Shelley`s skylark-is in turn-a glow worm, a rose, showers, a maiden etc; and `out skylarks` the sky larkNo one ever heard a bird like that...and yet...we have now, haven`t we?

Keats out of a stone urn manages to create a pastoral which brings an ancient countryside to life...in a kind of death.

Coleridge,in `The Rime of the Ancient Mariner` wakes in us a kindof unacknowledge world of guilt which we all feel at times as an undeserved nightmare.

All these poets are striving after something which is ineffable and can`t really be clearly stated (and yet somehow they state it)

Is this what poetry is all about...expresssion of the inexpressible.

(a note: will any one who`s poetic critical antenna is situated in close proximity to his genitalia please refrain-even jocularly-from making the obvious pun and keep it to his `effing` self)

Surely that is the entire point of poetry...?

If it ain't ineffable...eff off!

: )

Jx

I think that Binyon's "Burning of the Leaves" makes a brave stab at this: using destruction/renewal in nature to make us aware of the need for acceptance of measures in the renewal of the human spirit as life goes on.
This was read aloud to lasting effect (for me) in the fine music and poetry BBC TV documentary about England some years ago: "The Queen's Realm" (I think that was the title).

John,
I knew I shouldn`t have put that last bit in.

Fair game though :)

How do, Harry?
You had the better of me cos I didn't know what "ineffable" meant, so I looked it up.
What I couldn't find, though, was "effable". (Compose thissen! I'm not going there!).
It prompted me to start another discussion on words which have no opposite positive. I was going to suggest "like ruth, the opposite of ruthless" but lo and behold, "ruth" is in my dictionary!
With regard to my thoughts on poetry trying to capture the ineffable, You will appreciate from having read some of my shite that I am the least qualified person to judge.

One of the attractions of WOL is that it seems to produce more of the "ineffable" than the "insufferable"!

This one has apparently died the death.

I was hoping (by asuuming that the ineffable was communicable in poetry) to discover what some of the poems on here which I couldn`t `get` could be - at least partly - explained (in some other `gettable` way perhaps)

No one has really responded, so it`s back to picking out the bits that I can `get` and working from there.

It`s a shame, as I often get the feeling that some of the stuff I can`t `get` is really striving after some particular effect (if only we could find some common platform to discuss it)

Is this what is known as a rhetorical question Harry?

Leonidas,
In the sense of asking `Is the unsayable sayable`...yes.

I wasn`t trying to resurrect the old battle between the polar poetic `wings` (honest)

But - on the premiss that the only solid things we can completely agree about are the actual words in the poem - persuade the poet to explain what he or she is trying to do with those words.

I agree it will take forebearance and understanding(on both sides) but it can be done.

I actually did a workshop some time ago entitled from the ineffable to the sublime....and yes the unsayable is sayable but would it naturally or automatically be audibly conveyable? I have tried to say many things in poetry, not just to "list" my experience in a novel way but to convey it as directly as possible. Sometimes it not possible to say what you mean to say. My view is the poet's task is to convey what ordinary language could never convey, in ways and means that are not ordinarily made.

The ineffable and sublime that
Drift from metre or from rhyme,
With vain conceits and epithets
or tinged with euphemistic, sad regrets.
In measured strides cross awesome tides,
Where the swan's down now gently glides
Between the tall reeds stood erect.
It was so awesome in effect.

I have the strange feeling that 'the ineffable' is ever something you can strive for; and if you do strive for it you end up being merely foggy or obscure.

The poet Mallarme is an example of the ineffable poet: you can't quite pin down the poem to a specific meaning, but the words leave you wondering.

Steven,
I can`t read french but I do think that Mallarme (and any other poet at any level of talent) should be able to tell us - in however tentative a manner - what he wanted us to wonder about.

In other words...take a stab at trying to explain his own words.

Poems about larks and urns are wank.

Harry - he could, for instance, give the poem a title. "Sea Breeze" for example. That might give you a clue...

Sea Breeze

The flesh is sad, Alas! and I have read all the books.
Let’s go! Far off. Let’s go! I sense
that the birds, intoxicated, fly
deep into unknown spume and sky!
Nothing – not even old gardens mirrored by eyes –
can restrain this heart that drenches itself in the sea,
O nights, or the abandoned light of my lamp,
on the void of paper, that whiteness defends,
no, not even the young woman feeding her child.
I will go! Steamer, straining at your ropes
lift your anchor towards an exotic rawness!
A Boredom, made desolate by cruel hope
still believes in the last goodbye of handkerchiefs!
And perhaps the masts, inviting lightning,
are those the gale bends over shipwrecks,
lost, without masts, without masts, no fertile islands...
But, oh my heart, listen to the sailors’ chant!
Stéphane Mallarmé

Nil poetica illegitemo carborundum-Between indescribable wonder and irreconciable grief-mere words alone will not suffice, for what are words in the ineffable lightness of the soul-if ever you had one? It's not the words, nay, but the tone of the poet that today beggars belief!

I think there should be an award for the poem with the highest ratio of exclamation marks to words.

The exclamation mark is in the word interestingly enough, part and parcel of the philosophy surrounding romanticism.I must say though, I prefer Colleridge's Khubla Khan to the Mariner. The 'ineffable'? We all search and try for it, but, like Coleridge, Keats, Blake........ ineffability will be passed on posthumously.

Harry, wonderful analysis of 19c poets. What was Blake reaching out for with the Tiger?

Harry,
You always appear to ask interesting and searching questions, which unfortunately on occasions receive flippant or parsimonious replies.

“Because I know that time is always time
And place is always and only place
And what is actual is actual only for one time
And only for one place
I rejoice that things are as they are and
I renounce the blessed face
And renounce the voice.”-TS Eliot

To me a lot of written and spoken poetry is symptomatic of neural dysfunction and an underlying mental disorder that is subconsciously managed by frequent attempts at logotherapy masquerading as poetry? The polarities of which are manifest on a spectrum between neurosis (extreme self-consciousness) and psychosis (extreme consciousness of others). This can be detected in the analysis of the stress patterns and images employed by poets ranging from extreme masochism to extreme narcissism. See link:

http://theweek.com/article/index/220895/speech-patterns-5-ways-to-spot-a-psychopath

In Lu Chi's Wen Fu The Art of Writing he says:
I have often studied the works of talented men of letters and thought to myself that I obtained some insight into their minds at work. The ways of employing words and forming expressions are indeed infinitely varied. But, accordingly, the various degrees of beauty and excellence can be distinguished from what is common and weak. When by composing my own works, I become aware of the ordeal. Constantly present is the feeling of regret that the meaning falls short of the objects observed. The fact is, it is not so hard to know as it is to do.

But I wonder whether from the written word alone we are capable of soliciting the tone and mood of the poet-meaning is intrinsically tied up with these audible elements in speech. An award could be given for the number of “ums” and “uh’s” employed by poets perhaps?

Steve,
Even in translation the poem is understandable as `expressing` a dissatisfaction (boredom) with: the material (flesh) learning (books) literature (paper) which doesn`t even defend humanity (woman and child).These are contrasted against the freedom of flight (birds)and the newness of dicovery (exotic rawness) supposed to exist in an imaginary voyage.The poet knows of the dangers of his wish (inviting lightenings) but his heart wants the adventure (sailors chant) rather than the desolation (boredom).

even from a translation like this a fairly accurate skeleton can be constructed about the poets meaning and intention...which is what I mean by explaining the words.Overall It could be summarised as a`wanting away` poem.(in my opinion due to an ignoble feeling of boredom).

Leonidas,
The connection between sound and meaning is fascinating (and what about pictures - moving pictures)?We`re only at the begining.

My dictionary defines ineffable as"too great for words". But is there really such a thing that restricts the communication of human experience? Is not poetry in all its forms surely confined to the limits of the intelligence, imagination, awareness and knowledge of those who read it? How much in life can really be said to be "too great for words"...e.g. beyond the ability of language to convey either meaning or feeling? The use of allegory or the abstract are only tools towards this end. Perhaps we try too hard and forget that the simplest words in the right context can succeed where efforts at high-minded profundity fail.
Is the word "ineffable" itself merely an artful invention - to be conjured up as a useful cover when "words fail us"?

Well, I'm discombooblerated by the ineffable- WORDS are ostensible surrogates and always will be, they represent a small portion of what we today call communication-a picture is worth a thousand words-so just make up the word yourself to describe that which you consider undescribable, it has been done in the past, so it can be done for the future?

...all words are the result of someones invention. But no word nor words have ever been able to describe accurately my orgasms nor the taste of coffee- all words are as substitutes- that is their purpose.

Quite recently I have been discussing with some students of the Koran the phrase, on which I have often pondered; "Poetry is that which is lost in translation".
What is universal can never be lost in translation but often confused. Translation involves not just from one language to another, not just from one time to another, one culture to another or even one generation to another but from one frame of consciousness to another. In religion, to take just one example the ineffable corresponds to the "Holy Ghost"; you can describe the attributes and qualities of the Father, you can describe the attributes and qualities of the Son but the Holy Ghost remains ineffable-spooky I'd say (!).

TC certainly makes a point about "sensations"...but perhaps as they are often common to us all, the words themselves conjure up the meaning and need no embellishment. As for exclamation marks...I still smile at one editor's description of them as "screamers" (as in screaming for attention, I imagine). Personally, I retain a fondness for their use as a means of special emphasis when there is much else of note vying for attention. In personal correspondence they also serve as a "you know what I mean" sort of thing between two
people.

"Communication" is surely only one of the reason people write poetry. If all you want to do is tell a story, or make a political/religious point, you may as well do it in prose.

A lot of the time when I write, it's much more exploratory: Yeats said that prose comes from an argument with the world, whereas poetry comes from an argument with yourself. It's because I'm trying to express things I can't quite express yet that I'm writing in the first place.

And then again, I don't want people to read my poems, say, "Yeah, got that, next..." and just move on. Leaving an edge of not quite understanding means that they become part of the process of understanding. They bring their own experience and knowledge to the reading table, and it's not just me imparting some wisdom or telling it Like It Is(n't).

As I see it, SW makes some very valid points about being led and being shown the sign and left to find the path. The power and attraction of poetry lies in its unmatched range of ways of communicating with the reader. How it is received and "deciphered" is surely dependent on the mental equipment possessed by the latter.

As SW says
"If all you want to do is tell a story, or make a political/religious point, you may as well do it in prose."
That would have Homer turning in his grave of course as communication is not just about story-telling narrative it is being able to communicate clearly, often with or without ambiguity what is meant. Remember that it is not "What" is being communicated in poetry but how? Poetry can be linear, lateral, convoluted, cryptic, amorphous, or even equivocal ways. To return to my previous point about invention:

"Jabberwocky"

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

Then Alice says: "It seems very pretty,' she said when she had finished it, 'but it's rather hard to understand!' (You see she didn't like to confess, even to herself, that she couldn't make it out at all.) 'Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas—only I don't exactly know what they are!"

In the author's note to the Christmas 1896 edition of Through the Looking-Glass Carroll writes, "The new words, in the poem Jabberwocky, have given rise to some differences of opinion as to their pronunciation, so it may be well to give instructions on that point also. Pronounce 'slithy' as if it were the two words, 'sly, thee': make the 'g' hard in 'gyre' and 'gimble': and pronounce 'rath' to rhyme with 'bath.'" In the Preface to The Hunting of the Snark, Carroll wrote, " Let me take this opportunity of answering a question that has often been asked me, how to pronounce "slithy toves." The "i" in "slithy" is long, as in "writhe", and "toves" is pronounced so as to rhyme with "groves." Again, the first "o" in "borogoves" is pronounced like the "o" in "borrow." I have heard people try to give it the sound of the "o" in "worry." Such is Human Perversity."

There is, of course, a pleasure in the mere sound of words, aside from (though not divorced from) their meaning. The shape of words on a page can also be pleasurable. They can also confuse and confound the reader who isn't used to something that is mainly there for the sound or the shape rather than the meaning (Schwitter's ursonate or Cobbing's ABC in Sound come to mind.) But that surely communicates something too: a joy in sound for its own sake, for instance.)

I love the mere fact that poetry can go from fully rhymed sonnets to pure noise, and I know that some people want to restrict it to what they think it ought to be; but I love the variousness of it all.

Harry - it seems your post hasn't quite died a death but the abundance of words appears to confront the very essence of "ineffable". Fascinating...and informative.

I must say, catching up on the dialogue ( which in itself is trying to achieve 'ineffability', whilst at the same time refuting 'ineffability').

Writers will always feel that they struggle to reach the 'ineffable', because it is expressed through the medium of the written word. To express what is inexpressible.......What is inexpressible? What is ineffable?

Ineffability is in the hands of the subjective reader. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.....Philosophy, theology, even quantum physics. Time is ineffable...being is ineffable.......

Poetry, can express the inexpressible. You just have to read between the lines.

An interesting thread Harry, probably somewhere above my fragile and low-lying cranium if I'm honest. However, in light of your valued comment on my last blog posting . . . how about using words . . . and pictures? Just a thought . . .

Regards,
A.E.

Thou doth protest Anthony.

This thread really caught my attention Harry, made me look at what I have blurbled over the years. I think the question is .... To what extent can poetry achieve the ineffable?

A painting can tell a story, capture a feeling or a moment in time for the painter ... but, only words can explain what the painter is feeling and trying to portray, and if the artist is no longer with us there is always a clever art critic there too help us how we feel about the piece and what it is expressing.

Words, assembled in a certain way can achieve ineffability, for a single reader at a certain time.

I have been privileged, to be able to share so many feelings that belong to others here on WOL. Those that do not believe that the ineffable can be achieved within poetry,should maybe bob round the site and read their fellow poets achieving the ineffable.

Beware though, the ineffable hides, just after a comma.. a fullstop or maybe hidden after an exclamation mark.

Not protesting at all Nichola, merely alluding to Harry's comment on

http://www.writeoutloud.net/public/blogentry.php?blogentryid=31974

Whether we can achieve the innef ... inefe ... infef ... er, whatever it was, seems to me to be beside the point; shouldn't we at least ought to try? And who's to be the judge of whether we've achieved it ... or not? I would never claim to even getting close; but at least it's something to aim for. Maybe some examples of where we think someone has hit the mark would be good - anyone? But then as usual, I wouldn't expect our opinions to coincide - this is WOL after all!

Regards,
A.E.

Though doth protest was aimed at your 'low lying and fragile cranium', with disbelief my dear Anthony :-)

I could not agree more..... with your comment.

Interesting how words are interpreted, and how we subject meaning on to them.

A jumble of words on a page could make me feel a certain emotion, whilst you could be somewhere else on the emotional spectrum, or not even feel it at all. Then I would have to try and express the ineffable..... and so it goes.

The problem with the ineffable is that it is....er....ineffable.

Nevertheless poetry often makes us pause around some poem and all agree that somehow the words have `materialised?` it.

I sometimes feel that some of the poems on here that I can`t `get` are trying after this, but use such a privately esoteric metaphorical scheme that their attempts cannot be understood...which is a shame.

Bearing in mind that communication is communal, I was hoping that we could get around to discussing some actual words (and perhaps what they
convey `poetically`)to the poet - or to the general communality of poetry lovers.

Or - alternatively - persuade some of the `hard to get` poets to tell us what metaphorical systems they are working in.

I know it needs forebearance - but it can be done.

Some years ago, when I did that sort of thing, I used to get groups of folks to do a warm up exercise called 'How likely is 'likely'? The task was to rank words like 'certain', 'probable', 'possible', 'rarely', 'never', 'occasionally'...etc. into some sort of order on a scale of nought (never) to a hundred percent (certain).

You wouldn't believe the levels of disagreement that this created. As a warm up exercise for a group it was brilliant...as an exemplar of human stupidity it was even more illuminating. If people still disagree about the likelihood of an 'inevitable' event then I can't be arsed to decipher their poorly constructed arguments about anything, let alone any poetry they might create.

If someone has managed to eff the ineffable...then they have created poetry, if you don't effing get it, however many times you read it,...they haven't. IMHO

: )

Jx

No you'll never get an bunch of poets to agree on anything.

It seems to me, after reading your comments Harry, that your question, in part, relates to how understandable/accessible we should make our work.

Some people write to be understood and others write for the feel and sound of the words, the creation of mood rather than meaning, perhaps. Some poets will like their output but others won't...it's that same old chestnut under a different guise.

I suppose the question is a bit of a nonsense in a way - if you can express it, then it isn't ineffable. Excuse me if someone has already made that point - I'm a bit late in on this thread.

ps Not that I'm having a go at your discussion thread. It's made me think and it has stimulated some discussion, which is always a good thing!

"I sometimes feel that some of the poems on here that I can`t `get` are trying after this, but use such a privately esoteric metaphorical scheme that their attempts cannot be understood...which is a shame."

I hear what you're saying Harry, but maybe the authors don't want or intend us to "get it." Maybe there's that "I'm smarter than you, and that's why you don't get it" motive for their intentions. Or maybe the authors don't have the ability to create that intelligible interface between author and reader. I can't, for one minute, understand why I would ever intentionally wish to write anything which might be thought of as unintelligible. Having said that I've probably done it loads of times - unintentionally!

There are many factors at work here I suspect, and not all of them honest or up-front.

I'm sure that there are poets who want you to see how smart they are, Anthony. In fact, I've probably seen and read several of them. But as to "getting" a poem, I'm always puzzled by what that means.

Poetry is not a puzzle that needs to be solved. It's not a crossword; or it probably oughtn't to be at least. But it does depend on what kind of writing the poet is producing. People are often puzzled by writing that doesn't seem to have a narrative thread, that's stream of consciousness or otherwise non-sequential, but only if they insist on reading it as if it has a narrative thread when it clearly hasn't.

That doesn't mean that it's unintelligible however; it just means that you read it less for its 'story' and more for the feel and the mood and other things like shape and sound which are more abstract. It's a bit like looking for a face in a Jackson Pollock drip painting; the narrative thread isn't there for you to find, so why are you reading it as if there is?

Actually, a lot of poems that are on one level perfectly intelligible seem to me to be more about showing how clever the poets is than actually expressing any actual emotion.

SO MUCH FOR DYING THE DEATH!

In Mallarme`s poem above (as an example of what I mean by `getting` the words of a poem)

The last line

`But oh, my heart, listen to the sailors` chant!`

could mean being put off by the sea-going dangers. But the exclamatory
style could mean a longing for the freedom. (`Chants` is sometimes translated as `shout`) This may be intended to be ambiguous, but it`s fair in the context of the poem.

My remark about `A Boredom` depends on that being a fair translation of
the french word used (capitalised).

Steve, regards Kealan:
I hadn`t heard Kealans `symbiotic Intuition`
before, but it could maybe replace
ineffable (except that it might be too `fleshy`)

My main point is that I don`t mind going as far as the devil trying to understand, but please don`t try to leave me floundering in the deep blue sea.

"There seems to be a view, regardless of tribe, that some schools of poetical thought wilfully exclude others by way of some kind of intellectual snobbery."

I think all poetical schools contain their intellectual snobs. Whether that's the "how can I show off my classical education?" snob or the "how many references to obscure pop songs can I cram into this poem?" snob, it's all about showing off, rather than creating something that has life in it.

The problem is, that we keep coming down to the question of difficulty vs simplicity. But that's not the real problem. I'm with Harry to a certain extent: but I'd say it's something to do with the life in the poetry. I don't mind being challenged if I think there's life in the writing. If there's no life, it makes no difference how easy or difficult the poem is, I won't want to carry on reading.

Unfortunately, that's a darned difficult thing to define. On Thursday, in Manchester's Waterstones, I sat through four poets. The first two seemed to have some life about them, especially the first. The second two wrote well-written, formal, poems that advertised their writers as perfectly cultured well-educated young people that flopped dead on the ear. But they weren't difficult or obscure, none of the readers were.

Maybe that's where the ineffable lies, in that unnameable something that makes a poem live in the reader's or listener's imagination rather than flop dead on the slab of its cleverness.

Then the ineffable will be different to each and every one of us and we can only strive to achieve it for a given percentage of eyes or ears.

Poetry weighted with allusion will be relished by those with good understanding of it.

Experimental poetry that challenges traditional form, will be appreciated by those who like to be innovative.

Rhyming poetry will be appreciated by those with a musical ear.

Stream of consciousness poetry will be appreciated by those who identify with more disordered thought processes.

For performance purposes though, I would maintain that some kind of 'easy' meaning is preferable. It is much harder to concentrate on and enjoy live poetry if it has no obvious meaning.

Your last statement isn't really true for me Isobel. In fact, if it's too easy I groan inwardly...

But then I am about to take part in an ensemble performance of Bob Cobbing's An ABC In Sound, a poem which is all about the sound of words and doesn't really have any discernible meaning whatsoever...

Horses for courses, I guess...

I'm not too sure why I join this thread really, but, yesterday I spent the afternoon at a small poetry event that had 2 totally contrasting poets.
The first (our very own Julian J.) described it as a sort of Duelling Banjos (Julian Banjos), with the second (Javed) a poet who recited only in Urdu. He spoke very very little English, but his performance was absolutely incredible.
Generally, I'd say that I dislike poetry that I can't understand, but I'd happily spend another afternoon listening to Javed (and Julian - but that goes without saying of course)

effable, an obsolete word, but its origin is from the latin ex = out of and fari = to speak. So it meant to speak out. So is the ineffable that which hides within the words and is not spoken out clearly?
Ineffable is often used about gods. I like poetry where you discover layers of meaning wrapped inside the more obvious meaning, but I think this works best when the poet in describing something is really reaching for a meaning beyond, that makes the moment or scene described significant to the poet, and you can trace that significance when you pay closer attention to the words than the average reader does.

Freda,
I think your `reaching for a meaning beyond` best explains what I think most of us are talking about here. The words of certain poems (usually widely celebrated) take us to that point of departure.

We can only argue about the poetry that takes us to that point along the lines of a commonly accepted agreement about what are (the now very wide) accepted tools of poetic endeavour. Those poems which are idiosyncratic to the point of narcissism can be left for the writers to admire themselves in, but I sometimes wish- in the merely `difficult` ones- that we could (considerately) go into them a bit more.

I think sites like this are very worth while for getting
poems on to the radar.

Steven,
I heard Bob Cobbing whining and braying once in Earls Court Square...The best of British luck!

(You`ve got to be kidding us)

Harry, I must say, I bobbed on here an hour ago to post my negative equity, to find myself once again thinking did I express that feeling of the ineffable? and here I am again, immersed in your thread, after a torrid battle once again with, time, learning, existence, reality and the expression of the various realities that we create.

Interesting, that freda writes of the ineffable as reaching for something beyond.....

and then there is the layers. Who said that? A poem is made up of layers. I find that, from my own perspective to be very true. A poem is a manifestation of his or herself, or their thoughts or views at a set moment in time, or their collective thoughts from a certain phase of their lives. A writer layers to hide many times, not achieve, maybe because the bare, bold truth will upset the humane sensibility.

As a very wise Ogre once said 'people are like onions'... in writing we try to project a similar effect in order to express things that we feel idealogically or emotionally.

Does a poem have to be obscure, or metaphorical, or roll out a string of huge words ( even though I must say a poem that describes one thing but really means another is fascinating from a critical point of view),.... but was poetry developed for critical analysis, and for us to decipher how many layers there are within that poem?

Or as a means of expression?

I remember my english teacher whispering through the classroom when I was thirteen..." Move him into the sun.... gently it's touch awoke him once...."

That's a lovely quote Nichola and a great way to illustrate a point.

Often it is the simple words that hit home the hardest. I suppose it depends on what you want poetry to do for you. I want it to move me - if it's not making me laugh or think. Simplicity goes better with poignancy I think, though someone will probably come up with a million examples where that isn't so, now I've said that :)

I also want poetry to move me, to light a spark somewhere, make a connection, a recognition, a revelation, a grain of truth, to make me realise something or think about it in a new way, to show me something I hadn't thought about before, to make me sit up and take notice - but, above all, to make me "feel" something.

I understand what "experimental poetry" is trying to do; but, for me, it has always failed in that it is, as stated, an experiment - and one that doesn't often work. Yes, it may well be "clever", avant garde, new, daring and all those other attributes we could ascribe to it, but for me it remaind soulless, exclusive, sterile, self-indulgent and divisively elitist, in that it doesn't communicate anything. And isn't that the point of any writing - a communication between author and reader? Some poetry has an extraordinary ability to do this; more than prose could ever hope to do.

I hear what's been said re musicality, shape, mood etc., and all these may have a brief "novelty" value - which some readers/listeners enjoy, but I can't get anything beyond this.

I know I've banged on about this before, but when I write anything I consider who might be reading/listening to it - do any of the experimentalists ever consider what their audience might think, or how their work will be received? Or are they living in some self-satisfied literary idyll, where the only opinion which matters is their own - and those few hardy acolytes who wish to be seen as poetry's intelligentsia by lauding their experiments?

Of course "ego" comes into play on either side of the spectrum; yes, I write because I want people to read what I writ - and hopefully take something from it. Is there something wrong with this? I don't write to prove how modern, edgy, clever or left-field I can be. If that's mainstream then so be it - I'm not ashamed of that. Each to their own, but I don't want to confuse, mystify alienate or perplex any potential audience.

For me it's a great privilege if someone reads my words - more so if they actually take something from the experience. It's someone letting my thoughts out to play inside their head, and that, for me, is an experience I try never to underestimate.

Whether we achieve the ineffable is, I feel, more to do with the mind of our readers than the best intentions of the poet.

Anthony, you've reminded me of an evening spent at FACT, the cinema in Liverpool which tries to combine arthouse and mainstream. There were a lot of films by local amateur film-makers, who were brought up the front afterwards for a Q & A session. The films were a good mix, as were their makers, and it was all going well. But then someone asked the maker of the most inaccessible film (and it really was) whether he took into account what the audience might think. His response was short, blunt, contained a mild expletive and was a very definite NO. The intake of breath around the auditorium was audible.

So - if something (poem, film, or any creative product) doesn't, as you say, communicate anything, what is the point of expecting people to read it or sit through it? On the off-chance they may be the 1 in a 1000 who 'gets it'?

In my experience, poems that are easily accessible, and also ones that take a bit of work, have both communicated the ineffable - echoes of 'beyond' or 'within'. But it is unpredictable and uncommon.

It clearly works differently for different people.

You've delayed me from going to bed Anthony/Dave...

I'd say the whole creative process works differently for different people as well as for their audience.

At the end of the day you are writing for yourself as much as for anyone else - so the work has to be true to your own ideals.

When I first came on this site I was highly critical of obscure poetry. I've adopted a live and let live attitude now.

My tastes in poetry seem to be similar to Anthony so I want to make people feel when I write my own poetry. It's not all about outlandish or original imagery for me - it's about communicating something - more often that not feelings.

Ah, Anthony, you've invoked the 'elitist' word. You lose. In poetry discussion boards, the word 'elitist' is like the word 'Hitler' in most other discussion boards: it immediately shuts down discussion.

One poet accusing another poet of 'elitism' is rather like one member of a Latin Conversation Club accusing another Latin Conversation Club of only being interested in a dead language.

Or like a trad jazz fan accusing another jazz fan of being a 'dirty be-bopper.'

Most people would rather run a mile from Latin conversation, jazz of any sorts and, frankly, poetry. We poetry lovers are a small minority in the general population and probably always will be, however much we want to 'communicate'. Most people would rather watch Eastenders and Strictly Come Dancing, thank you very much.

Whatever we say about wanting to 'communicate' something, I suspect that most of us write what we'd really like to read ourselves. Personally, I like to read experimental/innovative/avant garde/modernist poetry, so I write it. I don't write mainstream poetry or traditional formalist poetry because I don't really care for it (in general, though I could probably think of loads of counter-examples.)

Am I being elitist? In about the same way probably as a member of a chess club expects the other members of said chess club to be interested in and know something about chess. Or at least be willing to learn.

Dave's mention of the film-maker is a good reminder that "art" has its obsessives - or more accurately, its self-obsessives...running on ego-fuel that says "I'm on my own journey and I'm giving you the privilege of coming with me -but I'm not going to worry if you don't recognise that privilege for what it is. That's your loss". No interest there then, in persuading the viewer/reader about the attractions of what is offer on the journey or the eventual destination. Perhaps at the very bottom of this is that it is the ego of the creator that is "ineffable" - not the content of the creation.

Heaven forfend that I should accuse you of elitism Stephen. However, I do feel that much experimental poetry is elitist, in that by it's very nature, i.e. its impenatrability, it excludes people. Of course we all have our individual interests and preferences, and that's as it should be, but I do get a little tired, from personal experience, in being seen as a little thick when I just don't get it.

I'm always open to new ideas, and more than willing to learn; so if you want to post some example of great experimental works of poetry - and tell me what's so wonderful about them - I'm all ears! (or eyes, if that's more fitting!)

Regards,
A.E.

Anthony - what you're talking about isn't really elitism though. I don't think you should be made to feel thick because you don't get it - but I don't think that the people who are doing the 'experimenting' are deliberately trying to exclude anyone. Any more than a physicist who knows all about quantum mechanics is deliberately trying to exclude a biologist who knows all about monkeys but nothing about quantum mechanics. 'Elitism' suggests deliberate exclusion rather than merely being in possession of specialist knowledge.

There are probably elitist elements in poetry, but I don't think it's to do with what kind of poetry you write; it's more to do with the positioning and comepetitiveness of the poetry business than the kind of poetry you write.

There's a problem with blanket statements: experimental poetry is a very wide field, that takes in everyone from John Ashbery to Bob Cobbing. Sometimes its deliberately confrontational, sometimes not. Sometimes its academic, sometimes not. It can be visual, verbal and all things inbetween. Sometimes it requires an adjustment in the way you 'read' something (it's pointless to ask a visual poem to have a 'meaning' the way a sonnet does, for instance.) Sometimes it can be funny, carnivalesque, surreal, deadly serious, frivolous, even silly. If it's good, it's bound to be different from what you're used to.

And in the end, you still might not like it. That's OK too.

I will try and give a few examples, probably from stuff that's accessible via the web. Probably not here though and not today.

Some great examples of visual poetry here -

http://visual-poetry.tumblr.com/

Win x

Thanks for the link Winston - interesting and enjoyable.

Regards,
A.E.

I'm sorry to post on here - I don't feel entitled, as a newbie to WOL.

But, anyway, I felt compelled to say something - Steven has said everything I wanted to say very well, but I just what to re-iterate it.

Reading this thread, I get the feeling that quite a lot of people on here have something against 'contemporary', 'experimental', 'hard-to-read' poetry, often berating it as elitist etc. Well, perhaps we should consider the fact that sometimes poets are only able to write strange, hard to read poetry. They don't choose to write it - maybe it's simply because thay are not clever enough with rhymes, or narrating a story.

I am one of those poets who can't seem to write lyrical poetry and all my attempts so far are a bit hard-to-read, 'experimental' if you will. I've not deliberately set out to do it, in fact I'm a bit embarrassed that my work is a bit strange.

I think you can like poetry even if you don't have a clue what it's on about, surely. Now that's ineffable, right?!

N.B. - Good thread by the way!

Jade I think you have expressed it well. Please do not apologise.

Jade,
I`d be sorry indeed if what was being said on here was against contempory or experimental or hard to read poetry. The manacles have been off poetry for well nigh forty years now and today almost anything goes.

WE can all see where a poet is trying to use some difficult trope or symbol...or what `headline` poems or `found` poems are trying to do...or even random lines of other poems put together...The test of these things is when - or if - they `work` in a particular case. (they don`t have to be fantastic but
just `work` at our level) At least we can all then discuss them and get something out of them.

The problem comes when someone puts out some completely inexplicable mix of words or tropes, and then sits back as though the rest of us are somehow biased because we ask (sympathetically) for - at the least - some sort of an explanation of what he was trying to do.

Steven is going to give us a few examples of `experimental` poetry. I look forward to them as it is far more profitable to all concerned when there is something definite there in front of us to talk about (provided we`re all patient with one another)

Plese keep blogging Jade, remember when you blog you`re published for anyone to look at. Even the best don`t make all that much money out of poetry, so keep in mind : It`s the fame you are after.

"They don't choose to write it - maybe it's simply because thay are not clever enough with rhymes, or narrating a story."

You're right, there is an element of non-choice about it. But it's not through lack of skill with rhyme as such. Though they might not have the greatest of skills in those areas, or be very rusty in them, but that's mainly through lack of interest rather than anything else.

Oh - and Harry, the manacles have been off for at least a century if not longer - from expressionism and imagism right through to the present day. In fact some might say it started with Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman...

I'll probably start with a short piece on defining the experimental, before looking at some examples.

A noted classical composer stated - apropos the arrival of avant-garde music...that everything has a centre...a core, around which other things exist; ergo: the wayward or haphazard have no direction or constructive purpose and thus, no ultimate worth. Was he taking the universe itself as the basis for his belief - and can his logic be applied not only to music but to the use of words and their relevance in poetry? Onward to SW's proposed post. It promises to be informative.

Harry, I haven't read all the thread yet, but I do have a personal thought. I find the convoluted 'arguments' of the medieval philosophers striving to define the 'ineffable God' as mind-revolving and ultimately mind-dissolving. They tried so hard, bearing back upon classical thinking, trying to develop new ideas which turned out to be recycled 'old' ideas, just in a different environment. Poetry simply may strike a tiny chord that lifts our awareness out of body to the majesty of sheer existence. BEING is ineffable. A single thought generated by a single word can be considered 'ineffable'. Who dares to circumscribe the human mind.

Harry, did I go too far here? I surely didn't mean to cut the thread off.