[millie_(A)TCK]

To be a Gramscian traditional intellectual or to be a Gramscian organic intellectual?


Noun, adjective, verb, adjective
Rhetoric alone is ______,
policy marks a politician's legacy
and so at the end
a writer is blessed with immortality
due to his moral courage,
herproximitytoLorca,
not how/ well ver/sed they/ are in/ versif/icat/ion.
Even Wordsworth's secluded scene did impress
thoughts of (wy)men
t e a r i n g
D
O
W
N
the Bastille.

Tis nobler Always to be the latter.

[Nets]

I don't get it.

I am not saying that to troll, but I don't understand the poem.

[millie_(A)TCK]

One of two types of intellectuals as defined by Antonio Gramsci in his Prision Notebooks. Organic intellectuals are a particular strata of intellectual that are connected to the dominant social class and acts as both an organizer, of society and its diverse organisms, and as its thinking element, leading the ideas of their class. The organic intellectual is set apart from the traditional intellectual, those who are "men of letters" and believe themselves, falsely, to be independent of the dominant social group.

In order to break the ideological bond of hegemony that permeates all of society and works to support the status quo Gramsci theorized that what was needed was a counter-hegemony. In order to produce this counter-hegemony the working class would need its own organic intellectuals. These organic intellectuals would come from within the working class and stay within the working class working towards a counter-hegemony by actively engaging and leading in social relations. The role of the organic intellectual is a merging of theory and praxis.

My question pertains to the role of a writer in society.

Noun, adjective, verb, adjective
Rhetoric alone is ______,

Words alone don't mean anything without substance. All they are without it, is grammar blocks.

policy marks a politician's legacy
and so at the end
a writer is blessed with immortality

I am quoting here from the last line in Nabokov's Lolita. The greatest achievement of any art is immortality. As a writer it's what you strive for, but that in history occurs only if you are brave in what you write.

due to his moral courage,
herproximitytoLorca,

Again I play with words by conjoining the second sentence here as I am using the word proximity. Frederico Garcia Lorca was a Spanish poet and playwright that was killed by Franco's men in the spanish civil war.

not how/ well ver/sed they/ are in/ versif/icat/ion.

A poet isn't good just because he understands how versification works. My sentence here is versified.

Even Wordsworth's secluded scene did impress
thoughts of (wy)men
t e a r i n g
D
O
W
N
the Bastille.

I am quoting here a line from 'Above Tintern Abbey'. William's Wordsworth' poem ' Above Tintern Abbey' is from his book Lyrical Ballads which ushered in the romantic movement. The poem is subtle about his political views vis a vis the French revolution. But because he lived in an age of censorship he couldn't say it directly. I spelled (wy)men like that to be on purpose political about gender and language, which is the opposite of william wordsworth subtlety.

Tis nobler Always to be the latter.

This is the answer to my original question and it also an allusion to Shakespeare. I ended with the greatest playwright that ever lived on purpose.

I am alluding to some of the greatest writers in history in this poem to show that writers shouldn't try to immitate their works if it's their glory they seek, but they should deconstruct language (hence why I am doing so in this piece) and tackle subjects that might be controversial to really make their mark like Nabokov did in Lolita, Lorca in House of Bernarda Alba, Wordsworth in Lyrical Ballads and as the greatest, Shakespeare, did in all his works.


So thats a quick explaination of my poem, I hope you understand it now.

[froggo]

The message and meaning of the poem is good. I found it too... organized though. There is too much structure. Yes you are deconstructing language, but you are not destroying structure! Why not?
The use of proximity to make the words proximal(or vice versa).
The use of verse when addressing verse.
The down with the down...

It's all so uninspiring. It's not controversial. It's not interesting. It is too expected.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

^ My sentiments exactly. I felt your explanation was a lot more interesting than your poem. The poem is as well put together as one would expect from a literature student, but that might actually be a problem.

[millie_(A)TCK]

The message and meaning of the poem is good. I found it too... organized though. There is too much structure. Yes you are deconstructing language, but you are not destroying structure! Why not?
The use of proximity to make the words proximal(or vice versa).
The use of verse when addressing verse.
The down with the down...

It's all so uninspiring. It's not controversial. It's not interesting. It is too expected.

Interesting commentary. Yes you are right I could have deconstructed the structure elsewhere but would it have detracted from the fact the piece isn't about deconstructing language but merely showing a few ways how it could be done?

An example of how it could have been structure without being obvious about the reasons. I think this makes it a bit too complex but if you can figure out why I did what I have just done, kudos. There has to be a balance struck with the amount of literary techniques one employs. Too much can kill a piece. I wanted to deconstruct and use allusions in a message to writers but I don't want to loose that audience.

Even
WORDSWORTH'S
((secluded scene did impress))
thoughts of (wy)men
tearing DOWN
the e l s
l b t s i
a

I felt your explanation was a lot more interesting than your poem.

But I did all the work in explaining it which as a poet I am not really supposed to do. The fun of poetry is that the reader should be able to solve it. Nets isn't a lit fan so I decided to explain it on account of that. This poem is interesting if you figured out the explaination. Would either you and froggo have without my explaination? Truthfully?

The poem is as well put together as one would expect from a literature student, but that might actually be a problem.

As in it's too complex, too literary or too structured?

[Nets]

Thank you for the explanation, Millie. Like C_M, I found the explanation more interesting than the poem itself. Granted, this is far from my areas of expertise, but the poem seemed a bit contrived. I usually favor imagery over message in my poetry, but that is just me.

[froggo]

tearing DOWN
the e l s
l b t s i

Hm. I suppose that is correct. I perhaps should have clarified. Instead of making it utterly random, I meant perhaps not making it too obvious.

For an example.
instead of t e a r i n g
D
O
W
N

do you not think it would be good to mix it up a bit and not have the intended interesting techniques be too literal?
Maybe
D O W N
the
T
E
A
R
I
N
G
is what I meant. Completely alter language by meaning one thing and showing another.
Not so literal in intention.

t e a r i n g reinforces the idea of tearing. It is not controversial. It is not exciting
D
O
W
N
reinforces down. It is not exciting.
But it becomes exciting when
T
E
A
R
I
N
G
represents Downness
and D O W N represents tearing.

so
T
E
A
R
I
N
G
D O W N
becomes exciting.

[millie_(A)TCK]

Thank you for the explanation, Millie. Like C_M, I found the explanation more interesting than the poem itself. Granted, this is far from my areas of expertise, but the poem seemed a bit contrived. I usually favor imagery over message in my poetry, but that is just me

ah. I am the opposite, I prefer message to imagery. Though as a writer I still feel I should be able to strike a cord with different readers, those political and those not, those literary and those not. This was created with English and creative writing majors who write within the margin in mind so I am no totally surprised its not getting through to non lit majors. I showcased this piece to some english majors and profs and they got it but non lit majors didn't which was still dissapointing since I also believe good writing is universal.

so
T
E
A
R
I
N
G
D O W N
becomes exciting.

lol, that was actually what I had written originally but I decided to stay obvious with deconstruction and subtle with allusion. But since you as a reader like it like that, maybe I should have kept it so.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

But I did all the work in explaining it which as a poet I am not really supposed to do.

I agree.

The fun of poetry is that the reader should be able to solve it.

I guess this just indicates a disconnect between schools of thought... I don't see poetry as something to be solved and in my personal opinion I am not a fan of overuse of allusion. However this is not a criticism of your style or technique, I just find it a tad bit pretentious. I suppose though that is the point of the poem, not to be pretentious but to sort of make a lot of nods towards the writings that influenced you.

This poem is interesting if you figured out the explaination. Would either you and froggo have without my explaination? Truthfully?

I understood the title, I understood the illusion to shakespeare, I recognized the allusion to Lolita (though I didn't actually remember where it came from, it just seemed familiar), and the first two lines were a little too "clever" for my tastes. I understood the gist of what you were going for, but no, I didn't get the full explanation or what the allusions were meant to signify.

However I don't necessarily see the value in esoteric poetry like this because there just isn't any imagery. It doesn't tantalize the senses. Again that is just preference.

As in it's too complex, too literary or too structured?

Not too complex. Not too literary (had I actually read Lorca I might have understood the whole thing), but yes I think the structure is too important to this. Personally it seems like you conformed the words to fit the structure that you wanted and thus the structure became more important than the content.

[millie_(A)TCK]

Not too complex. Not too literary (had I actually read Lorca I might have understood the whole thing), but yes I think the structure is too important to this. Personally it seems like you conformed the words to fit the structure that you wanted and thus the structure became more important than the content.

Au contraire. I had the words and allusions before I had the structure.

I guess this just indicates a disconnect between schools of thought... I don't see poetry as something to be solved and in my personal opinion I am not a fan of overuse of allusion. However this is not a criticism of your style or technique, I just find it a tad bit pretentious. I suppose though that is the point of the poem, not to be pretentious but to sort of make a lot of nods towards the writings that influenced you.

Well I admire the writers but my influences lie elsewhere. The allusions were examples of bravery in writing and how it is courage in what writers choose to write that will make them great. You should read Lorca, now his writing has great imagery!

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Au contraire. I had the words and allusions before I had the structure.

I'm curious: how did you go about setting up the poem? It seems a tad bit rigid.

[Potemkin]

Au contraire. I had the words and allusions before I had the structure.

In my view, the two should evolve together and be inextricably interlinked. It seems to me that you are essentially a formalist (hence why you regard a poem as a puzzle to be 'solved'), and formalism arises precisely when form and content are separated. One of the essential elements of Shakespeare's greatness, it seems to me, is that the form of his poetry is perfectly adapted to its content; those thoughts and feelings could only be conveyed in the forms that he uses.

[Xenonx]

I like it, looks a bit like ascii art. I guess it's meant to be read as opposed to recited?

[QatzelOk]

I love how you've taken other people's ideas and made them inaccessible.

It's the highest form of art really: empty snobbery.

[millie_(A)TCK]

In my view, the two should evolve together and be inextricably interlinked. It seems to me that you are essentially a formalist (hence why you regard a poem as a puzzle to be 'solved'), and formalism arises precisely when form and content are separated. One of the essential elements of Shakespeare's greatness, it seems to me, is that the form of his poetry is perfectly adapted to its content; those thoughts and feelings could only be conveyed in the forms that he uses.

This poem isn't my typical poetry but the stage of creativity I am in, I am rather bored of writing lyrical poetry so I don't really think the lable formalist applies to me as it's not what I have done in the past. I understand what you mean however. It is kinda ironic I am alluding to Shakespeare whilst completely going in the opposite direction by not writing with form and content in sync. I quite like that as a tip goes actually, thanks.

I love how you've taken other people's ideas and made them inaccessible.

It's the highest form of art really: empty snobbery.

Inaccessible to who? My poem is to writers and I'd expect writers to understand what I've written. It's not snobbery, it's target marketing.

I like it, looks a bit like ascii art. I guess it's meant to be read as opposed to recited?

yup.

[Oxymoron]

I dont get it

[millie_(A)TCK]

The Explaination is here: viewtopic.php?p=13182583#p13182583

[Abood]

Why do your poems have to be so revolutionary and stuff, Millie? Why can't you write like normal people?

[millie_(A)TCK]

Why do your poems have to be so revolutionary and stuff, Millie? Why can't you write like normal people?

Because I am a professional writer with an interest in politics and humanist philosophy.

I like poetry that has layers. Average poetry speaks the truth of people's lives but I find that they lack complexity. I read them like folk stories. They're interesting and warm but it wouldn't hurt to add some more depth to them. I do spoken word poetry as well, and when I do that I have to change my speech in order to communicate with the masses. But sometimes that can be frustrating for me as the kind of poetry that I am attracted the most to are the complex ones with rich layers. They may not be understandable to everyone but as writer sometimes you have to break free and write for yourself and those like you. If you don't do that, you risk losing yourself and the passion you had for lietarture as an art form. This is one of the pieces that I targeted those whose background knowledge in literature would be the same as me.

I love reaching with my work universal audiences but sometimes I like to write for art's sake.