Re: _how_is said vs _what_is said --- choice?
Jagdish Bisa (jbisa@bbnplanet.com)
Wed, 01 Oct 1997 16:21:11 -0400
Rao Veluri sends two more to make sure:
[ nice and simple poems snipped for brevity]
> If I give importance to _how_ it is said, than to
> _what_ is said, then in my opinion, both the
> pieces fail as poetry.
Not in my opinion. I see no problem with the composition of these
poems. They are simple but their form is brilliant. I have no idea
what made you to consider their form (_how_ they say whatever they're
saying) is mediocre!
Let me be more specific by contrasting them to vaa.ci.vee's poems.
The first poem presents a series of images in rapid succession, like a
slide projector, just like what vaa.ci.vee's poems did. The difference
being *how* individual images were constructed and their placement to
achieve the desired effect. vaa.ci.vee's images lack that honesty of
construction and grace of placement that are clearly evident in simple
poem #1. vaa.ci.vee being deliberately ruse is a major set back in
those poems.
The second poem is filled with stunning sound devices (SrI SrI did this
with absolute grace) buried within words, besides striking with
rhythmical pattern on the way! An absolute winner compared with either
of vaa.ci.vee's poems which were lacking both in sound devices and
rhythm.
Anyone who has a slightest of a hint regarding the _form_ of poetry will
consider the above two poems as good poetry.
-Jagdish (vaa.ci.vee's ability to evaluate and revise seems to be
crippled) Bisa