i can usually feel it coming,
a bit like watching a glass being filled
with the usual contenders for my mind...
but at the same time,
i write from within the prompt
this bulgarian *******
with a tattoo on he shoulder blade...
and her words:
- you haven't changed!
and then she enters a realm of tears...
and i just have to stop doing
what i'm going, and think to myself:
what change is there to speak of?
to write poetry, is narrate: proper -
in the proper sense of the term
that is... to somehow become
the central figure in the story...
for numbing the current affairs
how predictable with their
she said* / he said "events" -
that generic style of inviting
isn't that the basis of "good literature"?
that the narrator is mundane,
and that the characters are peacock supreme?
strip away the fluidity of
literary fluidity within the mundane:
god is very much like this -
he narrates like a boring sog...
but then exfoliates with the bards akin
to shakespeare -
to finally rest
among the poets -
and yes: rhyming is cheap poetry,
to stress rhyme
is like reading a tabloid newsopaper!
poets require no need for puppets...
they move via the chasms of
historical figures, unable to express
a will of confiscation -
of all the literary mediums,
all high school students are put-off
the art, because it is under a surgical
scalpel of investigation!
it's borderline with the schooling
of linguistic precision...
i can't see as to why there is no
guarding motto for poetic expression -
a string of words that can
protect it from certain enemies it seems
to have conjured to defy and redefine it
as a useless art form:
or one that can be at least treated
poetry is, after all: a constantly revived
theory of written tongue -
short, sweet, i gather, esp. given the oriental
haiku: barren for a year,
succinct for under a minute:
surely we can add this to the times:
years, days, hours, minutes, syllables, seconds...
are we not implied in realm of
the space-time parabolla to say so?
poets become anemic when trying to conjure
the he said / she said architecture of a novel,
what with the anti-irish / anti-polish
loss of immediately talking,
not abusing the ditto markings "
but instead implying the swift winds
(a conversation in ulysses looks like this,
jimmy and paddy talking respectively):
- toad's a two day bargain.
- aye! and a claim tow two weeks
poets don't really need puppets,
the poetic "narrative" is always
necessarily non-descriptive -
do we really describe within the framework
of: a matter of fact?
no! the landscape is always a view
of a metaphor!
but poets are
puritan narrators... in that:
it's very hard to conjure up characters...
the self-invited fascination with
the barren-wasteland of fictional narrators
is what pushes us...
no, it's no longer a concern
as to be sung
given the exfoliation of black (classical) jazz
and white (classical) classical -
not so much the pivoting
on a word, but merely psyche...
ars poetica est ars narratio:
a cohesive narratives takes time to
be established into something akin
to the bros. grimm, or a h. c. andersen -
why wouldn't stephenie meyer
cite the poet-general moses in her first
book twilight from the book of genesis?
we're a multitude of narrators -
only because poets cannot conjure
the bland narrator -
and the supra-human characters!
i can't become a bland scribbler of
the descriptive method, i can't play chess
or draft puppets within a bland
that's ******* excruciating!
i'd rather run a marathon!
and believe me: i have been wondering
about this for a long time: give or take
10 years (and counting) -
i simply can't forsake my mono-presence
(alone), and become some omnipotent
omnipresent (etc.) ******:
i can entertain a self-voyeurism,
but to invent characters i can manage
like puppets, or chess pieces?
i have an ****** inability to perform
let's just say: i an entertain the idea of
missing characters and plots -
but i can't entertain the idea of a nullifyingly
that requires prompts for character
study, ending with a mouth piece
and the need to state a: he / she said.
no narrator ever becomes self-conscious
not like this they don't:
to me fictional literature is nothing but an
exfoliation of the bardic tradition -
beyond the obvious mouths and limbs
of the theatre...
and why wouldn't i be critical?
of the entire content of a novel,
how much is actually worth a cinematic /
memorable application of, regarding
the digested content?
i'll be kind: i'd say a third;
and this has bothered me:
what is the worth of narration
in literature of imposed fiction?
funny that, sidelining the question:
there is more truth in fiction than in
people will always believe in fiction
than in what a heinrich harrer
wrote about his seven years in tibet -
maybe that's why poetry is so vilivied
and how poetry is only read by
maybe real life truly is
so mundane, that for nature to fill the vacuum
of the everyday mediocre,
poetry had to be born?
hard time explaining homer though;
i hardly think that life in that aeon
as life moved us to the present -
we have the exact mirror before us -
that mediocre times, breed mediocre poetry...
i rather see poetry as a mirror -
upon the blank slate of a self-imposing-defeat,
with my words: like contortions of my face -
telling me, of beauty, disgust...
and ******* on lemons.