Lately, (well, to be more honest, for a long time) I've been trying to find a way to use a sort of mathematical formula in writing poetry. Lately, (again!) it's been of a geometric kind. I would consider the various elements/dimensions/devices of a piece of work and try to create something that is.... Hmmmm.... I can only say (becuase of my terrible vocab!) Wholly multi-dimensional. By that, I mean an existential poem where anyone - or nearly anyone - can relate to it in some subjective sense. The first obvious division is of the gender kind - and then of it's various roles and sub-divisions. My general idea (so far) is to use opposing opposites to force the reader into an intermediate dimension, and so, an effect of increasing union of "Beauty" is created. Understand? I hope so, becuase this is driving me crazy!! Does anyone else have experiance with this sort of thing???
I don't know. It's a rather ambitious idea, but also seems fairly vague to me. Part of the problem is that although you may be able to push a particular reader's thoughts or emotions in a particular direction, it nevere works with everyone. Also, the more esoteric the concept is, the less you'll be able to steer an arbitrary reader in that direction.
I tried this once. I tried to use an abstract form of whatever you thought was god and then I tired to convey some sort of guilt out of the audiences. But that didn't work so well. The problem is so many people will perceive poetry differently from what you were actually trying to do. People think differently on an emotional level and what not, so yeah. It is a big concept to take on, if written well it may work. But for me...I suppose it wasn't well enough. -.-
Well, if you're writing when people will only see the words it'll be very hard, but if you're someone who reads your poetry out then you can have expressions, movement, tone of voice and more, all of which will help you but otherwise it's difficult and a higher fail to win ratio.
I agree that the idea is ambitious and difficult, but I think that it may be possible. Basically, it's about making a mathematical model, and the making of models is exactly what mathematics is for. Perhaps another way to explain the idea is that a connection can be made between the language of words, and the language of numbers... so that there is a harmony - as such as in writing music - especially of the classical genre. Bah! I'm getting philosophical again - please forgive me! :redface:
I am having trouble understanding what you mean by Geometric.? I write some poetry and you can check it out on my blog, use the second link, I would love to understand what you are talking about. Could you possible write an example so I could see what you mean.
Correct. As the saying goes "Pleasing all pleases none." We can see this in how politicians try to be all kinds of people to everyone & it never works. The poet isn't suppose to please everybody. He's suppose to please himself first, then other like-minded people will also enjoy it. Poetry is the expression of your individual soul. It's not to be a mask you change for different people. None of the great poets became famous for writing something for everybody. They wrote to express themselves & many came to enjoy them as they were.
by the way, I was thinking, don't a lot of poets do this kind of thing to an extent? I mean a pattern in the amount of syllables, and patterns in repeated words etc...which if it flows well could draw the reader's full attention, like into a new dimension...
Good points, Hetroclite and Othman! I'll think about both of them... Twinpanther13, I'll try to explain what I mean by geometric. The general idea is to create a libido creating and releasing effect. Using the appropiate poetic diction, two constrasting ideas are presented. We can think of that as the two directions of a line. By adding a third (and/or fourth, fifth, and so on), the line is forced to expand into a planer (or whatever) shape. So basically, what you would now have is a representation of various elements of the piece of work being made into (in the mind's eye or on paper) some type of shape. Each dimension of the image is representative of a paritcular device of the work, as well as the extent and quality of it's use. It actually gets alot more complicated than that, but that will give you the basic idea. Simply put, that's what I mean by geometry.
I am so confused by this explaination, I am having a hard time realizing that this was an English explaination. I am so confused now....um. Can you put that in a nutshell?
sorry, but that sounds so like psychobabble to me, that i get a headache even trying to read it, much less translate it into plainspeak, so i can get some clue to what the heck it's supposed to mean...
I'm so sorry for my explaination. Let me try again: Many people who do a little research in the mechanics of poetry, or the forms of creative writing, can say that there are certain "devices" or aspects in the peice of work. Say for example, the tone (which is basically the attitude of the narrator, being it you or the writer). There is the rhyming (which may be likened to the most natural condition of the writer or reader, perhaps in terms of reading sytle or his/her heartbeat). There is a "hook" which pulls the reader in - or makes the writer write, maybe with complusion. These are what I call dimensions. Think of each one of them, separetely, as a line going on in two opposite directions. they go in opposite direstions becuase of the various extremes of connotions and denotations that may be associated with them. If we were to add one device to another, we can ( if we imagine it as a graph or figure such as a square) get an idea that that the piece has two dimensions. In other words, the poem/story, has either a more specialized or greater appeal becuase it has more relatable aspects. My cat needs to be fed - sorry. I just hope we can discuss this further....
This is all rather confusing. Especially considering I know next to nothing about poetry; absolutely nothing about the mechanics. If I know what you're getting at, it is very, very ambitious indeed. So what you're saying is... (I could be totally wrong) that you are trying to devise a mathematical formula to use as a solid material basis (possibly structural), for writing poetry, rather than just using a sort of metaphysical/emotional expressive means, which only those somewhat like you, or who have had similar experiences, can relate to. This formula/structure will be used to write poetry that almost anyone can relate to, because it will force their thoughts along a certain path through your 'geometrical shape', using opposing opposites to send them to a different 'dimension' in your shape; or a diffferent device... Something like that. I still don't understand alot of the things you've said, and if I have this part right, then I think I'm still missing some of your points. :redface:. Again, I know diddly squat about the mechanics of poetry, so I am probably far off.
No problem . Though I don't agree entirely with your idea (Poetry, to me, seems as though it should be a thing of beauty, love, and other sappy things[] rather than mathematics) I found it very interesting. Good luck with it! =]
Ok this is very interesting but I believe it is not a good idea. In my opinion poetry's definition is that of emotion. Whether that emotion be cold and dark, or warm and loving it is the emotion of poetry that makes it good and unique. To try to form it into some template would be nonsense and an abomination to the form of poetry. Authors who write books like that may make money but they fill the world with useless fluff that adds to noone's life experience. Give me poetry I can not understand over poetry that is watered down for every man.
Wellllll, yes and no. Any piece of writing needs heart, or soul, but poetry can also serve to present a different perspective on a subject. I don't write much poetry myself, but I favor naturalistic themes. One of my favorites simply overlaps the image of a siege with a stormy sea crashing over rocks. Yes, there is an emotional element, but I wouldn't say that emotion was the core component, I believe that too much emphasis is placed on emotion in poetry, to the point that many people believe any cathartic angst dump is a poem. Poetry also uses form and structure, and incorporates that into the communication. This is at least an approach that experiments with a new use of structure.
I perfectly understand your point.* I do not have many intentions to create a "cookie-cutter" form of mass marketed poetry, especially something that is watered down - even if I make it that far.* The general idea - in terms of most credible schools of psychcology and philosophy state that (more or less) that we are mostly the same - made of the same *stuff*, but it is the particulars that differ from human to human.* These particulars, in the language of writers, are the various meanings of the *connotations* employed.* To avoid being a cookie cutter peice of work, originality and complete freedom of expression is nessicary.* Do you agree?* Please let me know! Cognito, I am fairly sure that you understand my motivation.* It is *not* about me making a simple formula that generally works in a mass-marketed sense, but creating an *existential method* by which most people will react towards.* I didn't want to say this, but it would not be too difficult for me to put in ideas of gender or romantic relationships within the paralells of any dimension/device.In my humble and honest opinon, I beleive there is a general mistake in writing - that a person can simply write *from the heart* and it can be considered good.* I fully respect the fact that people are very diverse.* To put all of this in another way, I've been considering (in the language of algebra, instead of geometry)* the varibles and constants* which makes a peice of writing good.* The idea of *good* can either be specialized or general, mass-marketed or of critictal merit.I am sorry for the confusion:redface:
