mathematic variations with cat

This poem was mentioned in the Archival Review thread, in a picking through Lit's archive of over 36,000 poems.

----------

I suck at math, but I do like this poem.

Thanks, Liar. Perhaps I didn't express myself correctly in that comment about respect for the reader. What I mean is that when I write, I neither dumb down nor intentionally make things more difficult than what they come to me. I think that's the highest form of respect one can have for one's readers. I don't, obviously, except them to instantly get every reference without looking - I sometimes have to look up even the most basic words, and I know you understand that, being in a situation similar to mine - nor did I mean to imply everything here is so bleeding obvious. I can and have done bleeding obvious too, but this isn't it. If it were, though, in this particular poem, I don't think it would have been half as fun to write or (eventually) read, don't you agree? :)

And the PM will follow.

...mentionen in the previous comment...

If you wish to indulge me, maybe a PM would be better than here. It might disturb the experience for other readers. :)

/Liar again

Lauren,

Afraid I'll have to react a little against your earlier comments here about respect, preciseness of semeantics and all that. (They don't show the other comments when you write a comment, so I can't give you an exact quote, I hope you get what I'm referring to.) I don't doubt that every word, phrase and passage is carefully chosen to mean exactly what you want it to mean.

But I really have to ask you...who is your presumed reader here? You mention you respect your reader and expect him/her to, basically, get what the poem is all about without further help.

I can only speak from my own point of view, a fairly educated guy at grips with at least basic science, philosophy, history and cultural references. And those I don't have stored I can usually look up. I had to look up a lot for this one, but I found what I was looking for, and set out to try to comprehend what you wrote.

And believe me when I say that there are many ways to creatively connect the dots. But none that seems natural and so bleedingly obvious as you're implying. Poetry is text and text is nothing but communication. And frankly, despite a well rested head and a solid effort, I can't get your poem to talk to me. All I manage to see is thematic mish-mash and non-sequitir notions in a fancy wrapping.

From this I draw the conclusion that it's either not written to talk to somebody like me, or it failed in it's communication.

So I have to ask: What's the thesis here? Can you realte it in a more stringent and maybe less poetic way? Maybe then I can understand the structure by means of "reverse engineer" reading.

What I see and can appreciate though, is a competent and confident display in prosodics. (and that along is worth a high vote in my book) A few beats I would have done differently perhaps, but thank god we're not all alike in voice and deliverance. How dull wouldn't that be, eh? :)

I can't say it has no pretense, that's for sure. :)

With regard to your questions:

"enounced by the high priests [...] why 'by the high'"

- It's "by the high priests", not simply "by the high" - although that would be some funny shit. "high priests" has a completely different meaning from simply "priests", and it's that different meaning that I was aiming at. There is nothing religious (in the common sense) in here.

"why are the premonitions white?"

- these premonitions are light, innocent, auspicious, and also a little undefined, blank.

I didn't see any gunplay. Sorry, I found it slightly pretentious and overly intellectual, but I like a challedge.

enounced by the high priests

some questions? enounced plays tricks, I like that, but why "by the high"

why are the premonitions white?

"You mentioned to my fellow reader Sack / the terms idea; concept; theorem / In an exchangeable way, it seemed to me / But when I took them and examined / I found them quite distinct! / Each carries different meaning / its own semantic field / That’s it!"

I'm sorry, that's not. I mentioned those terms to sack in an effort to demonstrate in abstract how easily one can draw a circle around something - anything, not the something in this poem - that is invisible, in an effort to explain to him, with examples, the concept of metaphor. Those terms are certainly not exchangeable, and certainly not when it comes to this poem. The "fable's invisible avenue" is not an idea, a concept, or a theorem. When I mentioned them, I wasn't trying to offer any clues to explain my poem. Only on how to poetry is read.

The following is my effort to follow up on your invitation and provide you with my new comments. As I was sitting in the Metro, I found myself responding in a semi-rhythmic way (think Hip Hop…) and certainly with an intention to add some humor (I hope that it does come across as such). Upon reflection, I do not see it so much as a question, but rather as a new comment, informed by the previous exchanges. Finally, I wish to express my appreciation to your open mindedness as you have demonstrated that you encourage all feedbacks not just exuberant one liners.

You mentioned to my fellow reader Sack / the terms idea; concept; theorem /

In an exchangeable way, it seemed to me / But when I took them and examined / I found them quite distinct! / Each carries different meaning / its own semantic field / That’s it! I cried internally / (There were some people not too far) / It’s not unlike the poem / where terms seemed to appear / but never to show why or how / their author chose them / and not some other in their place! / I wish, I thought, I had a chance / to learn what was it / that gave this poet the impetus/ to put a theorem in there / and not, lets say a lotus. / What was it in that word / which she alluded to / then asking to combine it, with icy entities? / I guess I’ll never find, because / she just have said to me / that I should not be rushing / to the aid of any dictionary / thesaurus or god forgive me / reference book / so no more to it in her poems / but just the terms names/ And - that’s it? / And that should be enough for me? /

And then I also had to dwell with dizzying array / of other terms and names / whose function I should never find / for the same reason you have read / just two three lines above here. / I wish, I said so to myself / that just with one of all those terms / this poet could have settled for a while / there’s so much to dwell on each one / especially with the abstract once / which all depend on definitions / and then some on theories as well / to make sure you’ve managed to explain / to us / or to yourself / what did you really mean!

That’s why, I thought / she needs to minimally stay/ and demonstrate at least / to which part, say, of a theorem / were she referring here. /

I have to go / I hope she takes it right / and not as an insult / before she rushes to defend / to just absorb / then take whatever part / she thinks makes sense to her./ That’s all I had to say/ and now, I have to leave / this train is getting too condensed / not even standing room remained / for theorems and me.

not that it matters much, but I liked the last three stanzas better than the first two.

feel that lines like these could be better broken

disproves the thesis enounced

by the high priests

I keep thinking of Schrödinger