HOME | DD
ExistenceWeSummonYou β
What Is Existence Someone Please Tell Me
Published: 2012-01-31 21:15:12 +0000 UTC; Views: 4751; Favourites: 221; Downloads: 443
Redirect to original
Description
The cashier who sold me salted peanuts says "dead animal can swim." She looks at her hands. But dead animal can't swim. It's buried in beauty and beauty floats through the air. Maybe you can bury beauty in a balloon and tie it to a mailbox. "I don't know" says the cashier while she smells the dead animal that is dead inside of her. "There is no time for these questions when there is living fire that does not yet live here." So we set to burning the gas station. We run away. We run up a hill to where music is handing out free emotions with no memories. The cashier climbs in through music's translucent body and becomes its memory. Together we sing you are not lonely, you are not lonely, you are not lonely while stars fall down through beauty and salt the burnt earth.Related content
Comments: 201
You are very kind, and I'm so glad you felt something with this piece. You have my gratitude.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think it's talking about food (dead animal) swimming in your stomach (body) and you go for a run to burn the calories.
I just don't know what the mailbox was about.
π: 0 β©: 2
Neither do I, I'm afraid! But thank you for reading. I am intrigued by your interpretation.
π: 0 β©: 0
and the buried beauty that floats through the air is the smell of the food
π: 0 β©: 0
Congrats on the DD. This piece is very interesting!
π: 0 β©: 1
Why thank you!
π: 0 β©: 1
You're welcome!
π: 0 β©: 0
There seems to be a lot of discussion about what this work is or isn't. And, it is great to have this discussion. To start, it's categorized properly. If you aren't sure what transgressive poetry is, this is an example.
Β
It's important to remember that there are many artists we tout as genius' today that were thought to be making a muddled mess in their time. Artists see the world in a new way first and express it. Then, science follows. Then, the rest of the world (kicking and screaming, but eventually). When confronted with a work that irks you or confounds you ~ look deeper. You will either find why it bothers you and this will only help your own work. Or, you will find why it confounds you and it will help you in living your life more fully.
Β
It's not the work that is the issue. It is the observer. And, every work of art needs you to pull your weight when viewing or reading it. It's not a one-sided discussion. Questions are posed. It is your job as the viewer/reader to hear them and then to ponder them.
Β
You can still hate the work. But, for fucks sake, try to find something beyond the nearest rock to throw at what doesn't please your senses straightaway.
Β
Art should be disturbing and difficult whenever possible. And, this work is definitely pushing a lot of buttons for some reason. I hope those who feel their buttons being pushed dive a bit deeper and figure out why. Because that will be truly interesting to see expressed.
π: 0 β©: 0
I must admit I don't read a lot of experimental writing but I absolutely love the line "music is handing out free emotions with no memories"!
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh wonderful! Thank you so much.
π: 0 β©: 0
Congratulations on your well-deserved DD!!!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you very much!
π: 0 β©: 0
This is NOT poetry, it's a paragraph of prose.
π: 0 β©: 1
Β This is more poetic than prose for its key inflection is imagery versus descriptive expression. Transgressive poetry is meant to violate superficial boundaries. And free verse transgressive poetry is just that ~ an open form not bound by any specific shape or form. In fact, it can sound like prose to someone that is only looking for surface rhythm patterns. This is poetry. It's just not Dr. Suess.
π: 0 β©: 2
We each see things quite differently.
π: 0 β©: 0
The above piece of literature would be regarded as an example of 'prose poetry.'
π: 0 β©: 0
So glad to hear it! Thank you.
π: 0 β©: 0
Thank you very much! For saying so and also for defending the work elsewhere on the page. I am so glad that some people have found something worthwhile here. And I suppose it is also inevitable that some will find the poem merely confusing or even distasteful. As you say, poetry and beauty exist in the relationship between the reader and the text, so I try not to take any negative comments personally.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
You are very welcome. I understand that critique is helpful. Sometimes it can help the writer or artist shed a new light on something in the shadows and that is always helpful. I just prefer constructive critiscm with the intention to help versus destructive with the intention to harm. And, whilte there are useful things to be found there as well, it just seems the intention muddies the water in those cases.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh yes absolutely. I suppose it must be ego at play in those cases. Someone wants to think highly of their own work, so they disparage any work that is coming from a different place or trying to achieve something else than they are.
π: 0 β©: 0
You seem to have misclassified your short Piece of incoherent Fiction, which appears to suffer from a rather inelegant repetition of certain Words and Constructions.
π: 0 β©: 6
I hate attitudes and comments like yours. you're just criticizing the piece without making any attempt to be constructive. What was the point in saying something like that? It doesn't help them in any way and really it just makes you come off as arrogant. Your comment was blatantly a sarcastic remarked disguised as a critique. The author obviously sees this piece as poetry not prose and it was obviously written that way. Your comment was basically a more eloquent way of saying 'lol no'. You can dress it up anyway you like, a troll is still a troll.
π: 0 β©: 1
I seem to have missed this Comment somehow; the Purpose was to say that this is a Piece of very short and very incoherent Fiction erroneously classified as Poetry. I do not deny, nor do I apologise, for the sardonic Fashion in which I stated it; I am well aware the Author fancies it a Poem β why else would he have classified it as such? β but there is absolutely no reasonable Case whatever for it to be called such: it has none of the structural Properties of Poetry, as a Circle has none of the structural Properties of a Square.
I am also not technically a Troll; I did not mean to agitate or inflame the Author, though I make no Pretention to being nice. As for Constructiveness, sometimes something must be demolished in order for something to be built.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm sorry but the original comment came just came off as inflammatory. which is why it seemed more like trolling. you just tore something down and left without giving them the tools to rebuild. why couldn't you have just dropped off a helpful piece of advice before leaving. why not tell them the words you found too repetitive, or tell them a way to make their constructions less repetitive. it's like someone critiquing an art piece and going "there's something wrong with the background" well thanks for that, that was helpful. want to be more precise or shall I just stab around in the dark until I get what's wrong with it.
π: 0 β©: 1
I believe the Crux of what you wish to know is why I was not nicer, and the shortest Answer is that this Piece did not deserve such Forbearance; the Author misclassified this Work, and I have 'called him out' on it, as have some others who have not been duped by its Nonsensicallity into thinking it is really something profound when it is of a Depth rather lower than the Puddle an Icecube might leave upon hot Pavement. Leaving a 'helpful piece of advice' would not have addressed the true Problem with the Work, and that is that it is, in the literal Sense of the Word, not Poetry. Until this is Acknowledged, there is nothing I can do to help this Author, as he does not even known what he is writing. I will make no Apology for what I have said, and neither would I need to even had I simply said 'lol no', as you originally accused, for that Response would have been nowise unwarranted.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Leaving a 'helpful piece of advice' would not have addressed the true Problem with the Work, and that is that it is, in the literal Sense of the Word, not Poetry. Until this is Acknowledged, there is nothing I can do to help this Author" hmm really, oh reeeaaallly. that's what you're going with. you could have just said that you didn't agree with the way to piece was categorized and then left it at that if that was your intention. no one would have been offended. but no you had to add "which appears to suffer from a rather inelegant repetition of certain Words and Constructions so what was the point of that if not to antagonize the author. If you don't believe you can do anything to help the author improve then why state your opinion at all, why not just keep it to yourself. you were quite obviously posting that comment with the intent of offending the author which is exactly what trolls do.
π: 0 β©: 1
It is not that I 'disagree' with the Categorisation of the Piece, it is that it is patently incorrect, and saying so was bound to offend somebody; do you not grasp the Fact that I do not care if this offends anybody, and, further, that I find your Objections and Accusations entirely asinine β a Troll inflames for the Sake of Inflaming (I shall here remind you that it is unclear to me whether or not I have actually offended the Author, as he has not answered me directly, and neither does he appear to intend to; if you know him personally and are speaking for him, then you ought to have said so). The Mention of the stylistic Inelegance was meant to be, if not 'Food' for Thought, perhaps a mental Snack β something on which to chew if the Author ever got his own Ideas for how to improve his Work, either as an actual Poem or a more coherent Story; I may, after all, be in Error regarding the Salvageability of this Piece of Writing, and the Author may transform it into something worthwhile, however unlikely that seems at this Point.
If you wish to take Issue with any Point I have made regarding the Work itself, you are free to do so; I will not, however, discuss myself further here.
π: 0 β©: 1
I do not often check my account here and was not aware there was anything to respond to.
Regarding the categorization, I follow contemporary convention. If you go to the library, you will see writers like Dana Gioia (a formalist) shelved alongside writers like Zachary Schomburg (who writes in a style vaguely reminiscent of the above piece). Certainly there was a time when such a work could not be called poetry, but language changes over time. Open to a random page in the Oxford English Dictionary and you will see many entries attesting to this. Call this piece what you will - poetry, prose-poetry, flash fiction. Personally, I do not give a damn, only if I had categorized it as flash fiction there are others who would have raised an eyebrow.
Regarding the piece's incoherence, I am well aware that the narrative does not add up to a clear or linear story. This is intentional. It is (what is frequently referred to as) language poetry, inspired by writers such as John Ashbury and James Tate. I mean to give readers an experience with language that is emotionallyΒ impactful while being vague in its significations. Reading all the comments now, it seems to offer this to some readers, while others (most, no doubt) are indifferent and a few (apparently) are offended. This is as much as I could have hoped for.
Regarding the piece's grammar, again I am aware that it does not adhere to conventional syntactic constructions, and again this is intentional. For example, byΒ omittingΒ the determiner in the phrase "dead animal can swim" I intend to invoke a sense of language in a more primordial state; the phrase uses the sort of syntactic form you might hear from a toddler.
Your insistence on traditional grammar and an outdated use of the word "poetry" is what linguists contemptuously refer to as prescriptivism. However you are also resisting history, and there is always something admirable about that. I suggest that you be aware of what exactly it is that you are resisting and why. You are not as educated as you think you are. I only say this because I suspect you may be intelligent, perhaps even talented. A serious writer of literature these days must be well-read in philosophy, but particularly in the Philosophy of Language, writers like Wittgenstein, Davidson, Grice, Kripke, Chomsky, and at least a couple dozen others. If nothing else, it will put firmer ground when you offer such criticisms as you offer here.
π: 0 β©: 1
In Libraries, Books are, if I am not very much mistaken, generally classified according to what the Publisher says they are; Publishers are not, however, infallible, and the Convention you claim, by whomever it may be used, is still based in Error. It does not matter who calls it 'Poetry', the simple Facts are that you have a Piece of Prose which has the various Elements which unambiguously make up a Work of Fiction, and, as it is Prose, and as it is Fiction, it is therefore Prose Fiction. To call it anything else is inadmissibly illogical.
Consulting the Oxford English Dictionary, and leaving out Definitions which are any of recursive, obsolete, or figurative, as none of these are at this Moment relevant, Poetry is 'Composition in verse or some comparable patterned arrangement of language in which the expression of feelings and ideas is given intensity by the use of distinctive style and rhythm; the art of such a composition' and, further down, 'The product of this art as a form of literature; the writings of a poet or poets; poems collectively or generally.' What you have written is neither of the above, and the further Definitions given in the Entry are all extended or figurative, or else Compounds. This is what Poetry is, as a Square is a Shape with four equal Sides and four equivalent Angles. You may draw a Circle and call it a Square, but it will remain a Square, and you are either mistaken, or else simply lying, and would be called out for it, as you are now.
As for your Intentions, they seem to fail when met with somebody who has a reasonable Degree of Intelligence and an Understanding of the Workings of Poetry and Language: what is here presented is a Collection of possibly-interesting Ideas with which nothing meaningful has been done, rather like exhibiting Cans of open Paint -- a Material rather than an artistic Product -- in an Art Museum.
Attempting to Invoke Language in a more 'primordial' State is linguistically-unsound, though by 'primordial' you appear to mean 'infantile' (please be clear about what you mean, Malapropisms can make Matters confusing and lead to Misunderstanding): though Grammars may become simpler or more complex through natural Evolution, their Grammars always have their own internal Rules and Logic, and have as long as Language has been attested, and likely for some Time before.
What you are attempting to do in distorting a Word out of its natural Meaning is what most People contemptuously call 'Lying', and is a Thing that, when they see it, they tend to resent. People have been fancying unrhythmical or even nonsensical Works as Poetry for some Time, I am aware, but this does not mean they are; sometimes the Works in Question are excellent Pieces of Writing christened under the wrong Name, while others, like this Piece in Question, are Drivel which are meant to sound Profound while having slightly less-depth than an evaporated Puddle. Look very hard at the positive Comments you have received β many imply liking it because they imagine this out of their Depth, or else have been infected with ridiculous Fancies about what Poetry is.
π: 0 β©: 1
Though often tempting, I find it ultimately rather silly for an artist to argue over the merit of his own work, so I will not engage with you on that level. Let me leave it behind by saying I appreciate your reading and considering what I have written, and I find your distaste for the piece understandable.
Regarding whether or not this is poetry, again I personally do not give a damn how it is labelled, and I readily admit that it does not fit with the usage of the word poetry amongst certain persons or anyone's usage of that word before recently. You do not understanding how language works, particularly it's diachronic nature. The meanings of words change over time - they expand, contract, shift. Gradually people might start using the word 'square' to refer to shapes in general, at which point it would be correct to say a circle is a square. I do not have the patience to further try and convince you of this point, but I encourage you to read up on modern linquistics and philosophy of language, particularly Wittgenstein, Quine, Putnam, Davidson, and Grice.
π: 0 β©: 1
Your ad personam Attacks reveal a great Deal of Ignorance on your Part; I know well enough what Diachronics are β I took my Citation from a Dictionary which lists Definitions based upon them β and well enough what Poetry is, which is the Purpose of this Discussion, and not whether or not I know what semantic Evolution (which is not the deliberate misapplication of Words) is. The Word 'Poetry' originally meant 'Creative Written Works', but to say it means that now is, like your Piece of Fiction, entirely ridiculous. Were the Word 'Poetry' to take on its former Meaning, this Discussion would be irrelevant, however, it has not, and is highly unlikely to, and the only Reason People even think to apply it to 'Works' such as this is the absurd Fancies of a Few who have distorted it from its natural Meaning, in Defiance of all of Sense, Logic, and the Lexicographers. The only Reason the 'Masses' do not defy you is because they believe the Sense or poetic Nature of such mislabelled or misbegotten Things to be beyond their Understanding. Because something is 'modern' does not, alone, make it correct β many falsehoods were taken for Fact at one Time, and many new ones will be invented in the Future and be believed to be true until proved False, though few will likely be created as this Misapplication of the Word 'Poetry' β and the modern Vogue for what might be more correctly called 'Permissivism', while it has some Basis in Fact, is really itself quite absurd.
π: 0 β©: 0
FAQ #873: What do I do when I disapprove of a Daily Deviation feature?
1. You may want to familiarize yourself with prose poetry , a form of literature that has been around for some time now.
2. Where the writer chooses to categorize their work is not associated with the quality of the piece.
π: 0 β©: 1
I am familiar with this Concept; it is as oxymoronical as 'Free Verse'. What the Symbolists wrote as poèmes en prose would have been better called something like 'Meditations' or 'Reflections', and this does not really resemble what I have read of them very strongly; further, I did not actually realise this was a Daily Deviation (and I have nowhere disputed its Right to be one, should whomever features them so choose); it caught my Eye for a Second, and I made what I thought would be a throwaway Remark on the misclassification of something which is very clearly prose Fiction as a Poem, and which has escalated rather astonishingly.
π: 0 β©: 1
Disagreeing with something does not make it so. It would be appreciated if, instead of continuing to leave your disapproval of the piece in the comments, that you take up your issue with the appropriate person, who in this case would be ^Beccalicious or $Moonbeam13 .
π: 0 β©: 1
I am yet to receive any Reply from the Artist, but will continue to defend my Statements; if the Artist does nothing, that is his Prerogative, and I shall not trouble him further.
π: 0 β©: 0
I would really call it a diamond in the rough.Β Needs some polish.Β Improvement, but it's made of the right amount of Carbon atoms and just needs some chipping to really bring out it's shine!Β I came here to tell you what Existance is by the way, and not through poetry.
π: 0 β©: 1
Have you any Suggestions for how said Chippings would work?
π: 0 β©: 1
No one ever wants the chippings, that's sold cheap to INDUSTRIAL DIAMOND companies.Β It's the finished gem that is kept.
π: 0 β©: 1
You mistake me; I am asking you what refinements you might make to the Paragraph to improve it.
π: 0 β©: 2
"dead animal can swim."
Is "animal" supposed to be singular or plural?
Singular: "A dead animal can swim." or "The dead animal can swim."
Plural: "dead animals can swim."
π: 0 β©: 1
The Phrase remains ungrammatical whatever was meant.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'll take that answer.
π: 0 β©: 0
I am sure I am good enough to remake this work.Β But your insistence on correct English is a start!
π: 0 β©: 1
Are you missing a Word somewhere?
π: 0 β©: 1
Probably, but your last reply was not 100 percent correct English either.Β You'll never make friends by insisting on foolish test of Grammatical Superiority like so much Sheldon Cooper.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
It is called free verse for a reason ~ there are no rules. The writer is expressing something. Not everyone will understand what the writer expresses any more than everyone understands the nightly news or Nietzsche or Van Gogh in the same way. You see incoherence ~ I see simplicity and longing.
Β
The writer of this piece isn't playing it safe. Anymore than Van Gogh played it safe. No one that ever does anything interesting plays it safe. Perhaps you prefer linear pragmatic thoughts with by-the-book grammar and walk-the-line imagery. You are entitled to write what you want and to read what you want and to think everyone else has nothing to say if they aren't expressing it the way you would. But, may I be so bold as to suggest that you dive a little deeper and see if you find something else?
Β
Only viewing the surface of something will leave you frustrated most times. And, your need to call something you don't understand incoherent is something you should perhaps explore a little more. Maybe, try being a bit more like Diane Arbus when she photographed her images. She rearranged herself before her subjects instead of expecting her subjects to rearrange before her. This is good advice on so many levels.
Β
My aunt was a well-respected early post-impressionistic painter and contemporary of Charles Reiffel and Donald Hord. As a child, my mother used to watch her paint and she always saw her aunt lift up her long skirt and look between her legs at what she had just been painting. She told my mom that it was always good to get a different perspective.
Β
Might I suggest you do the same and read this once again.
π: 0 β©: 1
The Term 'Free Verse' itself is an Oxymoron, but this is not the Subject at Hand; this is not written in anything like Verse, it is simply Prose.
You may not be so bold as to suggest that, since your Suggestion is very much an ad personam Attack, as is the rest of the Paragraph; further, it does nothing to support the Claim that this is anything other than rather incoherent Prose.
I have, however, read it again; it is neither clearer nor more meaningful than before; some of the Ideas are rather nice, but they do not fit together β it's rather like Paint in various Colours, some of which are nice, dripped on a Canvas with no Pictre painted. It is, in other Words, something of an Ice Cream Koan.
π: 0 β©: 1
Do you agree that literature is a written form of art? And, that art is in the eye of the beholder?
Β
While this is not in some traditional form of poetic verse, it is still more poetic than prose for its key inflection is imagery versus descriptive expression.
Β
And, if you will notice that after poetry, the writer categorizes this work as "transgressive." Transgressive poetry as you know is meant to violate superficial boundaries. You have already stated that you quite agree with this when it comes to this work of art.
Β
And, free verse transgressive poetry is just that ~ an open form. Not bound by anyone else's idea of how something "should" be.
Β
So, this work of art is categorized as it should be, it is a transgressive poetry in free verse.
Β
The problem is that you just don't care for it. It's not a problem with the work itself. You don't have to throw as many stones as you can at it to justify your opinion. Instead, just state that it isn't your cup of tea and why.
Β
Try being constructive versus destructive.
Β
But, as far as your main argument for disliking this work, it doesn't hold water. This work is categorized properly. Maybe, not in your opinion, but in the authors. And, that's all the really matters. Especially, in free verse.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>