope...

Posted by: ambimb at April 25, 2004 07:20 AM

no, math is very creative. any mathematician will tell you that.

but you're right, i don't have time for big debates either, and i hope i didn't scare you off. debates are fun, but not as much during finals time.

scoplaw: maybe we'll find each other in the blogosphere again.

Posted by: monica at April 26, 2004 07:55 AM